In article <3238B087.2BE1@mail.idt.net>, cleeds@mail.idt.net says...
>Bob Neuman wrote:

>> Most (but not all....) lenses can benefit from using a properly
>> fitted lens hood...

> I've yet to encounter any lens for any camera in any format that
>did not - at least under certain conditions - benefit from a lens hood.
>Indeed, the lens hood is one of photography's least used and least
>appreciated yet most useful accessories.
> Can you name a specific lens which does NOT benefit from a good
>lens hood?

If you are going to be technical about it, a 3 foot deep hood (of the
proper shape to avoid vignette, but maximize shading), may be said
to theoretically benefit virtually any lens. BUT, in practice, many
lenses illuminate little more than the 35mm frame, are low in internal
reflections, and are used on cameras with good baffling or with good
non-reflective internal surface coatings (most Nikons...), or are
impractical to shade very well (super-wides and some zooms), or are
well-shaded as is (55-60mm Micro-Nikkors used without filters), or
are functionally impaired with a shade (PC lenses near the extremes
of shift, super-wides with thick-rimmed filters attached, or the
55-60mm Micro-Nikkors near closest focus [where a shade could enclose
the subject]). I believe in using shades, where practical and effective,
but there are many instances where there use is not appropriate, or
necessary. I tend to use a UV-filter-and-shade combination in lieu
of front caps, but some lenses get just the filter and a cap (and,
maybe just a cap, when a filter is inappropriate.....).
Hope This Helps