Rubber Hoods for 1.6 crop cameras with 17-40 and 70-200 lenses

[gdanmitchell]

<p>Recently I picked up a collapsible rubber hood for my 50mm f1.4. In some ways I like

this type of hood more than the rigid ones that come from Canon.</p>

 

<p>Does anyone have any specific suggestions for similar hoods that will work on my 1.6

crop factor body with the following lenses? How about with a future full-frame camera?</

p>

 

<ul>

<li>Canon 17-40 f4 L</li>

<li>Canon 70-400 f4 L</li>

</ul>

 

<p>Important factors would include:</p>

 

<ul>

<li>Maximum shading without vignetting</li>

<li>Front threads to attach filters/cap</li>

<li>Quality of construction</li>

<li>Size when collapsed</li>

</ul>

 

<p>Answers including brands and models would be most helpful. Thanks in advance.</

p>

 

<p>Dan</p>

[gdanmitchell]

Sorry about the typo. In the subject I wrote "70-200" but in the body of my message I

mistyped "70-400." Obviously, the subject (70-200) is correct.

[skipd]

Those hoods will NOT give you the mechanical protection that the original Canon hoods will. I use hoods for two reasons. The first is to keep stray light sources from the lens. The second is the mechanical protection from bumps and even falls to a sidewalk, for example. It would be best to use the absolute best designed hood for lenses possible.

 

Removing a Canon hood that connects to the non-moving body of the lens and attaching one to the filter threads is not the wisest move when it comes to the mechanical protection thing. The thread-mounted hood would transmit the energy to the moving part of the lens (at least in the case of most zoom lenses) which is not a good thing, as those forces are transmitted to the innards of the lens. I'd much rather have the forces taken up by the outer (fixed) barrel of the lens.

[kevin conville]

I have B+W rubber hoods on me 17-40 and 70-200. B+W makes wide, normal, and tele

versions of most of their hoods.

 

I have the wide type (in 67mm) mounted on the 17-40 with a step-down ring. I leave the

67mm step-down ring on this lens as my filters are 67mm. No vignetting with the filters

or hood.

 

I have the tele type on the 70-200. Good coverage, no vignetting.

 

I use rubber hoods on all my lenses. It's how I keep my kit compact, simple, and ready to

use.<div></div>

[kevin conville]

17-40 hood extended<div></div>

[kevin conville]

70-200 hood retracted<div></div>

[kevin conville]

70-200 hood released<div></div>

[picturesque]

I like rigid hoods generally speaking, but for my 16-35mm, I got the Hama Telematic, 3 position rubber hood after trying the hood that came with it and the rigid hood made for the 24mm f1.4 L, which fits the zoom, but very tightly. That hood still let in light through the slots in the "petals". The main reason for the hood is to block stray light, so I figured if the rigid ones didn't do that, what was the point? I got used to the hood quickly and have had no problems forgetting where I had the hood, and when folded out, it really blocks light. Those wide zooms tend to be flare-y. Don't know what would work for the tele-zoom.

[kevin conville]

Here's a shot of the EF-S 60 and EF 85 F1.8 with Dot Line hoods. They're just as good as

far as quality but aren't offered in dfifferent angles of view so they either work on your

particular lens or they don't.

 

I forgot to mention I also use either Nikon or Tamron caps as they are far superior to the

clumsy Canon things.

[kevin conville]

Skip's point of attaching a hood to the moving part of a lens doesn't apply with my lenses

as all of them are internal focusing and the zooms do not extend or rotate.

 

I probably would be more inclined to use the plastic hoods with a lens that extended in

use. Thankfully I don't have to as I really don't like using them.

[kevin conville]

About that "protection" thing I hear brought up so much.

 

No doubt a rigid plastic hood is tougher than a rubber hood, but a rubber hood will still

offer some shock protection. Generally, dropping your camera lens first is pretty rough

treatment.

 

I tend to be careful with my stuff, and I also replace my lens cap immediately after

shooting. THIS offers good protection.

 

Regarding effectiveness of rubber hoods for shading. In the case of the 17-40 and a 1.6x

body at least, the rubber hood is superior as the Canon hood is worthless. As you go

longer in focal length it's easier to find something that fits the bill.

[mawz]

The main protection that a solid hood provides is not drop protection, but front element protection, so you don't swing that front element into something.

[lheusinkveld]

I am sure there are many different brands of rubber hoods available, but here is a cautionary tale. I bought rubber hoods for two of my lenses, so that I could easily use a circulating polarizer. The threads on the rubber hood damaged the polarizer to the extent that it became unuseable and I had to replace it. The rubber hoods now languish in the bottom of my equipment bag.

[picturesque]

Louise--I would get another brand of rubber hood--so far, my rubber hood hasn't damaged the threads on my lens.