Reminds me of me when I purchased Gary Fong speedlight modifier.
KUVRD launches the world’s first Universal Lens Hood, and it’s pretty cool.
- Thread starter Canon Rumors Guy
- Start date
I always use them except for macro. That said, I always use filters too, so I'm obviously well trained!
I pretty much always use one, but I pretty much mostly use multiple lights. The point of a hood is not protection and never heard that before as presumed most folks knew the purpose but perhaps not as is specific to certain types of lighting. That [protection] may be a side benefit of some times in some very particular situations admittedly but not what they are designed for.
They are basically for flagging the lens to reduce likelyhood of flare (and related like loss of contrast) from stray light from hitting front at shallow angles and bouncing around in that front element group and causing issues. Pretty much never want loss of contrast and flare and very likely with a lot of lights that are coming at shallow angles from the side. Means I don't need to flag the camera at every position and eggcrate lights for camera instead of for light shaping reasons. Same in daylight outside ambient only circumstances where stray light can bounce off reflective surfaces, concrete and so on thus I always use a hood unless there is no risk of flare etc or the cons outweight benefit (shading in macro at closest focus.)
Last edited:
There seem to be two types of photographers. Those who use hoods and those who don't lol. I always have one on no matter what. It protects the front element from dust, water, and drops. Or flying balls if you shoot sports. I don't want to spend hundreds or thousands on a nice lens only to put a $10 UV filter on it. However, this thing just seems like one more piece of unnecessary gear to waste money on. I'll just continue using the hoods the lenses come with.
Last edited:
Three things that look, at least, like weaknesses :
- in their advertising video, at several moments, we can see the light is passing thru the hood (which is not expected for a hood)
- we also can see the hood can twist easily quite a lot when you move your camera : won't it just cover a part of the image circle when shooting fast moving subjects, especially if the hood is expanded to its greatest shape on telephoto lenses (i.e. mostly when shooting sport, BIF...) ?
- overall, this thing looks too much flexible to be able to protect a lens efficiently (what a regular lens hood can do most of the time)
Whatever is pretended in their well produced video, it really looks like a subpar concept, sorry.
- in their advertising video, at several moments, we can see the light is passing thru the hood (which is not expected for a hood)
- we also can see the hood can twist easily quite a lot when you move your camera : won't it just cover a part of the image circle when shooting fast moving subjects, especially if the hood is expanded to its greatest shape on telephoto lenses (i.e. mostly when shooting sport, BIF...) ?
- overall, this thing looks too much flexible to be able to protect a lens efficiently (what a regular lens hood can do most of the time)
Whatever is pretended in their well produced video, it really looks like a subpar concept, sorry.
Last edited:
Unfortunately all too many Canon lenses don't come with hoods and the genuine ones are a ripoff. I bought the criminally priced EW-72 for my 35mm f2 IS and the just overpriced ES-71 II for my 50mm f1.4. I recently dropped my EF 15mm and bent the built in hood but got a new one off eBay for a few dollars, does anybody know what I need to dissolve the blobs of glue they use as thread lock?
Obviously I am firmly in the always hoods camp!
That I did not know. I only have one L lens, which came with a hood. All my other lenses are from Sigma, which all came with hoods as well. As for the glue blobs, I have no idea, but that sounds a little sketchy lol!
Only L lenses come with hoods from Canon. I'm sure many people will point out exceptions though, my EF-M Macro came with a hood for example, as does the 400mm DO.
No it's not sketchy, it is how they do it to prevent unscrewing over time. I've posted a new thread on the lenses forum and if anybody is interested I'll post some pictures.
On all lenses I usually use hood. Both for reducing possible glare and as a protection. Protection-wise it can help to some degree against bumps, touches, light rain or snow. Only with macro I usually remove hood, as it either gets too close to the subject or drops shadow. For storage I just reverse the hood. And no, I don't think this rubber "universal thing" can replace my hoods. Universal tools usually do many things but only few of them they do well or even nothing well at all. Last, but not the least - it's just too ugly
If it is actually threadlocker they are usually some kind of methacrylate, for that whole family of acrylates but mostly PMMA I use toluene or acetone on them usually. Couple of other things will work but you're less likely to have any knocking around thus wont go into them.
Caveat is they will melt some plastics such as ABS which cheapo mystery plastic things tend to be made of. I've dunked other plastics in them fine but they tend to be known stuff where I've know it is pbt or whatever which don't melt in solvent I chose. Other friends are heat which makes it plasticise and tacky or sometimes cold (for instance ECA superglue is acrylate that loses a lot of strength at lower temp and becomes brittle along with having poor torsional strength thus if is actually that kind of glue it'll twist off via chilling).
I have used things on stuff they are not "safe" with and had success but I'd mask off and apply it to localised area and with care. Test a small spot if I were you and apply locally to just that area and bluetack and tape around and dab until effective may ("may", not "definitely") work out. Obviously ymmv and be safe about it and practice common sense yadda yadda. Hate to have to add it but obviosuly don't do something you're not comfortable with or researched basic safety on. I generally hate having to put disclaimers on everything due to internet health and safety police, however get that people do some risky things unknowningly. Although in fairness I've seen people do things in labs who DO know better more out of convenience or blase attitude that'd turn your hair white, all the more worrying in that they are far too comfortable with stuff that'd make folks outside that circle nervous.
Last edited:
hmm.
I don't know that I"ve ever had problems with all these light flares, etc.....at least, none that I've caught....since I never use a hood.
If you don't have a flare, are you saying that still using a hood improves contrast by just having it on the end of the lens?
C
It is one of those things like most things in photography that doesn't have a simple answer... it depends. Obviously there are a lot of factors and totally scene [light] dependent, lens matters also and to some degree viewer discernment and who the images are for or purpose of them. It depends on the light and where it is coming from and obviously no-one can answer that without knowing the scene and knowing a particular lens behaviour. Some are really prone to flare/veiling/contrast issues etc and it doesn't take much to cause noticeable problems in lot of lighting conditions, some lenses may be more forgiving and only cause issues in extremes. edit: you can look up types of flare for comparissons and also review tests on the models you use that check for that deliberately to see. Plus some may be there but not apparent such as large area but mild veiling not dramatically visible until the extreme zones, just caussing a general fog that can hide high frequency detail and some loss of contrast but not a problem most would notice and if you aren't shooting for editors or clients who'd object who cares.
Also the degree and qualities of it matter even when present thus again is not so simple as any = bad. Well controlled only detected when pixelpeeping means good enough and I'd class that in the same camp as absent of flares. More this second point is how sometimes it may even be favourable. More so with cine glass than stills orientated glass where they don't try and obliterate such things so much as make it look good and can be used for creative reasons. For instance if you have massive generalised veiling hazy blob wiping out contrast in a landscape shot with sun coming from camera front/side and horrid looking blob artifacts it will look nasty where having a really nice well done cinematic flare starbursts and veiling is less general blob and nice "godray" style shafts it can look much much nicer than no flare at all. Generally for photo glass though it is preferably avoided as often doesn't look so favourable as less effort is put into things like pleasing flare for stills (or makign parfocal and so on thus cine glass oft cost more even if for stills it is equivalent image quality otherwise re: sharpness and general rendering).
If you only shoot scenes with light behind you with nothing too reflective close by and have lenses that generally don't complain unless you push them to extremes such as shooting into the sun or point lightsource unintentionally (ie. almost never) and don't already own hoods I wouldn't sweat it. That isn't me but sounds like it could be fine for you so I wouldn't rush out and buy hoods. Plus even if you did notice problems you can fix it with hand/moving closer to something to flag that offending light path and so on in most situations. If you constantly find yourself in scenes with light(s) at potential problem positions to the camera in scenes where you want nothing but image light getting to the sensor it is obviously bigger deal chancing it happening or not and troubleshooting when it happens. Thus airing on side of caution using a hood to help prevent it saves time and messing by avoiding the problem rather than waiting for problem then rectifying.
There are generally no downsides if you own hoods though if you own the right hoods as they oft reverse mount to lens for storage, as for vignetting even wide angles that could be prone to vignetting tend to have petal hoods made to match the lens fov thus avoid it. Generally as again there can be rare instances and lighting conditions.
Last edited:
Lens hoods must Be sized for the FOV of the lens. This invites screw ups where the hood appears in the shot.
Cayenne,
Thanks for your response. There are a few reasons why photographers use lens hoods with one of the main ones being as a protective shield for the lens... You'd be surprised though at the overall toughness of our lens hoods. In fact, if you check out the Kickstarter Video and go to 2:57, you'll see our lens hood acting as a pretty tough barrier against the table we were slamming the lens into.
Regardless though, thanks for your comment and genuine concern points. It's photographers like you that make us love this community.
KUVRD
Thanks for your response. There are a few reasons why photographers use lens hoods with one of the main ones being as a protective shield for the lens... You'd be surprised though at the overall toughness of our lens hoods. In fact, if you check out the Kickstarter Video and go to 2:57, you'll see our lens hood acting as a pretty tough barrier against the table we were slamming the lens into.
Regardless though, thanks for your comment and genuine concern points. It's photographers like you that make us love this community.
KUVRD
Newer quality lenses doesn't suffer from that much flare, when indirect sunlight hits them. I usually use hoods to protect my lenses, as IMO, an UV filter (as a protection) is just one more (and much worse quality) glass element introduced. The collapsible design removes the protection factor at all, furthermore, a lot of the factory hoods can be reversed to make the lens more compact. Also, 40$ for a 3-5$ thing doesn't make it up for me.
My brain just read every letter instead of thinking about the 'covered' pronunciation, maybe you should rethink the branding bit
Actually... it doesn't. Thanks to its specific fold points, you're able to collapse at multiple different grooves so that our hood retracts far enough to remove itself from the shot, eliminating both dark spots in the corners of the frame and also any vignetting.
Check out this gif here to better explain this;
No Vignetting.gif
drive.google.com
Hopefully that helps clarify things.
KUVRD
Hey, great points! There are multiple reasons why a photographer would buy a lens hood and from your comment, it seems like our design wouldn't be best suited for you, your setup or workflow.
Also, due to the fact that we are almost three years running, we are pretty much 100% committed to KUVRD as a brand name... even though we know it's initially confusing to read/understand. haha
KUVRD
Similar threads
- Contains 1 staff post(s)
- Contains 1 staff post(s)
- Contains 2 staff post(s)
- Contains 1 staff post(s)
