I am considering an ef 85mm f/1.8 but I have heard that the snap on hood is annoying. Could someone explain why it is sometimes considered annoying!

-- marc (pookeybookey@aol.com), March 01, 2002

Answers

I only find it annoying if I forget to bring it. Also, being somewhat of a cheapskate, I bought only one ET-65 II. However, it fits my EF 50 1.8 (MK I), EF 85 1.8 USM, EF 135 2.8 SF and EF 70-210 3.5-4.5 USM (it fits 2 more lenses too, but I don't own those). Thus, I often leave it mounted on one one lens/body combo while using another lens/body and that needs it too! Extremely annoying to switch it back and forth.

It mounts quickly and easily. If you drop the lens it absorbs impact and pops off thereby avoiding tearing out filter threads like screw in hoods do.

-- Puppy Face (doggieface@aol.com), March 01, 2002.

it's annoying because it feels like it could break off very easily from the lens. and for an item that's surprisingly expensive, that's not a nice thought to have. i prefer screw-ins (not filter-thread screw-ins). they're far more solid, and i'd trust them much more to save my lens.

flimsy, that's all. a *tiny* piece of plastic connects it to the lens.

-- m. lohninger (anavrin@mac.com), March 02, 2002.

Actually, to be a bit contrarian, I prefer hoods that can be knocked off moderately easily. Not extremely easily - just that I'd prefer the hood pop off in the event of a minor blow. If the hood stays in place then more of the impact is transmitted to the lens barrel itself.

Of course, lens hoods which fall off when you look at them are kind of annoying. I think part of the criticism of the clip-on Canon hoods is that they are a bit fussy to install.

-- NK Guy (tela@tela.bc.ca), March 02, 2002.

This is the first I've ever heard that anyone considers the 85/1.8 hood being "annoying". I always use the 85/1.8 with its hood and have never had it come off accidently, even with constant entry/exit from the camera bag. I actually find the hood for the 28-135 IS very annoying because it is the tulip-shaped type, which means that its "petals" catch on the sides of your camera bag when you put it in the bag, and you can't stand it hood-down like non-tulip-shaped rigid hoods such at the 85/1.8 hood.

-- Peter Phan (PPHAN01@HOTMAIL.COM), March 02, 2002.

>I actually find the hood for the 28-135 IS very annoying because it is the tulip-shaped type...

Indeed. I've wrecked a couple of photos because the "perfect" (petal shaped) hood on my 28-105 was not correctly aligned. The result was two dark triangles on the photo - one in either corner. And since my cameras do not have 100% viewfinder coverage I couldn't see the light obstruction in the viewfinder. Argh.

-- NK Guy (tela@tela.bc.ca), March 02, 2002.