Overclock.net banner

1 - 9 of 9 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
594 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Is there a "best" position for a tulip lens hood? I bought one but I really don't know if there's a proper best position. Also, is there more upsides to using a lens hood vs the downsides? I bought the T2i months ago but I never had the time to use it but I plan to head out on the weekends now since school started.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
443 Posts
You should have the lens hood oriented with the tallest sides on the top and bottom. There should be some sort of marking on the hood that is usually on the top.

A lens hood will reduce stray light from entering the glass and protect the front of your lens when you are careless. The only downside I could see would be increased length of the overall lens which is not usually an issue.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
6,867 Posts
The best hoods to buy are either the ones specifically made for the lens (most Nikon hoods are included, while Canon insists on asking another 25-50 bucks for theirs) or collapsible rubber hoods, which perform the same function, are significantly cheaper and take up less space in your bag. Be aware though, that on zoom lenses you should only buy a hood that's appropriate for the widest focal length, or else you will get strong physical vignetting (if it's too large). Assuming you have the kit 18-55, you can buy the Canon hood for it if you wish, although it is a terrible waste of money. You can shade the lens from above with a hat, your hand or a piece of cardboard (or even a gray card, although sometimes I wonder if I am the only person that carries one everywhere anymore).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
47 Posts
Always use the proper lenshood for the lens. Great upsides for image clarity and lens protection, almost no downsides (sometime adjusting polarizers is a bother).

A petal lenshood will have one and only one orientation allowed by the bayonet fixture.

Rubber lenshoods are practically useless: they do a bad job of fighting flare and glare and they do very little to protect the lens.

Almost never use a 'protectant' filter. Sandstorms, ocean breakers, and paintball are examples of the rare exceptions. Such filters always degrade the picture, especially in colour contrast, though with the expensive ones it might take very careful A/B comparisons to detect it.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
6,867 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ansel View Post

Rubber lenshoods are practically useless: they do a bad job of fighting flare and glare and they do very little to protect the lens.
If they shade the lens in the same manner that a plastic one would, why would the rubber be less effective at preventing flare and glare? Besides, a rubber hood that may be too long can be cut with a razor knife to the proper length. There's not always a need to spend the huge bucks that Canon asks for their hoods, and the one for the 18-55 is practically useless.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
47 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by sub50hz View Post

If they shade the lens in the same manner that a plastic one would
That's the problem. They don't. They also don't provide any rigidity to protect the lens while absorbing energy by flexing.

If you want cheap and effective (though not very rigid), make cardboard lens shades: lenshoods.co.uk
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
6,867 Posts
Boy, Mamiya sure missed a beat with their rubber hoods, then. Coulda fooled me.

If they cover the same physical length and diameter, they will work the same. They do not offer impact resistance like poly or metal hoods, but anyone who would think they could do so would be a fool, as that's hilariously obvious to anyone with the proper number of chromosomes.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
47 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by sub50hz View Post

Boy, Mamiya sure missed a beat with their rubber hoods, then. Coulda fooled me. If they cover the same physical length and diameter, they will work the same. They do not offer impact resistance like poly or metal hoods, but anyone who would think they could do so would be a fool, as that's hilariously obvious to anyone with the proper number of chromosomes.
Yup. They did fool you. They do not work the same. For example, using the M77 rubber hood on 70-200 mm lenses vignettes at 70 mm.

Look, there are advantages and disadvantages to every option in life. As far as I'm concerned, rubber lens hoods are useless. I've tried them, sold them, and now every Canon lens I have has the appropriate Canon lens hood.

However, perhaps you find it useful to have a hood that occasionally vignettes, sticks out wider than the real lenshood, takes up more room in the bag, get caught up on things in the bag, and (as you state) obviously doesn't provide impact resistance. You would even have some company with some pros. That does not make it automatically the greatest thing since sliced bread.

But what is undeniable is that it does not have the same shading performance as the properly shaped lens hoods provided by the manufacturers for their lenses. They do not cover the same physical length and diameter and do not have the same shape.

Saying otherwise will not turn a sow's ear into a silk purse.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
6,867 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ansel View Post

Yup. They did fool you. They do not work the same. For example, using the M77 rubber hood on 70-200 mm lenses vignettes at 70 mm.
What 70-200? Mamiya hoods that are made for varying focal lengths are meant to be use collapsed when used for the widest-focal length lens they will work on. For example, the hood for the 127 will work on the 90 when collapsed, does not vignette on the 127 when extended and provides adequate coverage for the 180. The other solution is to use a bellows hood, which is something that 35mm shooters will likely never encounter.
Quote:
Look, there are advantages and disadvantages to every option in life. As far as I'm concerned, rubber lens hoods are useless. I've tried them, sold them, and now every Canon lens I have has the appropriate Canon lens hood.
For the record, all of my Canon lenses have their appropriately designed-for hoods attached and reversed when in my bag. I use them, and I will make no BS claim that I don't. Sadly, for lenses that are 20+ years old, finding an appropriate lens hood is not always easy or possible, and rubber hoods are the only option.
Quote:
However, perhaps you find it useful to have a hood that occasionally vignettes, sticks out wider than the real lenshood, takes up more room in the bag, get caught up on things in the bag, and (as you state) obviously doesn't provide impact resistance.
I've already covered the vignetting aspect -- as they do stick out wider than rigid hoods, this is a choice one must make. However, most medium-format lenses require hoods that are longer than their physical length, making reversing a hypothetical rigid hood impossible. That means you now have to make space for a hood elsewhere in your bag. Impact resistance is a toss-up, and will depend on one's shooting habits. I'm not shooting the RB above my head in a crowd, so it's a wash for me. If you're crawling through weeds shooting photos of birds or at sports events, a rigid hood may be a bonus.
Quote:
But what is undeniable is that it does not have the same shading performance as the properly shaped lens hoods provided by the manufacturers for their lenses. They do not cover the same physical length and diameter and do not have the same shape.
How is that "undeniable?" If the hood's inner shape is wide enough to stay out of the angle of view of said lens, it wil work just fine. I am not presenting them as the end-all to lens shading, although completely discounting them based on your own use is just plain ignorant, no matter which way you splice it.
 
1 - 9 of 9 Posts
Top