They may well be for lots of Canon lenses (£18 to £50 essential add-on,
not included in the price of the lens), but they are not for Konica
Minolta/Sony for example - the hoods have always been supplied with the
lenses. In the dim and fading past, lens cases were supplied too...
Sigma still does that.

In fact it can be very hard to get a replacement lens hood for those
makes which don't try screw extra profit by selling their lenses without
hoods.

David

Not at all - lense optics are all the same and there is no such thing as
a "digital" lense for digital cameras.

Some people or salesmen may try to tell you that digital cameras need
special multicoated lenses, but that applies to all optical glass, so
it's misleading.

I'm sure they're like filters, batteries, and cleaning kits - lots of
profit there.

If you have no problem using your hand as a shade, keep doing so and
save yourself some money.

Having said that, I use lense hoods because they make it easier to get
the shot without having to hold my out like I'm begging for coffee.

I also like to do a lot of long exposures, sometimes multiple shots in a
row (like last night in the lightning storm), and even though I'm in
shape, holding my hand in just the right spot for several minutes does
get tiresome.

According to Larry Stoter <larry@cymru.freewire.co.uk>:

    It is because:

1)    They *do* help in certain lighting conditions.  An example was
    at a graduation exercise for a friend's daughter, I was using
    the 28-105mm on a Kodak/Nikon NC2000e/c (Nikon N90s body
    converted to digital by a replacement back and subbase by Kodak
    for the AP).  I was not able to chose my angle and position, and
    wound up with significant flare (which mostly cleaned up in
    post-processing, but which lost some dynamic range).  I did not
    have the lens hood for that lens at the time.  I do, now.

2)    Protection!  Today's lens hoods (at least for Nikkor lenses)
    are a tough plastic which absorbs bumps against walls and other
    things, instead of letting the impact distort the filter thread,
    and possibly otherwise damage the lens.  (And it also keeps the
    body from receiving as much shock from such a bump.)

    Granted -- it projects out more, and increases the *chances* of
    such a bump.

    So -- I use lens hoods on almost every lens which I have for use
on the D70 (and eventually the D200, when I get it.)  The bayonet mount
for lens hoods on Nikkor lenses allows easy reversal of the hood to
minimize storage size in the camera bag.

    Some lenses, such as the 18-70mm "kit" lens for the D70, come
with a lens hood as part of the package.  (Granted, I bought the lens
later, so I don't know for sure whether it comes with the lens as part
of a kit, but it certainly comes witt the lens when it is bought
separately.

    Hmm ... it may be that some of the less reputable vendors are
saving aside the lens hood, as they do with the battery charger and some
other standard "supplied with" accessories when selling the cameras, and
then try to sell it to you as a "needed part" when you buy the camera,
with the total effect of rising their supposed "bargain price" to equal
the normal price of the camera.

    Enjoy,
        DoN.

Most Nikon lenses now include a lens hood. So if you buy a Nikon lens,
you have to pay for the hood whether you want it or not.

No. The purpose of a lens hood is to prevent bright light entering the
lens at a high angle from causing reflections on the lens elements that
show up on the picture. You see this in the row of bright reflections
cascading across some pictures. A lens designed for use on SLR cameras
might have a large number of elements, each with the potential for
catching a reflection, but you also see these complex lenses on many
other kinds of cameras.

Some photographers also use lens hoods because of the element of
protection they give to a lens, especially blowing sand and water. The
lens hood can also absorb much of the impact of a dropped lens. It is a
lot cheaper to replace a lens hood than it is a lens! Lens hoods also
help to keep curious fingers away from the lens.

Lens hoods can cause vignetting at wide angles, especially if they are
bumped and knocked slightly askew of where they should be. They are
also one of those items (like lens caps) that are easily knocked off
the lens and broken or lost. Some lens hoods are better designed to
prevent this than others. A pro lens might have a locking mechanism on
its hood, for example, and the hood might be made of metal instead of
plastic. Lens hoods also can create a storage problem, especially on
long lenses. You will probably need a much larger case to store a lens
and hood than you would need for the lens alone, even if the hood is
reversed. Lens hoods can also interfere with on-camera flash, causing
deep shadows at the bottom of the picture.

Basically. Nevertheless, I prefer to use lens hoods most of the time. I
like the protective features of lens hoods, plus I like to take
pictures of sunsets and other pictures where I am likely to get a lot
of reflections. But if you plan to use lens hoods you should be aware
of their drawbacks and limitations and plan accordingly.

Some dealers push lens hoods and some don't. The dealers I deal with
don't. However, I use lens hoods because they do what they are designed
to do and besides that, imo, they are better lens protectors than UV
filters. Exception being when I'm confronted with winds blowing dirt
swirls, beach scenes, or inclement weather. Then I may use both a UV
filter and a lens hood. All my lenses have appropriate lens hoods and I
don't leave home without them.

I've not seen that lens hoods are pushed to any greater extent than for
35mm lenses.
However, the quality of image improvement afforded by a lens hood is
signficant.
Preventing stray light from hitting the lens is a key to good color
saturation and proper contrast.

I think you will be hard put to find a professional photographer who
doesn't use lens hoods as much as possible. I'm talking about people
who buy only what's necessary and not sales hype.
Controlling light is a key to good photography, it's why in the studio
we use accordian lens shades, and further restrict stray light with
different deflectors, etc.

As mentioned by others it also can save a front element from contact
with something that might damage it.
My last time was a goat that was trying to get to the lens, but his
nose wouldn't fit into the hood.

If you want to save money, look at a generic hood instead of the
manufacturers, look for used shades, they don't need to look nice, only
be the right configuration for your lens to maximize shielding and not
create vignetting.

Don Harper
The Edge Photography Studio
Leesburg, Va.

We also teach workshops and classes in photography.

The purpose of a lens hood is to block non-image-forming light from hitting
the lens.  This reduces flare -- both the kind you're thinking of, that
causes the familiar flare pattern of light spots, and the kind you're
not thinking of, veiling flare, which reduces overall image contrast
and makes your pictures look softer.

A hood also offers protection for the front of your lens, with no down side
(unlike a clear filter, which has a negative optical effect).

I use hoods all the time.  As one good example, the Nikon 50mm f/1.2
suffers greatly from veiling flare, which is why it has a reputation of
being soft; a hood helps it a lot.  I wouldn't think of using that lens
without a hood, but with one, it's excellent.

With the smaller sensors of (most) digital SLRs, you can also get away
with a much longer hood than you could when shooting with the same lens
on 35mm film.  On the aforementioned 50mm, using the hood Nikon makes
for 50mm lenses is not ideal.  You want a longer hood.  I have two metal
hoods I use for my 50mm lenses -- one of them is the HN-8 hood Nikon
made for the 105/2.5, 135/3.5, and 105/4 manual lenses.  This was the
longest metal hood I could find in 52mm screw-mount.  With the DX
sensor this hood works great with a 50mm lens.  (Which suggests that
it was too short for 105mm in the first place.)

If you really want to save money, try these, they work quite well.....

http://www.lenshoods.co.uk/

Many guys just block on the sun with their hand instead of using a hood
and do so only on occasion even with a digital camera.  Recently, I
bought a 12-24 Dx lens (made for digital -- Nikon, in this case).  The
mfr instructions that came with the lens itself said that for this lens
one should use the included hood at all times, even indoors.  I think
it was just because that the lens was wide, though, not because of that
it was for use with digital.  With a wider lens, you're more likely to
pick up stray light.  So I think the use of a hood here makes sense.
Though, I use a hood for all my shots anyway except for with my 105
f/2.8 D macro, which kinda has a hood built-in just because of how the
lens is designed.  I've used hoods with my film camera, too.  Sometimes
I might not really need them.  But I just use them all the time anyway
to have one less factor to think about when composing a shot.

Kevin

Lens hoods are a simple and practical means to protecting from direct
light getting at the lens which will create flare and lower contrast.
They also give a little more depth protection to the lens against
accidental scratches to the front element (or filter).

Cheers,
Alan

I used to have a lens hood, but in order to utilize my circular
polarizer that had a knob on it required removing the hood because the
filter would not fit with the hood on. Needless to say, someone else has
my lens hood if they picked it up where I left it.

JAB