Alternative lens hoods

<p> I know, I know. It was debated quite a bit so it must be my poor

searching skills but all I could find is an alternative lens hood for

the 17-40/4 :-(</p>

<p> <ul> <li>I think about buying the 28/1.8 USM and 50/1.4 USM. They

will be used with a 1.6X body (probably 350D). Which are the deepest

hoods that can be used with them? I have the ET-65 III on my 85/1.8.

Can it be used with any? </li> </ul> </p>

<p> <ul> <li>I also have the 50/1.8 Mk II (alas - without any hood).

Is there a recommended alternative lens hood for it? </li> </ul> </p>

<p> <ul> <li>A bit bizarre perhaps but what the hell, my father

always said: If you won't ask, you will never know.... :-) I also

think about the 10-22 USM. Has anyone tried it with a different (i.e.

deeper) hood and had any success? If it only vignette on 10-12mm wide

open then it is fine by me. </li> </ul> </p>

<p> If anyone wonders, I don't intend to keep both 50mm. I'll use

both and then sell one. If the 50/1.4 USM can use the ET-65 III then

it will almost surely be the one to stay.</p>

<p> And another (though unrelated) question but it always intrigued

me: Everyone says that the optical formula of the 50/1.8 Mk I and

50/1.8 Mk II is the same. If that is so, how can they have different

filter threads?</p>

<p>TIA.</p>

 

<p>Happy shooting, <br>

Yakim.</p>

Yakim,

 

I've experimented a little with hoods for my 17-40L and 10-22 on a 1.6x APS-C sensor. The

EW-63DII hood for the 24L is fine for the 17-40 and vignettes a hair on the 10-22. The

EW-63H hood for the 24-105L IS is fine for the 17-40 and vignettes a touch less than the

63DII hood. YMMV of course. The 10-22 recommended hood is horrible and these other

two options are much smaller, yet have better coverage. They won't work with a FF sensor

though. Apparently, the 63DII hood on a 17-40 will work on a 1.3x sensor as well, but I have

not tried it on my 1D yet. Hope this helps.

The full frame hood for a 24/1.4L is the EW-83DII (not 63 as mentioned by Andrew). It works well with the 17-40/4L on a x1.6 CF body like the 20D or 350D.

You could try a Lee bellows hood.

1. I am only interested in Canon hoods.

 

2. FF vignetting is not relevant on any lens.

 

3. Vignetting on the widest apertures of the widest focal lengths of the 10-22 USM is not relevant. I do not expect to shoot a lot below 15mm and when I do, it will not be wide open but at f/8-11. At the 15-22mm range however, shooting wide open will definitely occur at times so any vignetting there is not tolerable.

 

4. Vignetting on any aperture in the primes is not tolerable.

 

>> these other two options are much smaller, yet have better coverage

 

 

I must admit this sounds like an oxymoron. Could you please explain?

 

 

Happy shooting,

Yakim.

Yakim, I am afraid you are out of luck with the 50/1.4; it is the only Canon lens with a 71mm hood fitting. The ET-65(-,II,III) is a clip-on hood and works on the 50/1.8 (original) in place of the ES-65. The ET-67 (standard for the 100/2.8USM) fits the 60/2.8 in place of the ET-67B, but you'd have to be in real trouble to need it! Apart from that, I think most of the options arise from the use of different 83mm hoods, and many of these are mentioned above. The new EW-83H (for the 24~105) is almost identical to the EW-83DII but fits more cleanly and is less likely to bind onto the flange on the lens, so it may become the preferred choice for using the 17~40 on APS-C format. What I am looking for is a hood (better than the EW-83H) for using the 24~105 on my 20D. Must investigate the hood for the 28~300; anybody tried that?

 

I don't see why you should find any inconsistency between the same optical formula but different filter sizes. Why not, provided they are both above the minimum size to avoid occlusion?

The ET-65 III hood of my 85/1.8 doesn't fit on my 50/1.4. It is of similar (or same?) size, but the hood mount on the lens is different. I don't have a Canon hood for the 50/1.4, only a 3rd party rubber hood, so I can't say exactly how the two Canon hoods differ. All I can say is that the ET-65 III doesn't fit.

 

> I think about buying the 28/1.8 USM

 

Finally convinced? ;-)

 

BTW, got a 350D today. Nice little thing. And much faster than the 300D (that's the reason I upgraded), although the 5 pics raw buffer could be a bit larger still. I don't know why some people feel a dSLR has to have monster size. Once you got used to the size its very cute. I even think of keeping the cheap kit lens with it, since it makes a nice little walkaround cam.

Robin Sibson: "The new EW-83H (for the 24~105) is almost identical to the EW-83DII but fits more cleanly and is less likely to bind onto the flange on the lens, so it may become the preferred choice for using the 17~40 on APS-C format."

 

... looks like I'll have an EW-83D II to sell, once my 24-105 arrives!

 

Robin, if you find a better hood solution for the 24-105 on the 1.6x bodies, please let us know!

I was looking at B&H's sourcebook, and it looks like the ET-54 that's made for the 55-200 and 80-200 might work for the 50 1.8II. They all have 52 filter threads. I had the dedicated hood, but replaced it with a stepped-up 58mm rubber one that I can use on my 28, 50, 90 macro, etc......

I am totally and utterly confused :-( Which lens hoods to buy? Which actually work?

 

Happy shooting,

Yakim.

You said you're only interested in Canon rigid hoods, but I'm going to post anyway about what I ended up doing for my 16-35mm lens on my 20D. I used the hood that came with the lens at first. Way too shallow to be useful. Then I got the hood meant for the 24mm 1.4 L. It was very tight going on but I finally nursed it on and it was OK. Fit better in the pocket of my bag but still not entirely doing the job when it came to lens flare since the 16-35mm has a 77mm front lens surface. Light could still come through the slots in the hood. Finally, I got a Hoya Telematic rubber hood and have been happy with that. I adjust it as needed. I thought that I would have a hard time remembering to adjust the hood for the various focal lengths, but this hasn't been the case and it is very nice to be able to cut out flare by popping the hood out--it has no slots to let light in. I also got serious and got a Flarebuster kit--a silly looking contraption that works.

The rest of my lenses are primes and I use the recommended Canon rigid hood for them. Why try to find longer hoods when there generally is not a problem with flare with the "regular" hood?

<p>WRT the 10-22, the official hood ought to work well; it is the same hood as the official hood for the 16-35 and 17-40, and the 10-22 gives the equivalent of 16-35 FOV when the 1.6x crop is taken into account. Since the 10-22 can only be used on 1.6x bodies, it appears Canon took that into account when selecting a hood for it.</p>

 

<p>I wouldn't bother with a deeper hood for the 50/1.4; the official hood is already quite deep, and the front element is also somewhat recessed. I don't have either 50/1.8 model, so I don't know how deep their official hoods are, but I suspect the same probably applies, and of course the front element on either 50/1.8 is even more deeply recessed than the front element on the 50/1.4.</p>