arunarchi Posted June 5, 2004 Share Posted June 5, 2004 I have a EOS Elan IIE and am planning to buy a EF 20-35mm f/3.5-4.5 Lens - do I need a Canon EW-83II Lens Hood (or any other lens hood for that matter) for this lens?? or is it a luxury - I am an amteur photographer and like shooting landscapes. Arun Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lester_dworetsky Posted June 5, 2004 Share Posted June 5, 2004 Simply put --- YES Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jay_. Posted June 5, 2004 Share Posted June 5, 2004 Since you are shooting film in this time when everyone is dummying down to digital, one can safely assume you have high standards for image quality. As someone who does likewise and owns that lens, I would recommend the correct hood. The more elements a lens has and the wider its angle of coverage are both independent contributors to the propensity for flare, and the 20-35 has both. It's cheap insurance against flare. It will not help if the sun is in the shot though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wolver Posted June 5, 2004 Share Posted June 5, 2004 An interesting read for people that have not dummied down to digital. <a href="http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/shootout.shtml" TARGET=_blank>The Shootout</a> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lee_shively Posted June 5, 2004 Share Posted June 5, 2004 Yep. Get the hood. The lens/hood combo is as big as a dinner plate (almost) but it does help with flare. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jay_. Posted June 5, 2004 Share Posted June 5, 2004 A quote from the old-news, long-disproved article Don linked to which demnostrates the crux of the fallacy under which the cretin who wrote it was operating in order to reach his hysterically ignorant "conclusion": "Now enters the question of Sharpening. There are those that say that evaluations should be done on images that have had no USM applied. To this I say ? nonsense!" As I have said many times, digital in its current guise (and most likely permanent, as it seems to have fooled enough fools to make it a sales success and that's all the manufacturers need)is a scam. The capture is woefully shy of anything approaching the detail of even an ISO 400 35mm film image. Convert a RAW file from a 1Ds without any sharpening and print it, compare it to a traditional darkroom print from a 35mm neg, and you will gag from that moment on every time some doofus utters the idiotic chant that digital matches film. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wolver Posted June 5, 2004 Share Posted June 5, 2004 ROTFL That's funny ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yakim_peled1 Posted June 6, 2004 Share Posted June 6, 2004 Lester said it simply and shortly. I'll phrase it a bit lengthier - ABSOLUTELY YES! Happy shooting , Yakim. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now