It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Pistnbroke said:It is certain lens hoods are not required Ken Rockwell said so.
It is certain lens hoods are not required Ken Rockwell said so.
Paperman said:Why would I do a 2 minute exposure when there is enough sunlight to create flares
Why would I do a 2 minute exposure when there is enough sunlight to create flares
Also, if the lens is dropped and lands on the hood, often this is what needs replacing rather than a full refurbishment of the lens. Much less expensive.
I think all Nikkors come with the hood, but alas if one needs to replace this....for a 400mm f/2.8, the hood is.....a bit over USD $600......
The 10.5 doesn't have a removable hood.
The 10-24's hood is so wide (to allow for 10mm FOV) that I really don't think it's doing much either to block stray light or provided any front element protection.
I never use the 16-35. It's my least favorite Nikon lens among all those I own, except for the 55/2.8 macro with stuck blades. I consider it my biggest acquisition mistake.
Has anyone extended their 24-85VR or 16-85VR to 85mm? Maybe my copies of these are somehow defective. MY 24-85 was a refurb, but following Nikon's repair "after-the-fall" it's still not as secure as the hood on my 70-200/4 (which I use - hood and lens).
Being a photographer is a lot like being a Christian: Some people look at you funny but do not see the amazing beauty all around them - heartyfisher.
I keep my 24-70 2.8E's hood on but backwards. This may be due to laziness as every other hood is in its original box in storage. Except it has now grown on me from a purely esthetic perspective. One exception to my hoods being in the box is my 135 DC 2.0, which is inseparable from the lens.
And, oh yes,
( did see one guy do it with slitting saw on a milling machine and someone else with a dremmel )
I also noticed a group of paparazzi ..no lens hoods as the extra space and hitting people with the hood was an issue...