Mix and match lens hoods

So most people know that the hood from the 24 f1.4L (EW-83D) can fit

on a 17-40mm L.

 

Some new things I have found out:

The hood from the 70-200 f2.8L (ET-83II) can fit on the 200mm f2.8L

MKII and the 28-70 f2.8L (and vice versas with EW-83B).

 

Now my question (hopefully you guys can help me fill in the blanks):

Does the hoods from the 70-200 f2.8/28-70 f2.8 fit on the 24-70 f2.8?

 

Does the hoods from the 70-200 f2.8/28-70 f2.8 fit on the 70-200

f2.8 IS?

 

Are the hoods from the 24-70 f2.8 and 70-200 f2.8 IS interchangable?

 

You might be asking why I am wondering and I am aware that it might

not be the IDEAL to swap hoods but these hoods in particular are SO

big, it would be a huge benefit to have to only carry one of the.

Right now, I have 28-70 f2.8 and a 200 f2.8 MKII that share a hood.

I am looking at picking up at 24-70 f2.8 and am just wondering if

that hood will fit on the 200 f2.8 MKII also.

 

Thanks!

 

 

aaron lam

Don't know about your other combos, but I can tell you the hood for the 70-200 f2.8 IS will not fit the 24-70 f2.8.

Also, putting the 24-70L's hood on the non I.S. 70-200 2.8 is not a good fit either. The twho hoods are counter-intuitive -- you'd think one was for the other instead, since the 70-200's hood is shorter than the relatively long lens shade for the 24-70.

The 24-70 f2.8L and the hood for it are uniquely designed as a team, and is the absolute best zoom lens/hood combination for protection from stray light that I have ever seen. The lens has an extending barrel that moves in and out when you zoom, but the hood is connected to the fixed portion of the lens, not the moving portion. The lens is physically the shortest at 70mm, and the hood is appropriately deep for the 70mm zoom setting. The lens extends physically for the shorter focal lengths, putting the front element closer to the opening of the hood at the wider angle settings. This design provides the proper lens hood positioning for all zoom settings.

 

Compare this to the Sigma 24-70 f2.8. That lens extends for the wide-angle settings like the Canon does, but they stick a stupidly short hood on the front of the lens that moves as the lens zooms. It does little to nothing for flare protection at anything but the 28mm setting.

<p>The number in the hood's model number is the approximate diamter of the hood mount (don't confuse this with the filter diameter, as I've seen some people do). So the first test is whether the number is the same. If it isn't, there's not much point continuing; it won't fit.</p>

 

<p>If the diameters are the same, and both hoods use the same attachment method (petal-shaped hoods and some tubular hoods use a bayonet mount; some tubular hoods clip on; if you can find a good photo of the lens in question, you can usually spot the attachment method), chances are pretty good that it will fit - though chances are also pretty good that the hood will either vignette or not provide as good coverage as the proper hood. The exception to the coverage thing, of course, is that DSLRs with smaller sensors can often use longer lens hoods without vignetting, as in the famous case you cited of the 17-40 (and 16-35) using the EW-83D.</p>

 

<p>AFAIK, all of these hoods can be stored reversed on the lens; I've had six Canon EF lenses, five of which use removable hoods, and each of the removable hoods can be mounted reversed on the lens. When you do this, the lens and hood take up only slight more space than the lens on its own - the combination is the same length as, and generally only slightly wider than, the bare lens. So I've never really had a problem finding storage space for the hoods.</p>

 

<p>Also, all L lenses include the hood. So whether or not the 24-70/2.8 can share a hood with the 200/2.8 II, if you buy both, you get both hoods, and then you can test it yourself. I take it you're choosing a lens based on your needs and budget, not on whether it works with another lens' hood.</p>

Thanks for the replies so far. It doesn't look like I can do what I want which is use the 24-70mm hood on the 200mm f2.8 MKII. If anyone knows for sure though... I would love to know.

 

As far as the other comments...

I know that these are dedicated lens hoods but the 28-70mm and 70-200mm have a really uncanny resemblence in size and shape. I think one is just a tad longer as someone pointed out. Why not use just one hood (unless you have both lenses mounted at the same time) if you can?

 

The 28-70, 24-70, 70-200 non-IS and IS all have hoods with 83 as the number. That is why I was wondering if they were interchangable. It must be my bag (Domke inserts in a J2) but the hood is exactly too big that it gets in the way. I find that the hood... although reversed, add at least 2-4cm of space. That seems like a lot to me. The f2.8's esp add a lot of space. The slimmest fitting I have seen is the 100mm USM macro and its hood. Anyway... I digress... all I know is that I can't fit a 28-70mm hood and a 200mm hood in the bag together next to each other which is what I need. But I can fit a 28-70mm hood and a 200mm without hood. So if they shared a hood... perfect travel setup.

 

Anyway. Thanks for checking guys.

 

 

aaron

I bought a Hoya rubber "telephoto" hood with a 77m thread and I use it on every lens I own. How do I use a 77mm rubber hood on my 58mm diameter and 72mm diameter lenses? I have put step up rings on each of these which present 77mm threads for my one and only hood. :-) A litlle black electrical tape strategically placed keeps the step up rings from turning when I remove the hood, so moving it from lens to lens is a breeze. Needless to say, I also got a couple of extra 77mm lens caps so I can leave the step up rings in place when the lenses go back in the bag. I also now carry one 77UV and one 77mmCP which hop from lens to lens with the hood, when appropriate.

 

The rubber hood itself can collapse to a couple of positions and thereby can provide BETTER flare shading than any fixed hood on a zoom, and just as good or better than any substitution of FF hoods for 1.6 use. It's easy to test. I put the hood from my 24L onto my 17-40 (and yes it's a nice but snug fit). Then I looked through the camera and walked forward and back under an overhead light and took note of exactly where flare occured at what focal length, and at what position near the light. Then I compared with my rubber hood, and of course, by collapsing or telescoping it to stay just out of the FOV of the zoom, I got MUCH better flare control than with the fixed hood. Then I compared each of my primes' hoods to various positions of the rubber, and in every case there was a very good position for the rubber to be as effective as the high tech original. (The only exception is my 10-22 at wide zooms, with which the rubber hood always vignettes, so I do carry the original 10-22 hood if I think I will need it.)

 

I don't like reverse mounting the standard hoods on lenses to go in the bag because that wastes a ton of room. The use of step up rings and one rubber hood enables me to always have the hood I need, without cluttering up my bag.

Until fairly recently, Canon's bayonet lenshoods had a very badly designed mount that would 'bind' on the bayonet on the lens, either from new or after a moderate amount of use. A combination of easing the plastic of the hood with a file and applying a MINUTE quantity of some lubricant such as wax was the solution, but by that time the paint surface on the lens bayonet was worn, and you will see this on a lot of used but otherwise well-cared-for lenses. I have had this happen with the 100~400 and the 50/1.4 among others. Recently the design has improved; the hood goes on more easily and there is a slight click as it reaches the correct position. The 100/2.8USM+ET-67 and 17~40+EW-83E are good examples. The EW-83DII is NOT an upgraded design, and if you are going to use it on the 17~40 you need to ease and lubricate it first. With that done, it works fine. In general, there is no guarantee that a lens whose normal hood is in the 83 series will physically accept some other 83 series hood at all, regardless of whether it would produce vignetting; some work, some don't, and it is a very bad idea to try to force the hood on in the belief that it ought to fit because it is labelled 83.

Found this info: http://www.gallery1.co.uk/canonlenshoods.htm