50mm 1.8 Lens hood.

Hello, as we all know the canon lens hood for the 50 1.8 is

expensive, yet the 52mm aftermarket hoods are kinds small and

whimpish looking. Here I have added a 52 - 67 step up and used a

67mm screw on hood in metal, I think it looks better, and it

balances out the look of the bulkier grip and flash...<div></div>

Nice, but w/the larger diameter, it's even less effective for those w/the 1.6 crop.

Last time I checked hoods were designed to block stray light, not balance the look of a camera.

<p>The 50/1.8's front element is already quite well recessed, so the front of the lens barrel itself forms a small lens hood. Adding any other hood to this can only help. It may not be quite as good as the Genuine Canon hood at blocking stray light, but it's probably reasonably effective.</p>

 

<p>It should also be effective at keeping puppy faces and kiddie fingers away from the lens' front element, about as much as the Genuine Canon hood would be. It may not be quite as good if the lens is dropped; the Genuine Canon hood is plastic, which may shatter if dropped, thereby dissipating much of the force of impact, while the metal hood and metal step-up ring can be expected to transmit almost all of the force to the lens itself.</p>

 

<p>As for the looks ... that really ought not to be a secondary consideration. Then again, several years ago, someone asked me if I was a pro. At the time, I was shooting with my Elan II, 380EX, and 100-300/4.5-5.6 USM with the lens hood attached. I'm guessing it was the lens hood more than anything which triggered that question. So your rig, completely with bulky grip and flash and high-class metal hood, may well prompt people to ask you if you're a pro :-)</p>

<p>D'OH! Oughta proofreed a bit better. The looks <em>ought</em> to be a secondary consideration, not "ought not to be" a secondary consideration.</p>

 

<i>(takes another sip from glass of wine and goes off to post dumb things in other threads)</i>

" I think it looks better, and it balances out the look of the bulkier grip and flash..."

 

Yeah, kinda looks like a lens with miniskirt.

 

Hmm, a stepup ring and metal hood will cost

nearly the same as the original hood. The ES-65 III is the correct hood for the EF 50 1.8

(original), but the ET-65 II or III (for EF 70-210 USM, 100-300 USM, etc.) fit without

vignetting and the EW-65 II or III (for EF 28 2.8 & 35 2.0) also fits.

 

Of course if he is referring to the EF 50 1.8 MK II, none of the above fits.

yes, it's the cheap MKII.

BH has the ES-62 Lens Hood with HD Adapter 62Lens Hood for 24 bucks, the step up I used was 7 bucks and the hood was 13 bringing to total to 20 bucks, that's only because I happen to have a spare 67mm hood I wasnt using, the rubber hoods are 5 bucks.

Rubber hoods are great! Collapsible but still substantial looking enough when unfolded to give that "big lens" look! ^_^ And yes, $5! I have to agree, the look isn't that important... but your kit looks nice there! :) Can I have it? PLEASE!? I'm a poor university student with tuitions to pay and I can't afford it! =p

I have never used mine with the hood. It has a built-in hood (deeply recessed front

element).

 

Then again, the look of a camera is perhaps more important than anything else,

photographically speaking! ;->

<p>Rubber hoods look so pu$$y.</p>

 

<p>(Yeah, I had one for my 50/1.8 on my old manual-focus camera. Darn if the thing didn't work.)</p>

 

<p>More seriously, rubber hoods can do a fine job of keeping out stray light, which is the most important job of a lens hood. On job #2, which is keeping the lens safe from physical dangers, rubber hoods do pretty much squat.</p>

Considerable stepup (like 52-67) actually makes the lens more prone to damage. The exposed edge of the steup ring acts as a catch-all if hit or even pushed or rested against a body/object.

"Nice, but w/the larger diameter, it's even less effective for those w/the 1.6 crop."

 

Not necessarily true. The standard hood is not very deep. A deeper hood will keep light off the front element in some situations that a narrower but shallow hood would fail with. Try making a diagram if you're not convinced.

Can I have one made of tungsten? Weight distribution is what bothers me the most whenever I'm using my EOS 3 with EF 50/1.8 II and a flash.

Danny,

Thanks for posting this. Sharing is also what the board is about. On the positive I suppose that with a polorizer, you could just turn the hood and not have to reach into the hood to adjust. I end up avoiding step-ups to save on filter costs because the hoods wouldn't fit with the step-ups.