[toni-a]

on 24-105 and 17-55 using a polarizer when the hood is on the lens is quite possible, however risk of fingerprints on the polarizer increases.

in your practice do you keep or remove the hood ?

[Brightcolours]

I use pol filters to get more blue sky. For that, I do not shoot into the sun, but at a big enough angle from it. I then shoot without the hood. And then put the lens cap on right away for protection (no hood for extra protection).

 

For my EF-M 22mm f2 I do not even have a hood (but do have a nice pol. filter for it).

[Studor13]

You don't need a hood if the sun (or light source) is NOT hitting the lens at an angle. If the sun is in your frame the hood can't help you.


So, the hood is only useful when stray light enters the lens from the sides.


Personally, I find that an umbrella is the best way stop stray light. This way, you can rotate the CPL any way you like because there is no hood getting in your way. In fact, even when there is a huge amount of sun in your frame you can get around it.


I might put up an example to show you how effective an umbrella is.

[toni-a]

Aside the optical advantage the hood is very protective for the lens IMHO better than a UV without any optical deterioration of the image and that's the main reason I use it for

[Brightcolours]

Protection for falls and bumps yes. So, just don't drop the camera while shooting  with a pol. filter

[toni-a]

You know I learnt a lot from my errors and after breaking three lenses it is time I take my precautions

In Lebanon while hiking, I have very often to go through bushes. The lens cap has a tendency to fall so a hood often keeps the branches from accidentally scratching the front element in case the cap falls down.