I personally do not.

I guess I would If I were shooting racing, the jackass crew or a bb gun fight.
Otherwise I wouldn't.

i do on my kit lens, that's it though.

I shoot nude 100% of the time now.

I used to shoot with one around salt water but don't even bother with that now. I use hoods 100% of the time, they're even on most of my lenses when in the bag... I avoid getting anything on my front element as best I can, but why add another piece of glass to the equation if you don't have to? No one has ever conclusively proven the drop theory so until they do no way. Plus I feel if you were to drop a lens the hood would be better for protecting it anyway...

I have CPs on my lenses all the time unless I'm shooting after dark.

I have a couple but they are not on my lenses.

Originally Posted by tardypizza

I have CPs on my lenses all the time unless I'm shooting after dark.

that's silly


I keep a good UV on a couple lenses but I don't stack filters. I go in and out of using them, but sometime I like having the protection.

I don't even own any UV filters. So, no.

Originally Posted by Stime187

I don't even own any UV filters. So, no.

me too.

I use my lens hood.

Originally Posted by dansaa

I use my lens hood.

I rarely use those too.

I'm destined for disaster.

No lens hood? WTF!?

Originally Posted by emorphien

No lens hood? WTF!?

Wow, overreact much?

Yeah, I rarely use lens hoods. My camera still takes pictures.

Ha ha! Don't feel bad. I only started using the lens hood after knocking my lens into cars at work.

No, giving you a hard time, again. You need to get your seriousimeter checked.

Hoods are never a bad thing, I have and use them on every lens. Not only are they bumpers that can protect the lens, but they block stray light. Never a bad thing I say! You can get photos with plain, uncoated plate glass on the front of your lens, doesn't mean it's something I'd do.

Originally Posted by dansaa

Ha ha! Don't feel bad. I only started using the lens hood after knocking my lens into cars at work.

I don't feel bad in the slightest. I rarely need them and don't plan on using them on a regular basis anytime soon.

Originally Posted by emorphien

No, giving you a hard time, again. You need to get your seriousimeter checked.

Maybe drop an emoticon someday, it wouldn't kill you.

Hoods are never a bad thing, I have and use them on every lens. Not only are they bumpers that can protect the lens, but they block stray light. Never a bad thing I say! You can get photos with plain, uncoated plate glass on the front of your lens, doesn't mean it's something I'd do.

I know the use of lens hoods, but let's think about what I do.

90% of the time I'm either:

• Using grad. NDs where there's no way to attach a hood
• Using a circ. polarizer and the hood is just a pain to work around
• Using a 10-stop ND filter so I have to take it on and off all the time

Also, my main lens is the 17-40 L and the lens hood for it is an absolute joke.

I would think by now you've noticed that if I type something like that, I'm not being serious!

If you're using grad NDs of course it goes to hell, I still carry them on me and use them when I'm not doing the 4x6 filters.

I also use them with polarizers, polarizers can catch some nasty flare, all filters can. Same thing goes with the 9 stop ND filter.

The 17-40 hood helps some but agreed it doesn't provide nearly as much coverage as it should.

Originally Posted by Stime187

Also, my main lens is the 17-40 L and the lens hood for it is an absolute joke.

that's why you need to make one that doesn't suck...
the 24L hood when filed down works much better and fits tighter.

But yeah, with all your filter use I can see not using them.

Originally Posted by Stime187

Wow, overreact much?

Yeah, I rarely use lens hoods. My camera still takes pictures.

I rarely us my hood as well and I have yet to have any flare issues as well. I just got out fo the habit of using it a long time ago.

Originally Posted by jacobsen1

avoid getting anything on my front element as best I can, but why add another piece of glass to the equation if you don't have to?

My point exactly, Ben. I paid a lot of money for a pro series sharp pice of glass, why would i stick a "clear" filter on the end of it?

Originally Posted by jacobsen1

that's why you need to make one that doesn't suck...
the 24L hood when filed down works much better and fits tighter.

But yeah, with all your filter use I can see not using them.

I've considered making one since you posted about it but I'd never use it. I don't even carry my hoods in my bag. The only lens I have that regularly sees a hood is my 100mm macro, but I don't use it much anyways.

Originally Posted by thomps6s

I rarely us my hood as well and I have yet to have any flare issues as well. I just got out fo the habit of using it a long time ago.

Same here. I just don't worry about technical stuff like that.

Originally Posted by Stime187

I know the use of lens hoods, but let's think about what I do.

90% of the time I'm either:

• Using grad. NDs where there's no way to attach a hood
• Using a circ. polarizer and the hood is just a pain to work around

You just reminded me of why I don't use them anymore. Using a CPL and a hood is almost impossible. Even if you remove the little window tab thing on the hood.

Originally Posted by thomps6s

[/LIST]You just reminded me of why I don't use them anymore. Using a CPL and a hood is almost impossible. Even if you remove the little window tab thing on the hood.

I just reach my finger in around it to adjust it, but still, there's no point.

Originally Posted by tardypizza

I have CPs on my lenses all the time unless I'm shooting after dark.

Originally Posted by emorphien

that's silly

Why?

At work I have to control reflections in 99% of everything I shoot. When I'm not shooting at work I'm shooting outside, and I like my skies to be deep blue. And then there is the very real protection they provide while doing my riding shots.

Originally Posted by ride5000

i gotta get a snapshot of my old 35-135.

big old honkin dent in the uv filter ring.

Right, but if you'd dropped it with a hood what would have happened? I'm not saying filters don't work per say, just that it's never been proven... Would the lens have been fine w/o the filter? Would the hood have saved it also? Who knows. I'd love to see mythbusters prove it.

I like to think the best protection is not dropping it.
*knocks wood*

Originally Posted by jacobsen1

I'd love to see mythbusters prove it.

Those guys can't prove anything scientifically.

Their theories are the worst kind of popular tripe, their methods are sloppy, and their conclusions are highly questionable! They are poor scientists.

Originally Posted by tardypizza

Those guys can't prove anything scientifically.

Their theories are the worst kind of popular tripe, their methods are sloppy, and their conclusions are highly questionable! They are poor scientists.

agreed.

but someone needs to do it and they're the most likely option with the money to try it... Plus this would be one test that I'd imagine to be hard to **** up...

Originally Posted by jacobsen1

Right, but if you'd dropped it with a hood what would have happened? I'm not saying filters don't work per say, just that it's never been proven... Would the lens have been fine w/o the filter? Would the hood have saved it also? Who knows. I'd love to see mythbusters prove it.

I like to think the best protection is not dropping it.
*knocks wood*

A hood is better drop protection than a filter IMO. Filters are good for other crap. If it's snowing, raining, dusty or whatever I like having a multicoated UV filter.

I don't use UV filters anymore, I used to but since I've gotten my new lenses I haven't bothered buying them for the right sizes.