Lens Hood on 300MM F2.8?

Messages
331
Edit My Images
Yes
#1
I've been offered a very good price on a Nikon AF-S 300mm F2.8 lens.

Only thing is, it doesn't come with a lens hood and a replacment is £220!

How important is the lens hood on this lens (it looks like it might actually be of use, rather than the tiny 'flower' ones on a lot of the lower-end Nikkors)?

To give an idea of the lens hood, for those not familiar with the lens, here's a pic I found showing the 300mm F2.8 (on the left) compared to the 70-200mm VR (on the right). The beast in the middle is the 200-400mm VR!



Any advice welcomed.

Thanks
Chez
 

Steep

Nutcrack Rapids
Messages
15,894
Name
Hugh
Edit My Images
Yes
#2
If you really needed one I'm sure you could make one in 10 minutes or so, it's only a plastic tube after all.
 

CT

TPer Emeritus
Messages
28,411
Edit My Images
Yes
#3
How important a lens hood is depends a lot on how far the front element of the lens is recessed back from the front of the lens body - if at all. If it recesses, then it gives some protection from scattered light and flare which can spoil the definition in your shots. Remember that if you fit a filter on the front of your lens you're putting a large flat surface just where it's going to catch any flare. Once you start shooting directly into the light then it's pretty academic whether you use a lens hood ot not.

Just digressing a little, but we don't always appreciate just how far modern lenses have come with the multicoatings which are applied to them, They're not just there to look pretty. A lens consists of several elements in groups usually, and all that glass, with all those separate surfaces induces refraction, flare and severely reduces the ability of light to pass through it. Modern multi coatings largely reduce this problem. I'm fairly sure that incredible as it sounds, a modern coated lens will pass in excess of 80% more light than an uncoated one. Modern lenses are far better able to cope with flare than they once were. :wink:

A lens hood is still advisable. Think of it as being similar to shading your eyes with your hands when you look into the distance on sunny bright days. 200 quid seems a lot for a lens hood, but I suppose that price has to be viewed against the original cost of the lens and what you're saving buyng it now. :wink:

I think I'd baulk at 200 quid when as Steep says it wouldn't be difficult to make something to do the job.
 

CT

TPer Emeritus
Messages
28,411
Edit My Images
Yes
#4
The tulip shaped lens hoods btw are nothing to with lens price. They're designed that way to avoid vignetting (cutting off the corners of your images) while still protecting from scattered light. They're often referred to as 'perfect' in that they're designed with the vignette problem in mind which is sometimes an issue with zooms at the shorter end covering a wider field of view than the norm
 
OP
OP
C
Messages
331
Edit My Images
Yes
#5
Thanks for the advice:)

CT said:
The tulip shaped lens hoods btw are nothing to with lens price. They're designed that way to avoid vignetting (cutting off the corners of your images) while still protecting from scattered light. They're often referred to as 'perfect' in that they're designed with the vignette problem in mind which is sometimes an issue with zooms at the shorter end covering a wider field of view than the norm
I know, but it does seem that the hoods that came with a lot of my cheaper lenses are hardly worth bothering with, being only a cm or two deep! (that said, the shallowest is the one that came with the 12-24mm F4, which was far from cheap!).

The 70-200mm VR, on the other hand, has a lens hood of considerable size (although even that is dwarfed by the one on the 300mm F2.8!)

I may look out for a second hand one on ebay or something, you never know!
 

CT

TPer Emeritus
Messages
28,411
Edit My Images
Yes
#6
Ebay is always worth a try!

Remember you have to cart this lot around when you've finished collecting it :LOL: The lens hood on the Canon 100-400L is the size of a plant pot.'It's' designed to reverse and store on the lens, but that makes it too wide to fit in it's spot in my bag, and I haven't actually figured out a way to fit the hood in the bag yet.
 

Steep

Nutcrack Rapids
Messages
15,894
Name
Hugh
Edit My Images
Yes
#7
chez a wide angle lens must have a shallow hood or the hood will vignette, the longer the focal length the deeper the hood can be. Have a look around for the Hoya rubber lens hood if it still exists, it is designed to be folded out or back depending on the lens in use.


/edit ignore that, no way it would fit that lens...
 
Messages
806
Edit My Images
No
#8
The lens hoods on bigger lenses are metal which explains the higher cost.

CT said:
Ebay is always worth a try!
and I haven't actually figured out a way to fit the hood in the bag yet.
Buy a bigger bag :)
 

CT

TPer Emeritus
Messages
28,411
Edit My Images
Yes
#10
SDK^ said:
Buy a bigger bag :)
:LOL: That's the last thing I want to do. It's a big bag already - a Tamrac. I've had 2 complete 35mm camera outfits and a medium format Mamiya in there in the past.
 
OP
OP
C
Messages
331
Edit My Images
Yes
#11
Steep said:
Have a look around for the Hoya rubber lens hood if it still exists, it is designed to be folded out or back depending on the lens in use.


/edit ignore that, no way it would fit that lens...
That one may not fit, but is it not possible that someone will make a third-party hood for it, which is cheaper??
 
Top