buck_rogers1 Posted May 24, 2006 Share Posted May 24, 2006 For thos of us with cropped sensors using the 17-40L as our standard zoom, The new EW-83J hood for the 17-55 f/2.8 IS(sold separately) is a great alternative for a better coverage lens hood. Cheaper than the hoods for either the 24L or the 24-105L, this hood fits snuggly without any wiggle room and doesn't vignette. Just got mine today. Take a look.<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grant g Posted May 24, 2006 Share Posted May 24, 2006 Cool. Where'd ya get the hood from? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buck_rogers1 Posted May 24, 2006 Author Share Posted May 24, 2006 Pictureline. I had them order it a few weeks ago. I think their website shows a few days' delay. $32 bucks from a local shop with fantastic service felt pretty good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pjmeade Posted May 25, 2006 Share Posted May 25, 2006 What is the difference between the EW-83H that came with the 17-40 and the EW-83J? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yakim_peled1 Posted May 25, 2006 Share Posted May 25, 2006 >> Cheaper than the hoods for either the 24L or the 24-105L It may be cheaper but does it give the same coverage? Happy shooting, Yakim. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robin_sibson1 Posted May 25, 2006 Share Posted May 25, 2006 I have not yet succeeded in getting this hood in the UK, but I anticipated some time ago in a posting that it would be perfect for the 17~40 (and probably the 16~35) on 1.6-factor bodies, better than the currently widely used alternatives of the EW-83DII and EW-83H. It is good to see confirmation of this. Thanks for posting. It should also be better than the EW-83H hood (which is considerably shorter) for use with the 24~105 on 1.6-factor bodies. I will continue to pester UK outlets until I get hold of one! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
images_in_light_north_west Posted May 25, 2006 Share Posted May 25, 2006 Why is this better than the one that came with the lens Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buck_rogers1 Posted May 25, 2006 Author Share Posted May 25, 2006 >>It may be cheaper but does it give the same coverage?<p> <p> Comparing to the other two hood options it DOES appear to offer more coverage. Look at the examples here:<p>http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00FQCa&tag=<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve_dunn2 Posted May 25, 2006 Share Posted May 25, 2006 <cite>What is the difference between the EW-83H that came with the 17-40 and the EW-83J?</cite> <p>The hood that comes with the 17-40 is designed for a full-frame body, so it is quite wide and not very deep, as it has to avoid vignetting on a 17mm lens (actually, 16mm, as it was originally designed for the 16-35). On a 1.6-crop body, this lens has approximately a 27-64mm FOV (in full-frame terms), so the 17mm-FOV hood is excessively wide and doesn't do a very good job of blocking off-axis light. The previous two unofficial alternate hoods (for the 24/1.4 and 24-105/4) are designed for a 24mm FOV so they're better. The hood for the 17-55 is designed to take into account the 1.6x crop factor so it ought to be more effective than any of these other hoods.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pjmeade Posted May 25, 2006 Share Posted May 25, 2006 Steve, thanks for the info. Pete Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pjmeade Posted May 25, 2006 Share Posted May 25, 2006 Steve, thanks for the info. Pete Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dexonwerks Posted May 25, 2006 Share Posted May 25, 2006 That is great for a 1.6, but how about a 1.3 camera? That will make the 17-40mm focal length approx 22-52mm. Is there a substitution for that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve_dunn2 Posted May 25, 2006 Share Posted May 25, 2006 <p>I'm just guessing here, as I've never tried finding a hood for this lens on a 1.3-crop body. There's only one 22mm (or wider) prime with a detachable hood, the 20/2.8 USM, and it uses a 75mm hood, so that won't fit. And the only zooms that go 22mm or wider, but not as wide as 17, are the cheapie 22-55 (which uses a much smaller hood), the old 20-35/2.8L (which uses a 75mm hood), and the 20-35/3.5-4.5 USM. The latter uses an 83mm hood, the EW-83 (with no letters after it), and that one would probably work. But as I don't think I've ever seen it, I don't know how much deeper it is than the 17-40 hood, so it may not be that much of an improvement.</p> <p>The traditional alternative hoods for 1.6-crop bodies (from the 24/1.4L USM and 24-105/4L IS USM) would work fine throughout most of the zoom range, but could vignette at the wide end, so unless you have an opportunity to do some careful testing before buying, they're probably not good choices for 1.3-crop bodies.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grant g Posted May 25, 2006 Share Posted May 25, 2006 "the 20-35/3.5-4.5 USM. The latter uses an 83mm hood, the EW-83 (with no letters after it), and that one would probably work..." Steve, I use the EW-83 on my 10-22 and it's pretty shallow, so it should work, but not provide much coverage. I think it is just a *tad* deeper than the 17-40 hood. I would think that the EW-83H from the 24-105 would work better since it should work at the *very least* from 18.5mm (24mm/1.3xcrop). Canon coverage is pretty loose so I would bet that it doesn't vignette. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fourfa Posted May 25, 2006 Share Posted May 25, 2006 Good for canon, very smart of them. no doubt they finally realized that they can actually sell these things to their existing user base if they standardize the bayonet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yakim_peled1 Posted May 28, 2006 Share Posted May 28, 2006 Buck, he talks about the EW-83J. Happy shooting, Yakim. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike_meloy Posted August 21, 2006 Share Posted August 21, 2006 Does anyone know if the EW 83J is easier to get off of the 17-40L than the EW 83DII? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goldwyn_t Posted August 27, 2006 Share Posted August 27, 2006 Ok... to make a long question short. Which one should i get?! =P I hear the 24L hood fits too snuggly and some modification is needed. i don't want to take a file to a $50 hood! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike_meloy Posted August 27, 2006 Share Posted August 27, 2006 Just got the EW-83J and it goes on and off very smoothly compared to the hood for the 24L! Very happy camper here! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goldwyn_t Posted September 5, 2006 Share Posted September 5, 2006 Just got the EW-83J hood over the weekend and it fits great. Excellent recommendation! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
krzysztof_kalinski Posted March 2, 2012 Share Posted March 2, 2012 <p>Hi, I've read your posts and I have 2 question:</p> <p>1 I use 17-40 with APS-C, so which hood is deeper (that means more effecitive): EW-83H (24-105) or EW-83J (17-55)?<br> 2. What about EW-83F (24-70) with 17-40 (APS-C of course)? Has some of you tested this hood? What about vignetting?</p> <p>Thank you for useful aswers :</p> <p>Krzysztof </p> 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