lens hood and crop factor

[affen_kot]

is the lens hood for the <a

href="http://consumer.usa.canon.com/ir/controller?

act=ModelDetailAct&fcategoryid=155&modelid=11156"

target="_blank">60mm

macro</a> designed for the 60mm FOV, or is it actually designed

with the crop factor in mind (i.e., 96mm FOV)? strange question

possibly, but i don't

want to go buy an <a

href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?

O=details_accessories&A=details&Q=&sku=374528&is=REG"

target="_blank">expensive

over-sized OEM lens hood</a> when i can get an equally useless

generic one for

4 euros.

<p>thanks in advance. cheers...affen</p>

[digitmstr]

Since the lens in question was designed to fit cropped sensors ONLY it stands to reason that the hood is not over its intended focal lenght.

 

OTOH, when using normal (EF) lenses on a cropped sensor one could get away with using hoods designed for shorter focal lenghts since the FOV is cropped.

[digitmstr]

sorry I meant " over reaching "

[KenPapai]

That is a strange and bizarre question. What do you think? Or are you purely speculating? I just wonder about people who DESIGN things for a living, and yet rookies think the designers are full of it and even think about notions like sensor crop factors. Actually I wonder about people who cast likely aspersions upon hood designers. But, no question TOO TAME or risque' for here.

[KenPapai]

The thing is, it's a freakin' EF-S "almost" lens. Are you trying to save some pennies and fit this on a 100mm macro with a rubber band?

[affen_kot]

yes, ken; and the lens isn't actually going to go on a digital camera body, but rather a quaker oatmeal cannister fashioned into a pinhole camera using sporks that i stole from wendy's.

 

originally, my post was a lot longer and included my reasoning behind the question; but that would have lead to a discussion about canon's lens naming system and how people reference focal length to mean 'field of view,' blah blah blah. time is short and i have surgeries to prepare for, so the EOS forum got my shortened version, which basically asks 'yes or no?'

 

playing with my canon lens hood designer voodoo doll...affen

[john_stark]

Hmmm, I hope it's not self sugury.... since you want to save some pennines on a lens I fear you may be saving some dollars on surgury now.... whew, photographers will try anything to save for these lenses and camera bodies! How far will you go?

 

Seriously, the lens hood could be about anything as long as it doesn't get in the way and does the job you need it to. Shooting certain things sports photographers somethimes need "soft hoods" and instead of putting big bucks into one I have seen them use something as simple and cheap as a rubber adapter for PVC pipe, and it comes with it's own clamps! Take the clamp off one end, clamp the other end to the lens and go shoot. It's actually a good idea when shooting basketball, better than having a kid get hurt by the hard plastic hood.

[robin_sibson1]

I recently bought the 60/2.8 (GBP 282) and the EF-67B hood (GBP 20). If you can afford the lens you can afford the hood, and me, personally, I value my time and energy far too highly to mess around looking for an inevitably not very convenient alternative when I know the purpose-designed solution is only going to cost me that much.

[affen_kot]

no no no, amigos. number one, i am a medical resident, so i do surgeries like gall bladder resections, appendectomies and the like. yeah, i suppose if there was a way to administer general narkose to myself and still remain lucid, i'd have nothing against doing my own appendix should the moment arise (would be sort of an odd angle though). my question about hoods has nothing to do with saving money; i want the 60mm macro, and i was just wondering if the hood was designed with the crop factor in mind. sounds like an odd question, but that's why i lead in my post with "maybe a strange question..." (or whatever the exact wording was). man i wish i could dig up the html file that had my original reasoning. thanks anyway for the comments. cheers...affen

[robin_sibson1]

Well, Giampi has given you the answer to your actual question: the ET-67B hood for the 60/2.8 is right-size for use on a 1.6-factor camera. Since EF-S lenses work only on 1.6-factor cameras, that's not a surprise. The ET-67B hood has the same fitting as the ET-67 for the 100/2.8USM, so they can be swapped around. ET67B on 100 would be neater but less efficient. ET-67 on 60 does NOT vignette (on the 1.6-factor camera, of course - what else?), but you'd have to be seriously worried about stray light to want to use it. I am sure Giampi means "longer" not "shorter" in his second sentence.

 

If you look again at your question, you should not be surprised if it generated some responses about costs.