Lens hoods vs. skittish animals

[bcgFollower]

Hi,

to me it seems many shy animals (incl. many birds) are less afraid if you leave the lens hood away, especially on larger super telephoto ones (400 2.8 in my case). And ideally use some cloth over the lens to make it look less barrel-shaped from the side.
I tested how it looks using myself: looking into a tube with a big "pupil" glass inside indeed looks more scary (raptor-like) than an "open" pupil without the tube around (herbivore style).
Of course be careful if stray light hits your lens if it cannot handle it, and the hood also provides a lot of protection for the front glass..

What are your experiences in this regard? Here in Europe such "bushcrafting" techniques are essential to get anything reasonable close in nature (i.e. not parks or the like).

 

[EricBowles]

I use a cloth over the lens at times, but leave the hood in place. As you point out, it does provide protection and the cloth is just breaking up the silhouette.

 

[Charles Loy]

I suggest the hood reduces reflections and glare the critters may see if hood removed. I'm a hood guy, always

 

[Doomrider74]

I'd argue if the critter can see the hood and is spooked by it, they'll also be spooked by the rest of the lens without the hood. I'd assume you are a bigger problem than your lens hood and adjust your field technique accordingly.

 

[MrFotoFool]

It would be difficult to prove or disprove this theory, but my instinct is that a hood would not have a negative impact.

 

[Len Shepherd]

In my SLR times I found butterflies could be spooked by the movement of the rising mirror.

It might be in some light conditions that light reflecting from a large front element of a super telephotos draws the attention of wildlife more than a small front element.

 

[fcotterill]

I agree glare/flash off the big front element is probably more of a threat. I have camou' neoprene on all my telephotos, which is more for padded protection of the lens. If the outline is a threat, it's more likely the human is the bigger threat to shy animals. This is where breaking up the outline with ghillie suit style "shaggy" material usually works - respecting prevailing wind and shade, mobility, profile etc.....summarized in military manuals etc as :
Shape
Shine
Shadow
Silhouette/Skyline
Slow and Stationery
Smell
Sound
Spacing

 

[Warren D]

I traded a few e-mails with Steve about the subject of large glass scaring subjects. My experience is mostly with osprey so YMMV. I do think that the large lenses present to animals as a threat as I think they perceive them as a large eye. The larger the eye, the larger the predator. I've shot the 600e for 5 years and did notice that the osprey seemed "concerned". As a result of Steve's findings of hood-induced atmospherics, I would often reverse the hood under some conditions. I did notice a slight change in behavior but not enough to call it significant. As the individual subjects were not the same, too hard to draw a conclusion.
I do know osprey (and most raptors) have excellent eyesight. I would not be surprized if the large lenses allow them to see back thru to my eye, with magnification. I tried some tests but as I can't replicate how an osprey sees, they were inconclusive. I did notice a reduction in their level of concern when I switched to the Z9 last year. With mirrorless, there is no optical path, all they would see is the sensor.
So, yes, I think large glass can create concern and that seems more prevalent with dslr (as opposed to mirrorless). Does the hood matter? Maybe, as they are larger than the front element and without a hood, the front of the lens may reflect more light making it harder for them to see through. In the case of osprey, they seem very well adapted to see through reflections.

 

[Garfield]

In my experience it's not the size of the lens or even me -- it's the movement that scares animals.

 

[bcgFollower]

Thanks for so many replies on this topic!
I agree, its the lens movement that makes the biggest difference. This is especially the case when you follow the animal by aiming your lens. For example, following European goldcrests with the lens made a noticeable difference to me. Or adjusting the composition for a kingfisher in close proximity (they are pretty shy where I photograph them, its not like in Afrika! ;-) ). I guess one problem is the perfectly round shape that totally sticks out in nature. Now with a lens hood, every tiny movement is noticeable as the "outer/front rim" of the hood moves visibly w.r.t. to the lens front element boundary. And these inner and outer "circles" align precisely if you aim exactly at the subject, if that makes sense..
And yes I'm mostly in a Ghillie suit anyways and in front of a tree/bush, so I factored out my own movement as good as I could..