No lens hood for 50/1.4 ?

[tommy_baker]

Have researched around and apparently there is no hood, or at least not

shipped with the lens. Do you really need one, or Canon just dont make one

for it. Can you get away without one, even in sunny bright conditions. I hate

hoods, they neutralise a compact lens.

 

Thanks for your input.

[wildpicture]

There is one. It's called the ES-71 and it is not shipped with the lens. You can order it seperate. I have one and use it mainly as protection, although it does also help a bit in strong sunlight.

[chiswick_john]

You don't need it - just use a good filter like a B&W MRC UV to protect your front element.

[tommy_baker]

Thanks for the response. But is it really necessary to have one. My guess is

that being a modern lens, esp. a Japanese one it would be well coated for

flare & contrast. Just as long as you don't shoot directly into the sun.

 

Makes me wonder if it really is necessary if Canon dont ship it WITH the lens.

Doesn't make a lot of sense otherwise..

[tommy_baker]

Thought so John. What do you think of Canon's UV filters, or are they just the

same as the B+W ones?

[steve_unsworth1]

Buy the lens hood, it'll protect the front element and prevent flare in many situations. It's strong light hitting the front element at an angle that you have to be concerned about - a lens hood can't prevent flare from a light source in the frame.

[davekcj]

The name of the hood on mine is Canon ES-71 II. Did not come with the lens, was an extra. Adds maybe 1.25"-1.5" to the overall length.

In adition to flare protection hoods also protect the lens barrel from knocks. Probably a good idea with the 1.4 as that front element moves in and out. I always thought conventional wisdom was that indoors hoods are not necessary from a picture quality standpoint but they don't hurt it either. I have the hoods for all my lenses and always keep them on. I feel it's just something you have to do to get the best out of a particular lens.

[skipd]

Tommy, forget the filter for "protection" idea, except in a sandstorm or similar wicked environment. Get the lens hood. It will provide protection against stray light and mechanical protection.

 

As an example of the mechanical protection - in 1968 I dropped one of my Nikon F's onto a sidewalk while photographing an auto race. The lens hood took 99% of the impact force and folded up. There is a slight ding in the body which caused no problems. I replaced the badly bent lens hood, but both the lens and the body are working perfectly to this day with no repair work needed. A filter would not have done squat to protect the lens, as it would not have absorbed the impact force.

 

A good lens hood will also keep your fingers off the lens, so cleaning is required far less often than if you had only a filter on the front.

[paul -]

<i>"apparently there is no hood, or at least not shipped with the lens"</i><p>I think Canon only includes hoods with "L" lenses. By not including hoods with consumer lenses, they can keep the prices more attractive.

[chiswick_john]

Good lens hoods need to be deep and rectangular (the shape of the film/sensor) to be effective - the hood for the 50 is neither. The angle of light that a shalow hood like this can protect against will not cause flare. The worst flare is caused by light inside the frame (which no hood can protect against) or just outside the frame which this hood cannot protect against either. Additionaly if you are using a 1.6 crop DSLR the standard hood is even less effective. Filters don't prevent flare but you can quickly wipe them clean of dust or smears without worrying about scratching the expensive front element.

[patricks]

many times you can live w/o the hood or simply use your hand to shade the front. or just get a $4.95 rubber lens hood that easily collapse and add no space, it does pretty much the same job, apart from add 'less protection'.

 

protective UV filters are good. use them.

[waltz]

<i>Filters don't prevent flare</i><br>

<br>

Correct: filters <i>add</i> flare. I had a Canon filter on my 1.4, and noticed tons of flare in some shots I took downtown one night. There were street lights and traffic lights in the shots, most 1/2 a block or more away. Flare city. I then did some tests, and found almost no flare without the filter.<br><br>

Whether you believe in hoods or not, don't waste your money on UV filters. That's my .02

[steve_dunn2]

<cite>You don't need it - just use a good filter like a B&W MRC UV to protect your front element.</cite>

 

<p>Of course, when you put a filter on the front, you completely negate the flare protection benefit of the front element being recessed, and that means you need the lens hood even more than you did before.</p>

 

<p>As others have pointed out, Canon generally ships lens hoods with L lenses and does not ship them with non-L lenses. For a small piece of plastic, the hood is ridiculously expensive, but it's worth getting for flare and physical protection. This hood uses a bayonet mount and can be stored reversed on the lens. The current hood is the ES-71 II; the ES-71 (without a Roman numeral) will also fit. I suspect the difference is that the II probably lacks the felt-like coating inside the hood.</p>

[funkag]

Just get one of those retractable rubber lens hoods. I use one on my 50 1.8 II (and the same one on my 100-300 and Tamron 90 2.8) to great effect, and it just collapses out of the way, maintaining the compactness of the lens. It beats a three different solid plastic hoods that take up a bunch of space.

[funkag]

"It beats a three different solid plastic hoods that take up a bunch of space."

 

Allow me to rephrase that: It beats having to lug around three different solid plastic lens hoods that take up a bunch of space. I can carry one hood in my pocket (or attach it to the 58mm filters I use on all three) and switch everything very easily.

[davekcj]

My ES 71 II has rhe felt inside I'm sorry to hear it doesn't do anything.

[chiswick_john]

Use a good filter like the B&W MRC series and it will not flare - these things are so well coated to be virtualy invisible.

[jt]

If you're able to afford it, get the hood.

 

Advantages: protection from flare, protection from knocks, protection from fingerprints, some protection from dropping-camera-on-lens.

 

Disadvantages: a couple of grams of weight, a few less pounds/dollars/whatever in your pocket. (Though it's cheaper than a good UV filter would be).

 

It fits on the lens in reverse for storage, so it doesn't take up much extra space at all.

[pbizarro]

Ok, so you get an expensive B+W filter, multicoated, etc, etc. The reason being, you buy the best filter to prevent flare. Very well.

 

And then you wipe it clean quickly, instead of scratching the lens? Am I missing something? So you don't mind scratching the filter? Which is expensive to start with?

 

I have hoods in all my lenses, and no filters. The lens hoods protect from impacts, and from rain.

[ryanjoseph]

Yes I see... so replacing the front element on mmy 24-70 L will be much more affordable than buying a multicoated filter... it all makes sense now.

[mike dixon]

B&H also offers a generic metal hood that fits 58mm filter threads that is well-suited to normal focal lengths. Sticks out about 0.8 inch (20 mm). Costs about $10. Cheaper and better protection than a filter.