Jump to content

17-40L lens hood alternative?


steve_crist

Recommended Posts

<p>According to the specs I have the correct hood for the 17-40mm L is the EW-83<strong>E</strong> .There is no requirement that you use a lens hood, of course, but the point of using one is to reduce flare and such. If you buy a ultrawide (for 35mm sensor) lens like the 17-40mm, a lens hood for it just is going to be <strong>either</strong> 1) huge, <em><strong>or</strong> </em> 2) ineffective.</p>

<p>You could try the substitute from Adorama (<a href="http://www.adorama.com/LNHEW83E.html">link</a> ), but I'm not sure it's any smaller, maybe lighter? ?</p>

<p>The 24mm f/1.4L EW-83DII is for a much longer lens than the minimum 17mm, so it's not surprising that it is vignetting. It's a wonder if it doesn't do so on even the APS-C cameras.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I strongly disagree with JDM.</p>

<p>The EW-83DII just barely vignettes on full frame at 17mm. On 1.6X, you can use the much longer EW-83J without any problems. </p>

<p>The EW-83H (from the 24-105) is an easy fit to the 17-40 and works without vignetting on full frame. Otherwise, for a slightly more compact solution, you can file down the EW-83DII. For more discussion of this, see <a href="http://www.photo.net/canon-eos-digital-camera-forum/00TCO3">http://www.photo.net/canon-eos-digital-camera-forum/00TCO3</a></p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Just a few quick health warnings on alternative hoods. First, as Isaac points out, you need to test by taking shots, not by relying on an unobstructed view through the viewfinder (or even on Live View). Use peripheral illumination correction in DPP to avoid "false positives" when examining images for vignetting.</p>

<p>Secondly, it is important to test wide open and well stopped down, also at both infinity and minimum focus. The latter is particularly important with IF lenses because focal length goes down as you focus closer, hence the angle of view may prove to be larger at the minimum focus setting than at infinity.</p>

<p>Finally, Canon have only recently standardised on what an 83mm fitting actually is. As far as I can tell, the fitting is identical on the EW-83E, H and J (and probably also the K, for the 24/1.4 II, which may be another mix-and-match candidate), but the D is a slightly tighter fit, and may need a bit of easing before it will go onto a later 83mm bayonet comfortably.</p>

<p>Tip: use tiny quantities of dry PTFE lubricant to prevent Canon bayonet hoods from binding, and never squeeze the hood as you attach and remove it.</p>

<p>Having said all that, mix-and-match with hoods can be really helpful. It stands to reason that the hood that is optimal for FF use of an EF lens will not be optimal for 1.6-factor, but there are plenty of examples that work or nearly work where you migth not expect it. For example, the D and H both work to within a few pixels at 10mm on the EF-S 10~22, and the ET-67 and ET-67B are interchangeable between the 100/2.8USM and the EF-S 60/2.8 – not that you'd want to use the ET-67 on the 60/2.8, but the ET-67B is a compact if slightly less effective alternative on the 100/2.8USM.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...