Hood on a Macro lens?

[Nate]

I just bought my first dedicated macro lens (Sigma 105mm F/2.8) and it came with not one but two lens hoods. Previously I was using extension tubes and found I couldn't get "close enough" with a hood on so I always shot without one. Now I've got a little more room to work with and was wondering what other people were doing. Also, if you do shoot macro without a hood, are you using a UV or "protection" filter on your lenses?

Thanks

[chauncey]

Don't use a hood but, 99% of my macro shooting is indoors using a tripod.
When I use that 180 macro for anything other than macro, will use a hood for protection only.
Have never used another piece of glass to shield my lens, cuts down on IQ.

[Mike Buckley]

I always use a hood regardless of the shooting situation because I want to do as much as I can to eliminate all possibility of flare, which includes flare or lack of contrast that I wouldn't notice. Some of my makeshift studio situations require that I use a flag in addition to the hood to prevent flare.

It's not as if using a hood can cause an image problem on a prime lens unless so many filters are also mounted on it that vignetting occurs. So, once I got in the habit of always using a hood, I knew the lens mounted on the camera would always be ready to use unless I need to first remove or add a filter.

[DanK]

It all depends.

For indoor tripod work, I use a hood if the working distance allows because I often use lighting from the side and don't want to risk flare. For that sort of work, I never use a filter, because I am in a controlled environment.

For chasing bugs, I don't use a hood because the lens is already close enough to frighten them. Moreover, my usual primary lighting is a from a diffused flash held next to the end of the lens, so the risk of flare is minimal.

I almost always use a protective filter when chasing bugs. The effect on image quality if the filter is good and lighting is from behind is negligible. I've tested it with otherwise identical shots. When you are working in the wild with working distances in the inches/ cms, the risk of slop on the lens is too high for my tastes, particularly given that a hood is not practical. In addition, I find that I sometimes end up sliding the camera along the surface the bug is one to achieve focus, and over time, this actually wears away the metal. I'd much rather damage the filter ring than the front of the lens.

I don't want to start another iteration of the filter wars, but personally, I am much more influenced by empirical results than by the argument another piece of glass. The tests I have done and seen suggest that a good filter doesn't matter when the light is behind you but can increase flare and ghosting if the light is in front of you. So, I never use one when doing night photography, for example.

Check out the bug shots on my site. Virtually all were done with a filter on the lens.

[rpcrowe]

My 90mm f/2.8 Tamron Macro lens is the one lens that I use without a hood. That is because the front element is recessed far enough so that the lens barrel acts as a lens hood.

I don't know if a new Tamron comes with a hood since I purchased the lens many years ago on the used market and it did not come with a hood.

[JR1]

Use a hood, a macro isn't just for indoors it is a 105mm lens

[HaseebM]

For shooting stationary objects, I use a hood as it helps me focus and avoids getting too close to the glass on certain objects like pointed stems, pipes etc.,

[Geoff F]

What subjects, Nate?

Hoods are fine for static subjects, providing you don't get any problems with shadows due to the light angle; particularly if using flash.

But for live insects, I always work without a hood to keep my equipment a sufficient distance from nervous subjects

[Nate]

Thanks for all the responses!

To date I've shot mostly outdoorsy, nature stuff (bugs, plants, flowers, etc) so a hood or a good quality clear filter seems to make sense.

Keeping in the lens protection line of questioning and with the possibility of acquiring a ring light/flash - if it attaches via the lens filter threads, does it provide some of the same benefits of a hood or do they usually end up being more or less flush with the front of the lens?

[Geoff F]

Firstly, check your lens size against any ring light fitting. Some require an adaptation and some lenses, like mine, won't take ring lights.

I had thought about them, with other lenses, but was put off because they look like two large eyes which could scare bugs and for the sort of photography I do, I was worried about them getting damaged.

You may need to remove a hood with these lights to prevent shadow problems. Or are you looking at a light fitting which attaches to the hood fixings anyway?

[Stagecoach]

If I can use it to help protect the lens with no adverse affects YES.

If it's going to adversely affect my lighting NO.

Grahame

[Black Pearl]

In general I have a hood on my Nikon AF 60mm f2.8D Micro most of the time, just because I tend to leave hoods on all of my lenses if I'm being honest. I do take it off if I'm shooting indoors with artificial/controlled lighting as it is quite deep and tends to get in the way.

[DanK]

I just did a rough check. With the hood on, the minimum working distance (in this case, front if hoot to subject at maximum magnification) for my Canon 100mm macro lens is roughly 4.5 cm or 2.6 inches. With an extension tub, it is even less. So if you want photos like the one below, a hood is not likely to work:

[deetheturk]

+1 to Dan's comments, personally I never use mine!

[loosecanon]

Most macro hoods are too long so as not to affect lighting when very close, and of course cannot be used when using a ring flash.
On the other hand my canon 180mm with a 2x converter makes a nice 360mm tele and could use a hood.

[xpatUSA]

I just bought my first dedicated macro lens (Sigma 105mm F/2.8) and it came with not one but two lens hoods. Previously I was using extension tubes and found I couldn't get "close enough" with a hood on so I always shot without one. Now I've got a little more room to work with and was wondering what other people were doing.
Thanks

For a long time I was shooting watches with a Sigma 50mm EX DG f/2.8 macro lens on a 1.7 crop Sigma SD9. It came with a short hood which never got in the way because, like yourself, I was shooting at less than 1:1 magnification. Later, I got the fabled 70mm and used quite long Mamiya hood on it (4" from memory) because my lighting was quite low on each side of the subject and I didn't want any flare.

I guess the longer the lens the longer a hood can be. Same with crop factor, eh?

I never use UV or "protection" filters (personal preference).