Canon Hoods

[Clonetrooper]

Looking for a bit of general advice on lens hoods. I have a few lenses that don't have hoods and I'm looking to buy some. An EW 73B for my 17-85mm and an Canon ES 62-AD for my 1.8 50mm.

I've done some googling and then looking on the bay and what's the general feeling. Buy canon branded or the cheaper ones made to fit from a sweatshop in china/hongkong?

I know they are made for a specific focal length but whats the recommendation of this forum?

 

[Yardbent]

you pays yer money and yer takes yer choice

 

[andyred]

Hi

The Canon hoods in my opinion are better, but they are dearer so the choice is yours. I bought an aftermarket hood for my daughters 55-250 IS and was very pleased with it, a genuine Canon came along at a price I couldn't resist, when comparing the 2 side by side, there is a difference in quality (not huge though), the Canon one was flock lined compared to a matt internal finish on the aftermarket one - not a major difference granted, the Canon one felt more solid though and was a more positive fit on the lens.

As I said, I was happy with the aftermarket one. If this is the route your going, make sure the inside is a matt finish at least - so you don't get any reflections bouncing inside.

Cheers

 

[Clonetrooper]

Ah thanks for the replies, I kinda thought they would be exactly the same item and not a difference in quality/finish. It seems I wrongly assumed they would just exactly copy the canon shape and finish and bang them out cheaper mass produced in china.

I will source the cheapest originals I can then instead

 

[david1701]

Ah thanks for the replies, I kinda thought they would be exactly the same item and not a difference in quality/finish. It seems I wrongly assumed they would just exactly copy the canon shape and finish and bang them out cheaper mass produced in china.

I will source the cheapest originals I can then instead

exactly the same shape, different materials but I'm ****ed if I'm paying 45 quid for a bit of plastic, 3 quid from china thank you very much, if it breaks I can buy 15 more before it balances out

 

[HoppyUK]

I only use genuine Canon hoods. Black flocking is much more effective.

I've seen some hoods that actually produce more flare than without. That's no use, no matter how cheap.

 

[david1701]

I only use genuine Canon hoods. Black flocking is much more effective.

I've seen some hoods that actually produce more flare than without. That's no use, no matter how cheap.

really :O

well foxy loxy has a 28mm with canon hood and I have one without so next week we will be testing en masse

 

[strobemonkey]

Bayonet hoods like that of the EF17-85 - ebay copies should be ok as there are no joints or moving parts, not like the hood for EF 85 f1.8 .

IMHO its not worth putting a hood on the nifty fifty if protection is what you're after. The hood just adds length to the moving front element which can easily get knocked causing damage. In the case of the dearer 50 f1.4, then IMHO its worth putting on a hood for protection and of course to minimise lens flare.

I've used cheap alternatives on most of my lenses. The only hood I don't feel comfy of is of my EF 85 f1.8.

 

[HoppyUK]

really :O

well foxy loxy has a 28mm with canon hood and I have one without so next week we will be testing en masse

Well yes, if a lens hood is not truly matt black but has a little bit of sheen to it, as plain plastic invariably does, then a lens hood is actually perfectly designed to catch the sun and reflect it straight into the lens.

I don't see why a quality hood needs to cost 30-40 quid though, but they just do. I also don't know how on earth a decent filter can cost up to £100 either* but that's what we tend to pay. I don't buy cheap filters either

* Hoya bought Pentax. How did they manage that then?

 

[bindex]

OEM lens hoods (ie the genuine article) are crazy overpriced. I do buy them in preference to the third party ones because they do tend to be designed for a particular lens, fit better, and be (perhaps) better quality. But that doesn't excuse the extortionate price that they charge.

Don't ever lose the hood from a long Canon prime lens, the price will make your eyes water... you can be talking £100's !

 

[Clonetrooper]

Don't ever lose the hood from a long Canon prime lens, the price will make your eyes water... you can be talking £100's !

Jesus for a bit of plastic made on mass in seconds! I suppose a bit of R&D has been required to get the size and shape correct but still I can't see why they are all not less than a tenner

 

[strobemonkey]

Jesus for a bit of plastic made on mass in seconds! I suppose a bit of R&D has been required to get the size and shape correct but still I can't see why they are all not less than a tenner

Canon don't make money from lenses... they get it from their lens hoods.

 

[odd jim]

Hi

The Canon hoods in my opinion are better, but they are dearer so the choice is yours. I bought an aftermarket hood for my daughters 55-250 IS and was very pleased with it, a genuine Canon came along at a price I couldn't resist, when comparing the 2 side by side, there is a difference in quality (not huge though), the Canon one was flock lined compared to a matt internal finish on the aftermarket one - not a major difference granted, the Canon one felt more solid though and was a more positive fit on the lens.

As I said, I was happy with the aftermarket one. If this is the route your going, make sure the inside is a matt finish at least - so you don't get any reflections bouncing inside.

Cheers

Interesting. I have the official Canon hood for the 55-250 (ET-60) and its not flock lined, just a matt finish ??!

 

[HoppyUK]

You want a really good lens hood, get one of these bellows hoods and extend it so it's an exact match to the focal length - £35 http://www.premier-ink.co.uk/photographic/square-filters/p-type/kood-ptype-bellows-hood-p-1259.html

It's the same as the Lee version (same factory) which is much more expensive. The price of these things is related to what we are prepared to pay and what they can get away with, rather than the production cost.

Another example - the R-Strap. Sixty quid for a flipping camera strap with a hook on the end! Out of a Chinese factory that would cost pence per unit. But it's made in America, comes with loads of fancy packing, a sexy website and marketing campaign, and if you want one that's what they charge. Good luck to them. I bought one, mug that I am Cheaper copies are coming though already though

 

[ChrisH]

The only original Canon one that I have thats flocked is my 100-400L but that came with the lens.

All L lenses come with one free but I have used £2.50 ones from HK.

At worst I've had to mask off the inside and give them a quick spray of Matt black paint from Halfords. Including the spray I've never gone over £6

The one thing I find on the 100-400 one is that the flock holds dust, not a great thing with any lens.

The last one I got was for a 10-22 Efs lens off ebay for £3 and it was identical in every way to the genuine article.

£30 for the genuine article I think not

Interestingly my latest acquisition a £275 Tokina 100mm F2.8 Macro the cheapest lens I've purchased bar a plastic fantastic came with a lens hood free. Maybe the big 2 should learn a thing or two.