Lens Hoods

[cruisegirl]

Hi all,
I'm new here and just discovered this site. I love photography but I admit, I'm still learning and have never had formal classes. I'm curious about lens hoods. I would like to get one for my Canon digital Rebel EOS. I understand the useage but not gauging sizes or which to get. I have 2 lenses, an Aspherical 20-80mm lens and a Sigma 100-300mm. This is a new area to me but I do alot of photography by the ocean and in the sun. Any advice would be appreciated. Thanks in advance.

[Shadowman]

Hello Cruisegirl,

The lens hood usually comes in the box but if you purchased elsewhere use the product number to locate the correct lens hood on the manufacturer's website.

Hi all,
I'm new here and just discovered this site. I love photography but I admit, I'm still learning and have never had formal classes. I'm curious about lens hoods. I would like to get one for my Canon digital Rebel EOS. I understand the useage but not gauging sizes or which to get. I have 2 lenses, an Aspherical 20-80mm lens and a Sigma 100-300mm. This is a new area to me but I do alot of photography by the ocean and in the sun. Any advice would be appreciated. Thanks in advance.

[rick55]

. . . use the product number to locate the correct lens hood on the manufacturer's website.

Just to clarify, you won't be getting a lens hood for your camera. You'll need a lens hood for each lens, so you want to check the lens manufacturers' sites to find the correct hoods.

Cheers,
Rick

[Dave Humphries]

Hi Cruisegirl,

Firstly welcome to the CiC forums from me.

Further to the above reply (and the Sigma definitely says it comes with one).

Thinks: perhaps yours went 'overboard' Sounds like a nice job you have there

One lens hood is unlikely to fit, or be effective, for both lenses I'm afraid.

Different manufacturers have a habit of using their own bayonet mounting methods of fitting hoods, and even if one did fit both, or you used a screw on one that attaches to the filter thread, the vastly different focal lengths mean that the Sigma hood would give very dark corners on the Canon(?) lens, spoiling any pictures. Conversely, the 20-80 hood would be fairly ineffective on the Sigma, meaning almost not worth attaching.

A lens hood (matched to the lens) is worth using though; it will help increase the contrast of any shots, but particularly those where the sun, or another bright lightsource, maybe just abeam, or in front of, the lens when shooting. I always use mine.

Have you got a first name we could use?

Cheers,

[agaace]

Hi Dave, a question:
I got myself a Singh-Ray polarizer filter, which comes in thin mount. This means I can't attach ANYTHING to it, like lens cap (which is fine), but also no lens hood. So I'm wondering: does it make sense to attach a hood if the polarizer is on? Or does the polarizer already do good enough job of increasing contrast/letting thru only selective sun rays?
I think the reason why I chose thin mount was this is the wide angle lens (10-22mm), so I was afraid a thick mount could get into the frame or cause vignetting at the 10mm end. But maybe I made a mistake?

[Dave Humphries]

Hi Dave, a question:
I got myself a Singh-Ray polarizer filter, which comes in thin mount. This means I can't attach ANYTHING to it, like lens cap (which is fine), but also no lens hood.

Hi Agata,

Most modern lenses I have experienced (limited to just 2; a Sigma and a Nikon), have had the supplied hood attach/detach via a bayonet mount, didn't your 10-22mm lens (Tokina?) have one supplied?

In use, such a system may require you to fit and even rotate the CPL before fitting the hood - but this should still fit over the outside of filter and engage as normal on the lens.

I think the reason why I chose thin mount was this is the wide angle lens (10-22mm), so I was afraid a thick mount could get into the frame or cause vignetting at the 10mm end. But maybe I made a mistake?

Given the UWA of 10mm; no, I don't think you made a mistake going for the thin mount as vignetting is obviously a big risk at that short a focal length.

If 10-22mm lens hood is a filter screw attachment one, then that is a shame if the thin mount doesn't have any thread at all, but sounds unavoidable.

So I'm wondering: does it make sense to attach a hood if the polarizer is on? Or does the polarizer already do good enough job of increasing contrast/letting thru only selective sun rays?

As above, operationally, I do find it is a bit of a pain to unclip the hood to rotate the CPL each time, or risk a finger print if I try rotating without removing hood first, but as I don't have a super-quality Singh-Ray CPL, I fear the extra 4 glass/air surfaces may add veiling flare if obliquely lit by sun on front of camera+lens.

Keeping them clean and dust free will help, but that's not always practical 'in the field'.
Although an odd chunk of fluff/dust even a millimeter or more across stuck on the front probably won't even be noticeable on a pictures per se, but if sunlit, it must add veiling flare, which then ricochets around all the other surfaces, destroying contrast.

That's my theory anyway

It's why I do use my hood with a CPL if the sky is overcast and/or the sun (or other bright lightsource) is glancing across the lens front (but not in picture). If it's slightly behind me, I might shoot without bothering to refit it (when it hooks on my little finger, ready for use on next shot).

I haven't done comparative tests, I just know it must be better with a hood; ideally, all light hitting front element/filter should be also hitting the sensor, if it isn't, because of angle of approach means it's outside field of view, then "block it if you can" is my motto.

It's like not eating those last few chips on the plate when your hunger is satisfied; if I don't eat them, I haven't added those calories to my already substantial frame but I still enjoyed the meal

Cheers,