I'd agree with everything Paul said, and would add a few comments as well. It's possible to use deeper hoods with film cameras also. The hood for the Takumar 105 (and similar sized hoods) works great on the various Pentax 50mm lenses for example.
Hoods also protect the lens from dust, dirt, moisture, and from getting banged against hard objects. They're not perfect in that regard, but they do help. If you use a filter on your lens, a hood is, IMO, an absolute necessity. Shel > [Original Message] > From: Paul Stenquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <pentax-discuss@pdml.net> > Date: 12/24/2005 12:46:34 PM > Subject: Re: Lens Hoods > > Use a hood all the time, except perhaps with an on-camera flash that it > might obstruct. The idea is to prevent light from hitting the lens at > obtuse angles. At worst, extraneous light can cause serious flare. At > least, it can cause some loss of contrast. You might not see the > difference in most situation, but when you do see it, it's too late to > go back and put the hood on. Use the hood. Many of us try to find hoods > that offer even more protection than the original equipment version. > For example, I use a hood originally meant for a Takumar 135 with my FA > 50 when mounted on the *istD. It provides optimum protection, and with > the reduced FOV of the digital camera, it doesn't vignette. Hoods are a > good thing. > Paul > On Dec 24, 2005, at 3:15 PM, Sunny Use itChung wrote: > > > I have a lens hood, buy I hardly ever use it. Whenever I do use it, I > > can never tell the difference in my pictures. What is the best > > situation to use hoods in, and how do get the most out of this > > accessory. So far, I know NOT to use it with flash and that it can > > make my lens look bigger to non-camera people, but haven't really > > figured out its use. > >
