Do I need a hood for the Nikon 50mm f/1.8D?

[rogersmj]

Just last night I finally placed my order for the combo I've been lusting after for awhile (Nikon D90 + 50mm f/1.8D ...will be selling my D40 body and keeping the 18-55mm and 55-200mm VR for now). I was thinking about a lens hood. I know this is a pretty popular lens...do you folks feel the need to have one on yours? I don't know how prone this lens is to flaring, but I'm at least considering one for the protection.

There's the rubber Nikon hood that's $23 shipped, or there's these hard plastic ones on eBay for $8. Anyone have any opinions?

 

[NinjaMonkey]

Just last night I finally placed my order for the combo I've been lusting after for awhile (Nikon D90 + 50mm f/1.8D ...will be selling my D40 body and keeping the 18-55mm and 55-200mm VR for now). I was thinking about a lens hood. I know this is a pretty popular lens...do you folks feel the need to have one on yours? I don't know how prone this lens is to flaring, but I'm at least considering one for the protection.

There's the rubber Nikon hood that's $23 shipped, or there's these hard plastic ones on eBay for $8. Anyone have any opinions?

I'm in the same situation. I haven't bought a hood for it because I primarily use this lens indoors.

However, I'm a firm believer in using lens hoods and will probably pick one up for it eventually. It can't hurt...

 

[hogfaninga]

I got the Nikon rubber hood (nicely made--fits perfect--I like to buy Nikon made equipment, just a preference especially when we aren't talking about a lot of money) for my 50mm 1.8 and I feel it is a good thing to have on it for protection. Plus it collapses easily for storage or when you put it in your camera bag. I bought mine for $15 which included shipping from B&H a few months ago. It isn't a necessity though, but I would still recommend it. I also got the Nikon NC filter for it. I know some hate NC filters and some like filters. I don't want another debate on it, but for me personally I like having Nikon NC filters on my lenses. The Nikon filters cost more than most, but the quality of them are excellent.

Seems like they don't offer free shipping on it anymore, but it is still well worth it IMO.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/37614-REG/Nikon_538_HR_2_Lens_Hood.html

 

[Cliff3]

$23 is too much - I'd probably opt for one like this (and I would try to think of other stuff I might need from B&H before I submit the order to save a bit on shipping charges): B&H link

 

[CarlsonCustoms]

I have the Nikon Rubber hood on mine and am glad I have it .. I got mine from BH too but didnt realize the shipping cost becuase I ordered it with alot more stuff

Zack

 

[gnd]

I'm in the same situation. I haven't bought a hood for it because I primarily use this lens indoors.

However, I'm a firm believer in using lens hoods and will probably pick one up for it eventually. It can't hurt...

A hood is very useful indoors, too, as there are always sources of light even indoors.
If nothing else, it protects the lens from head-on collision.

 

[ChrisA]

Any lens hood that will fit is good. It's only purposeis to (1) cast a shadow over the front glass lens elements to increase contrast and (2) Protect the front end of the lens from bumps.

You can buy third party rubber shads for about $5 anyplay they sell camerass. Rubber is good because it folds flat for storage. Hard plastic or metal is good for the #2 function above.

If you don't have a lens shade you can make do with your hand or a hat, anything that will cast a shadow and keep direct sunlight off the front lens element

 

[MacJenn]

I would just buy the Nikon one. It isn't that much more.

 

[drlunanerd]

I wouldn't bother on the 50mm f/1.8D. The front element is very recessed to start with, plus it's dirt cheap, so I don't see the point.

 

[hogfaninga]

I wouldn't bother on the 50mm f/1.8D. The front element is very recessed to start with, plus it's dirt cheap, so I don't see the point.

I have used it with both a hood/filter and without. I can certainly see the point in having it for the reasons stated above. It doesn't matter how much the lens costs. I'm glad I have it.

 

[MacJenn]

I wouldn't bother on the 50mm f/1.8D. The front element is very recessed to start with, plus it's dirt cheap, so I don't see the point.

It isn't recessed that much at all. I'm looking at mine right now. That is absurd. We are talking about $15. Like Hog said, it doesn't matter how much a lens costs. It is a great lens and I like having a hood on mine. It is more than just protection.

 

[drlunanerd]

It isn't recessed that much at all. I'm looking at mine right now. That is absurd.

Er, are you talking about the same lens? Look at this lens and tell me again that I'm being absurd when I say the front element is recessed:

I have no problem with using a hood on it, I just don't think it's necessary on this lens. But by all means use a rubber and be happy

 

[Mr.Noisy]

Er, are you talking about the same lens? Look at this lens and tell me again that I'm being absurd when I say the front element is recessed

^^ Completely right, there is no point/need using a hood, I have used a CP filter on mine, but for protection it's that recessed the glass is safe, I dropped one of mine on a D2x out a car in a carpark, landed lens down and the glass was ok, plastic was scratched/scuffed but still works ok ,I use it on a D300 & D2X without a hood and have no problems, as mentioned its just a personal thing if you want to buy the hood, Me i Prefer not to use it with a hood
Now the 50mm f1.4 isn't recessed as far back as the glass in the 50mm f1.8 , for the f1.4 it may be worth using a hood......

 

[leighonigar]

I can easily imagine that a hood could stop the sun hitting the front element, with certain angles it could be out of the shot but still blasting in. A hood is cheap, always nice to have. I probably wouldn't use one myself, but my photos don't matter and I tend to use my hand anyhow (undoubtedly meaning I shake the camera more)!

 

[stcanard]

I agree with drlunanerd / Mr.Noisy -- the element on this lens is significantly enough recessed that I don't feel the need for a lens hood.

I've never had trouble shooting with bright lights around; certainly nothing like I would see on my 18-70 or 55-200 without a hood on.

 

[Digital Skunk]

I agree with drlunanerd / Mr.Noisy -- the element on this lens is significantly enough recessed that I don't feel the need for a lens hood.

I've never had trouble shooting with bright lights around; certainly nothing like I would see on my 18-70 or 55-200 without a hood on.

I agree with the photogs that don't use the hood.

On the 50 mm it's not necessary, and I would imagine useless outside of stray light.

The standard zooms, wide angle zooms, tele zooms, etc. would be and have proven to need a hood now and then.

 

[rogersmj]

Thanks everyone. I think I'll hold off on the hood for now and see how it goes. Compactness is important to me so if I can go without it I think I will.