Does anyone use the lens hood on their 35/1.4L? Or any other lens?

[birdman]

I was shooting an old abandoned school building about 1.5 hours before sundown the other day. I do NOT have the lens hood for my 35L, as it was bought second hand. But I do have a nice polarizer, which I thought would help reduce sunlight. Keep in mind I was shooting away from the sun, with the only reflection coming off windows on the building. Lots of my shots (taken with 5d2) have stray light screwing up the exposure. Aggravating to say the least. I tried to bracket them, but could not get correct exposure.

Does the lens hood make THAT much of a difference? I also have the 28-135 and 17-40, neither lens hood with those either. What would you guys suggest? Are the hoods worth the money?

[swrightgfx]

That seems odd behaviour for a lens that usually handles flare well. Any idea what the flare source was if not the sun or noticeable reflections?

I use the hood when doing most landscapes, as they often contain water or reflective glass or other surfaces on buildings, but shoot without in the street, where I use it most.

[EYEONE]

Can you post examples?

I never shoot without a lens hood. And even so I've had to hold my hand up to block the sun in where it's not in the frame but the front element outside the protection of the hood. Mainly is a problem on 24mm shots with my 24-70mm.

[7enderbender]

Hard to say. Maybe it was the lack of a lens hood, maybe it was the polarizer not playing nice with the lens/camera. I've seen samples of that before where non-circular polarizers cause some weird artifacts with digital SLRs.

I pretty much always leave the lens hoods on all my lenses - for physical protection alone.

[TexPhoto]

As mentioned.  Examples will give you a way better answer.  Post them to flikr or something.

I use a lens hood as much as I can.  The protection to the lens in a fall alone is worth it.   Buy a cheap ebay $5 replacement hood. 

Even if you use a UV filterer other, a hood can help.  he biggest problem with filters is they let light bounce around between the filter and lens, ussually from an out of camera light soucre.  Hoods often fix that.  And in a fall do you want your filter smashed, with broken glass pushed against you lens, or protected by a hood?

[EYEONE]

I've seen samples of that before where non-circular polarizers cause some weird artifacts with digital SLRs.

Also if it was a cheap polarizer. I've gotten terrible glare from a cheap UV filter. Always good not to skimp on the filters.

[Seanlucky]

I'd say always use a lens hood for the protective purposes. I've seen them save lenses from a drop.

[JR]

I only use them if i shoot outside in the sun or when i need some protection for the lens...

[jasonsim]

yes.  get yourself the hood.  The hoods for the ultra wides like 17-40 are a pain to carry in the bag...but at least I only have one of those to accommodate.  I don't think I will use the hood that came with my 24mm f/3.5L TS-E II lens.  It is not very substantial and cannot imagine it helps that much.

[prestonpalmer]

Always always always use a lens hood. No excuses.

[pwp]

Always always always use a lens hood. No excuses.

Yes, what Preston said. Always, always & always.

If for absolutely no other reason the hood offers your lens about the best protection you can offer it in the form of a shock absorbing buffer that may save your lens in tthe unlikely case of a drop or a far more likely hard bump when you have your body/lens on your shoulder and the rig swings into an immovable object. If you shoot a lot, particularly when shooting with multiple bodies and you're very focused on your work on you'll quickly find this happens a LOT.

Always, always always....

Paul Wright

[D.Sim]

Can you post examples?

I never shoot without a lens hood. And even so I've had to hold my hand up to block the sun in where it's not in the frame but the front element outside the protection of the hood. Mainly is a problem on 24mm shots with my 24-70mm.

Odd, the 24-70 has one of the best lens hoods, imo...

that said, i think its the polarizer, not the lack of hood thats causing the issue, any problems when shooting without a filter?

[Jettatore]

I don't use them, I haven't seen where it could be effecting image quality, but it might be.  For me it makes the cameras way too big.  I'll probably try them out more in the future.  The other day I had a harsh flare coming in on a 16-35 lens, it took about 20 seconds to figure out how to hold my hand to the side of the lens without getting it in the picture as a blocker for the harsh highlight, not sure if any less harsh flare saturated the contrast of the image at all, or beyond what couldn't easily be tweaked in editing.  If I had the hood with me, it would have made for a good test.

[mws]

I always use a hood, keeps my greasy fingers away from the font element. And I don’t use filters so it helps if I accidently drop it or something.

You can get knock off filters hoods on eBay for dirt cheap with free shipping. Some of the ones I have ordered are of surprisingly good quality for what I paid for them.

Update, I meant cheap hoods, not filters. I know better then that.....

[D.Sim]

I always use a hood, keeps my greasy fingers away from the font element. And I don’t use filters so it helps if I accidently drop it or something.

You can get knock off filters on eBay for dirt cheap with free shipping. Some of the ones I have ordered are of surprisingly good quality for what I paid for them.

Uh, strongly suggest against getting cheap, knock off filters. IQ degradation will kill you, and if you're getting an L lens for better image quality, then put a cheap filter on and knock it back down to the quality of an inferior lens, all you have is an expensive inferior lens that has better build