![]() |
|
|
#2 |
|
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: South Pole with Penguins
Posts: 5,131
|
yes, it occupies so much more space in my backpack with the hood on
![]() i believe the hood should reduce the amount of flare, never really test out the different cos i just leave the hood on |
|
|
|
|
#3 |
|
Moderator
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: New York City
Posts: 13,397
|
Dun have the 17-40 but generally it's advisable to use hoods with wide-angle lenses to reduce glare.
The hood for the 100mm macro usm is also very big and took up so much space ![]() |
|
|
| Sponsored Link |
|
|
#4 | |
|
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 3,556
|
__________________
flickr |
|
|
|
|
|
#7 | |
|
Deregistered
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Singapore
Posts: 6,674
|
![]() the lens hoods, if you have it for the wide angle lens, will really um... shine when you try them in darkness - you can see from my shots below: ![]() Shot 1: ISO100, 5 sec, f/3.5 ![]() Shot 2: ISO100, 15 sec, f/5.6, hand shielding as "hood" ![]() Shot 3: ISO100, 15 sec, f/8, hand shielding + smaller aperture As you can see, the first picture really "kenna" from no hood, and I shot it at 24mm wide. Remembering this was shot using DSLR 1.6x crop ==> 36mm FOV, imagine how bad it could have been if it was on a full 24mm FOV! Hence I would highly suggest using a hood in such a situation... Looking at the 2nd and 3rd shot, though there was some "improvement", but you can still easily see the flare of the streetlamp near the top of the image. But see how much hand shielding helped compared to the first pic... Last edited by sehsuan; 27th December 2003 at 12:28 AM. |
|
|
|
![]() |
| Bookmarks |
| Thread Tools | |
|