Lens hood for 17-40

[Pick]

I have just aquired a used Canon 17-40, but it came without a lens hood.Is there an alternative one that I should try or just get the original (seems big).Will be used on a 1dmkiii.

 

[James Thomas 75]

I have just aquired a used Canon 17-40, but it came without a lens hood.Is there an alternative one that I should try or just get the original (seems big).Will be used on a 1dmkiii.

Never tried an alternative on mine,but a friend tried one from ebay on his 10-22 (same hood) and never really got on with it.

The one you're after is the EW-83E.

 

[DemiLion]

The 17-40 is a bit of a pain in the bum when it comes to hoods. There isn't really a dedicated one for it and you have to mix and match a bit.

The 83E (above) is designed for full frame cameras, but it isn't a great fit and being so shallow does the square root of FA really as it's designed for the 10-22mm. The 83J is made for the 17-55mm and therefore works better with APS-C sensors, but I've found that it's fine on an APS-H with no vignetting, fits better and isn't as bulky (wide) for carrying around.

There's a decent run down of the alternatives here:

http://www.pbase.com/dbdors/ew83dii_hood

 

[HoppyUK]

The hood from the 24-105L might be a good match for that lens on a 1D3, EW-83H. It might vignette a smidge, but might not. It's designed to clear 24mm on full frame, and 17 x 1.3 = 22.1, so it's going to be close, but worth a try I think. They tend to be a fraction generous I find.

If not, two minutes with a file on the short sides will fix it. Advantage of that hood over the one that comes with the 17-40L is that the front edges are flattened off, so you can stand the lens down without it falling over

 

[DemiLion]

That's a good point Richard. It's half way between the E and the J and fits quite snugly (I've just tried it).

As he's using a MkIII vignetting shouldn't be an issue, because the J version is fine.