«

I'm trying to reduce the volume of camera related stuff that I haul around
with me when traveling. I use a Nikon D80 with three different lenses
(30mm f1.4, 18-135mm F3.5, and 70-300mm f4.5). Each lens has a different
hood to go with it.

My question is, just how important are lens hoods? Would I be likely to
miss any 'great' shots if I stopped carrying the hoods.

I am not a pro, just an amateur who takes photos for fun, to show friends
and family and occasionally post on the web.

Thanks in advance,

Tom Hise

On Sat, 13 Mar 2010 08:55:15 -0600, Tom Hise <> wrote:

>I'm trying to reduce the volume of camera related stuff that I haul around
>with me when traveling. I use a Nikon D80 with three different lenses
>(30mm f1.4, 18-135mm F3.5, and 70-300mm f4.5). Each lens has a different
>hood to go with it.
>
>My question is, just how important are lens hoods? Would I be likely to
>miss any 'great' shots if I stopped carrying the hoods.
>
>I am not a pro, just an amateur who takes photos for fun, to show friends
>and family and occasionally post on the web.
>
A lens hood reduces lens flare, but I haven't experienced much of a
problem with lens flare when not using a hood. My lenses are equipped
with those roll-back threaded rubber hoods, but to act as bumpers to
prevent the lens from being banged-up.

I seriously doubt if you'll ever miss a photo because of the lack of a
hood, but you may ding your lens.


--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

Tom Hise wrote:
> I'm trying to reduce the volume of camera related stuff that I haul around
> with me when traveling. I use a Nikon D80 with three different lenses
> (30mm f1.4, 18-135mm F3.5, and 70-300mm f4.5). Each lens has a different
> hood to go with it.
>
> My question is, just how important are lens hoods? Would I be likely to
> miss any 'great' shots if I stopped carrying the hoods.
>
> I am not a pro, just an amateur who takes photos for fun, to show friends
> and family and occasionally post on the web.

I don't generally use them. If flare is an issue, I'll hold my hand up
to block the sun from hitting the front element. There's two kinds of
flare: veiling flare and ghosting. The latter is those colorful circles,
often repeating in the opposite corner from the sun and veiling flare is
just a white haze, sometimes evenly covering the whole frame, reducing
contrast.

Lenses vary in their susceptibility to flare and tendency for ghosting.
Stopping down a fast lens generally reduces flare and lenses with
smaller front elements generally have less trouble. Shooting into the
sun, a hood won't help, shooting away from the sun it's not needed, so
it's mostly an issue when the sun just glances across the front of the
lens and often hoods are not really big enough for that so a carefully
positioned hand can work better (although it makes a mess of hand
holding stability).

Movie cameras use elaborate rectangular bellows with flaps and little
black cards on a flexible arm for trouble spots sometimes.
http://images.google.com/images?q=matte+box

When buying really old lenses, choose the coated version, often
indicated as 'MC' for multi-coated. Research the lens' versions,
sometimes there are improved coatings in later models. Some of Nikon's
newer lenses are given an 'N' designation for nano-crystal coating.

Tom Hise wrote:
> I'm trying to reduce the volume of camera related stuff that I haul around
> with me when traveling. I use a Nikon D80 with three different lenses
> (30mm f1.4, 18-135mm F3.5, and 70-300mm f4.5). Each lens has a different
> hood to go with it.
>
> My question is, just how important are lens hoods? Would I be likely to
> miss any 'great' shots if I stopped carrying the hoods.
>
> I am not a pro, just an amateur who takes photos for fun, to show friends
> and family and occasionally post on the web.

I always use a lens hood, more for protection of the lens than for
necessity to block out extraneous light sources. I find it's better than
a filter for my purposes.

--
john mcwilliams

On Sat, 13 Mar 2010 11:35:17 -0500, "Neil Harrington" <> wrote:
:
: "Tom Hise" <> wrote in message
: news:nHNmn.415669$...
: > I'm trying to reduce the volume of camera related stuff that I haul around
: > with me when traveling. I use a Nikon D80 with three different lenses
: > (30mm f1.4, 18-135mm F3.5, and 70-300mm f4.5). Each lens has a different
: > hood to go with it.
: >
: > My question is, just how important are lens hoods? Would I be likely to
: > miss any 'great' shots if I stopped carrying the hoods.
: >
: > I am not a pro, just an amateur who takes photos for fun, to show friends
: > and family and occasionally post on the web.
:
: Theoretically the lens hood should improve the contrast of pictures (taken
: outdoors at least) by excluding a good deal of the non-image-forming light.
: Whether you would ever be able to SEE such improvement is somewhat
: questionable, unless the sun or other bright light source were in a position
: where it would shine directly on the lens surface, and perhaps not even
: then.
:
: Personally I always use a hood -- when possible -- when shooting outdoors,
: on the principle that it may help and can't hurt, and also provides some
: physical protection for the lens. Since with the Nikkors you mention (I'm
: assuming that's what your 70-300 is as well as the 18-135) the hoods easily
: reverse on each lens for carrying, they add almost no bulk or weight, so I
: can't see any benefit to leaving them home.

A good point that I was going to make if you hadn't. All decent lens hoods
either collapse or reverse.

: Ken Rockwell (www.kenrockwell.com) on the other hand has said he never uses
: a lens hood. But he does use his hand to shade the lens, which to me seems
: more of a bother than using a hood -- and is probably less effective
: besides, unless he paints that hand matte black.

Does Rockwell always use a tripod? I wouldn't want to try to hold a full-size
digital camera steady with one hand.

Bob

On Sat, 13 Mar 2010 13:27:23 -0500, "Neil Harrington" <>
wrote:

>I'm sure Rockwell doesn't always use a tripod, no. The photo of him at the
>front of his site shows him using a Nikon with some monster lens on a
>monopod, one hand on the camera and the other steadying the lens and
>monopod. So that leaves him all out of hands and nothing to shade the lens
>as he says he does. (The image is flipped you'll notice, which gave rise to
>Rockwell's b.s. story about a "special left-handed Nikon." He is not always
>absolutely believable, which he admits himself.)
>
Left-handed camera? I'm left-handed, and I've never felt that the
ergonomics of a camera were left- or right-hand favored. The only
left-handed device that I own is a circular saw. I've tried
left-handed scissors, but I don't find them much of an advantage.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

On 13.3.2010. 15:55, Tom Hise wrote:
> I'm trying to reduce the volume of camera related stuff that I haul around
> with me when traveling. I use a Nikon D80 with three different lenses
> (30mm f1.4, 18-135mm F3.5, and 70-300mm f4.5). Each lens has a different
> hood to go with it.
>
> My question is, just how important are lens hoods? Would I be likely to
> miss any 'great' shots if I stopped carrying the hoods.
>
> I am not a pro, just an amateur who takes photos for fun, to show friends
> and family and occasionally post on the web.
>
> Thanks in advance,
>
> Tom Hise
>


It reduces lens flare if you have some strong light coming from the side
or in front of the lens.

On 13.3.2010. 15:55, Tom Hise wrote:
> I'm trying to reduce the volume of camera related stuff that I haul around
> with me when traveling. I use a Nikon D80 with three different lenses
> (30mm f1.4, 18-135mm F3.5, and 70-300mm f4.5). Each lens has a different
> hood to go with it.
>
> My question is, just how important are lens hoods? Would I be likely to
> miss any 'great' shots if I stopped carrying the hoods.
>
> I am not a pro, just an amateur who takes photos for fun, to show friends
> and family and occasionally post on the web.
>
> Thanks in advance,
>
> Tom Hise
>


....and it's generally not a big deal carrying them around because you
can always attach them upside down to your lens.

On Sat, 13 Mar 2010 08:55:15 -0600, Tom Hise <> wrote:

>I'm trying to reduce the volume of camera related stuff that I haul around
>with me when traveling. I use a Nikon D80 with three different lenses
>(30mm f1.4, 18-135mm F3.5, and 70-300mm f4.5). Each lens has a different
>hood to go with it.
>
>My question is, just how important are lens hoods? Would I be likely to
>miss any 'great' shots if I stopped carrying the hoods.
>
>I am not a pro, just an amateur who takes photos for fun, to show friends
>and family and occasionally post on the web.
>
>Thanks in advance,
>
>Tom Hise

Any lens-flare from the sun or other bright lights I've learned to
effectively cancel out by just using my hand or a well-placed finger to the
side of the lens. My photography style demands I pack light and be at the
ready all the time. I don't have time nor space to pack extraneous
accessories that will cause me to miss shots.

Some will claim that a rubberized lens-hood is great damage protection, but
I counter that if you don't take those "accessory" steps to protect your
camera then you'll be a little more careful with it overall. If you think
your camera is safe you won't pay attention to it as it's swinging against
the side of a cliff wall or brick wall while hiking or touristing. If it
isn't protected by hoods or daylight filters you'll pay attention and
protect all of it from harm, as it should be. You won't become complacent.

On Sat, 13 Mar 2010 12:42:31 -0500, Robert Coe <> wrote:

>On Sat, 13 Mar 2010 11:35:17 -0500, "Neil Harrington" <> wrote:
>:
>: "Tom Hise" <> wrote in message
>: news:nHNmn.415669$...
>: > I'm trying to reduce the volume of camera related stuff that I haul around
>: > with me when traveling. I use a Nikon D80 with three different lenses
>: > (30mm f1.4, 18-135mm F3.5, and 70-300mm f4.5). Each lens has a different
>: > hood to go with it.
>: >
>: > My question is, just how important are lens hoods? Would I be likely to
>: > miss any 'great' shots if I stopped carrying the hoods.
>: >
>: > I am not a pro, just an amateur who takes photos for fun, to show friends
>: > and family and occasionally post on the web.
>:
>: Theoretically the lens hood should improve the contrast of pictures (taken
>: outdoors at least) by excluding a good deal of the non-image-forming light.
>: Whether you would ever be able to SEE such improvement is somewhat
>: questionable, unless the sun or other bright light source were in a position
>: where it would shine directly on the lens surface, and perhaps not even
>: then.
>:
>: Personally I always use a hood -- when possible -- when shooting outdoors,
>: on the principle that it may help and can't hurt, and also provides some
>: physical protection for the lens. Since with the Nikkors you mention (I'm
>: assuming that's what your 70-300 is as well as the 18-135) the hoods easily
>: reverse on each lens for carrying, they add almost no bulk or weight, so I
>: can't see any benefit to leaving them home.
>
>A good point that I was going to make if you hadn't. All decent lens hoods
>either collapse or reverse.
>
>: Ken Rockwell (www.kenrockwell.com) on the other hand has said he never uses
>: a lens hood. But he does use his hand to shade the lens, which to me seems
>: more of a bother than using a hood -- and is probably less effective
>: besides, unless he paints that hand matte black.
>
>Does Rockwell always use a tripod? I wouldn't want to try to hold a full-size
>digital camera steady with one hand.
>
>Bob

If you had ever used a camera in your lifetime, you'd find out that that's
not true. You hold it with both hands, but the hand cradling the lens is
shifted to also block any flare, or just using one or two fingers to
accomplish the same.

Now kindly go back to your other newsgroups where you won't be outed so
easily for the armchair-expert-only that you are.