Makes sense - or does it?

[rpcrowe]

At first, a lens hood like this seemed to make sense...

http://www.lenscoat.com/travelhood-c-44.html

But, then I realized that the hoods for both of my longer lenses (100-400 Mk-2 and 70-200mm f/4L IS) can be reversed for storage and really don't take up much extra packing space.

Additionally, the hood of my "newish" 100-400mm f/3.5-5.6L IS lens has an access door to facilitate the revolving of a polarizing filter.

When I bought the 100-400 Mark-2, Adorama included some free gear to sweeten the deal. One interesting piece of gear is the "Flex Lens Shade"

https://www.amazon.com/Flex-Lens-Sha.../dp/B007BIV6NY

While I have not used this shade but have it in my camera bag. I did, several years ago, have an occasion when I was shooting a canyon in Utah and was forced to shoot almost directly into the sun. I used my hat to shade the lens better than could have been accomplished with just a standard lens hood... The Flex Lens Shade would have come in handy then.

The Flex Lens Shade is so light that I don't realize it is in a back compartment of my camera bag or the back pocket of my photo vest....

IMO: The most perfect solution to the PITA of lens hoods is on the 400mm f/5.6L and 300mm f/4L IS lenses which have retractable lens hoods. I know that this would significantly increase the production and, naturally, the sales costs of any lens but ,IMO, the retractable hood is the best thing since sliced bread....

[Black Pearl]

I don't currently own any big lenses so this isn't an issue for me at the moment - all my lens hood stay on and I never have the need to take them off or reverse them for transport. When I owned a Nikon 80-400mm I used to reverse it when space in my bag was at a premium, which to be honest I never found to be a problem so I never considered anything other than the standard hood.

[Manfred M]

The problem with all these add-ons tends to be that they are a one-size fits all. Hidden in that meaning is that they probably don't work all that well. So you will either have a hood that causes vignetting or does not protect the front lens elements from glare particularly well.

For much of my shooting I don't bother with a hood, especially on shorter lenses and simply (and effectively) use my hand to shade the lens.

As for built-in hoods, you have noticed that many modern hoods are scalloped, and this is to prevent vignetting at shorter focal lengths. All the built in hoods I have seen are metal (for strength) and doing creating those scallops is quite cheap and simple in an injection moulded lens hood. Replicating that in metal is harder (more expensive, secondary manufacturing operations), and then aligning a scalloped built in hood (to ensure it does not vignette) is going to add complexity and costs to the design.

[Shadowman]

To me, its one of those items you have to try to convince yourself. I don't know if the need is worth splurging $119.00 if I have a somewhat capable alternative already in place though.

[thetraveler]

To me, this is $5.99 worth of materials, $3.99 worth of shipping and about $100 worth of profit.