>flimsy pieces of shit>make the camera bigger, doesn't fit into bags as well>gets in the way of shooting things close like bugs>looks goofy>if you don't need it but want to have it accessible then you put it on backwards and it gets in the way, affects the handling>if you don't need it and want to have it accessible and not use the method above you have to keep it somewhere and it's bulky and flimsy and could easily get broken in a bagDoes anyone even use these things?
>>4313525>Does anyone even use these things?I used too, but I rarely do anymore unless I'm doing something where I want to extract maximum optical performance. But most of the time I just leave them at home
>>4313525When I want to look like a professional photographer, yes (ie always)
>>4313525When I'm hiking the hood lets me put my telephoto on the ground without worry. I'll even prop it up on the hood for short periods of time while I have another lens on. They're even better at protecting front elements than UV filters in practice, I think. For UWAs that don't take filters they're obligatory.
>>4313525Don't leave my house without it.
>>4313525I love hoods, even have one on my dick
>>4313597baste
i left the hood on my one lens that came with one. it's relatively small so i don't mind it too much. my other lenses lack hoods, which doesn't matter most of the time. only when it rains do i wish i had a hood
Only if I know I'm going to be shooting with the sun up high. Otherwise, no.
>>4313525I use them on most of my lenses.Incidentally, the only (two) lenses I've dropped didn't have hoods on them and probably would have been fine if they did.
>>4313525>Does anyone even use these things?I always use lens hoods. get a big enough bag and you won't have to reverse them for storage.
It's meant to protect the glass and reduce sun glare
>>4313689cant believe im famouse enough to have my name stolen even for benign replies like this lmao
>>4313525I always do, except when min/maxing for small size. Helps IQ, helps with physical protection, helps when shooting in the rain or snow.I've probably spent more on aftermarket hoods than some people have on their actual camera kit.
>>4313525>protects the front element>reduces or eliminates flareyou'd be an idiot not to use it
>>4313525Well since 90% of my photos are taking in the woods I like it to protect my smallerish lenses from branches and shit. And I noticed lens flares are a lot more common without. They do serve a purpose.
>>4313525The problem is they are completely USELESS at their primary function.Set up a tripod, have a light source that will cause glare, flare and shit, set up the direction juuuuust where problems start to arise, now add lens hood and... see that they don't prevent anything. None. Nothing. Nada. Tested on lenses from wide to narrow, same shit. The only thing that helps to prevent aberrations is the old trick of blocking the problem out-of-fieldview with your hand, a document pouch, or whatever. But achieving this would need absurdly comical large and long lens hoods.The only thing they're good for is protecting the lens, but then again I'm not a woman with two left hands, so it's of no concerns to me. Much like I don't need protection on my phone as I never dropped it in 15 years.
>>4313525I once knocked over my tripod and the lens hood took all the damage. Camera and lens were unscathed; hood was shattered.
>>4314995what benefits do aftermarket hoods give you?I already notice with my hood someitmes it's worse than no hood since it allows some light to reflect off the inside of the hood into the lensit's truly not a "guaranteed to be better" situation like I once thought they'd beat least not unless the interior of it is coated with black hole dust or "vantablack" anti-reflective meme shitbased alternative seems to just be blocking stray light sources manually like with a book held in the right position but I guess hoods are a "usually better than nothing" middle groundalso probably better on long telephoto than 40
>>4318096I've often thought the same although most of the time, the light they block is more than the light they reflect. There's gotta be some autist out there who has tested this. I've made a lens hood with black felt or matte black spray paint and it was a definite improvement but I don't have the 3D printing skills to make a convenient one that reverses on the lens. Some guys use a matte box and that's probably a decent solution if a bit fiddly. I have ruined some shots by trying to shade with my hand and the hand gets in the frame. I think the ideal shape would be longer at the top with a shorter section at the bottom to allow access to the controls. Or some kind of contraption that would close it down as you zoom in because they really are pretty useless as >>4318041 said especially with wide to telephoto zooms.
They should make more lens hoods like pic related, at least for compact lenses so they don't increase 2x in size when you put it on
It's surprising how much contrast you might be losing when not using a hood, even in situations where the angle of light isn't obviously harsh. I watched a comparison video on youtubes and now I use them all the time.
>>4318112there are lens hoods that fit on filter threads
>>4318041You should do more testing if your finding they really do nothing. Plenty of on/off examples you can find online that suggest otherwise. Because they don't work perfectly in 100% cases doesn't mean they don't work at all.>the old trick of blocking the problem out-of-fieldview with your handThat's what hoods are intended to do.>>4318096>what benefits do aftermarket hoods give you?Aftermarket mostly for size / aesthetic / price. If your hood is given you internal reflections, that's a bad hood pure and simple.
