Canon dedicated lens hoods vs. cheap rubber hoods

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Canon EOS FAQ forum : One Thread

I have an EOS30 plus the following lenses:-

EF 28-105 USM EF 50 MK 2 EF 24 EF 50 Macro and I'm going to get the EF 100-300USM.

Is it worth getting the dedicated Canon lens hoods for these lenses, or are cheap rubber ones as good? The Canon hoods are about £17 here in the UK, so I would only want to buy the ones really necessary, ie. to put on the lenses prone to bad flare. I don't think the macro would need one because the lens is recessed quite a way in. Am I correct on this?

Any answers much appriciated.

Sarah

-- Sarah Needham (sarah.needham1@orange.net), May 06, 2002

Answers

I used Hama and some other brands rubber shades and they worked fine. I do recommend you use them always! Since the frontlens of the macrolens is much recessed I do not think that a shade is realy necessary here but for the other lenses, always use a sunshade.

-- Frank (frank_bunnik@hotmail.com), May 06, 2002.

Dedicated hoods aren't going to vignette - that's basically a guarantee. They also attach (with the exception of the horrible 50mm 1.8 II hood) to dedicated hood mounting points - usually either a bayonet plastic twist-on mount or side clips. However, they usually aren't interchangeable. eg: the 28-105 hood won't fit your 100-300 USM. And as you note they're damn expensive.

Rubber hoods mean you run the risk of vignetting if the hood isn't precisely the right size. Since your EOS 30 doesn't have 100% viewfinder coverage you're going to have to shoot a roll of film to test. And most of them fit onto the filter threads, which is a nuisance - slow to attach. However, they're cheap!

-- NK Guy (tela@tela.bc.ca), May 06, 2002.


I'm not a fan of rubber lens hoods. The first thing I don't like is that they are rubber. The second thing is they are screw-in styles which can interfere with filters and can vignette on wide angles. Did I mention, they're rubber?

I have all the lenses mentioned except the Macro. I have Canon hoods on all of them except the 50/1.8 II. Canon's dinky hood for this lens is ridiculous and too expensive. I use that lens without a hood. The Canon lenses are well matched to the lens and do not interfere with the adding/removal of filters and you can adjust polarizers without removing the hoods. I feel they are well worth it, except for the previously mentioned 50/1.8 II hood.

Oh, yeah. The rubber hoods are rubber and kind of goofy looking.

-- Lee (Leemarthakiri@sport.rr.com), May 06, 2002.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ