Alternate Lens Hood for 70-300 IS ?

[ulrich_brandl]

I remember dimly that I have read somewhere a recommendation for a deeper lens

hood for the 4-5.6/70-300mm IS on 1.6x crop cameras. As the lens is prone to

flare it might be useful under some circumstances. Didn't find it searching

photo.net. Does anyone have an idea ?

[mark u]

I can't recall a specific recommendation, but with a lens such as this there is much less to be gained by using a different hood compared with a normal or wide angle lens. The standard hood is deep enough to keep the front element fairly well sheltered in most circumstances. I suspect the motivation for a different hood might have been lower cost, rather than increased effectiveness.

[steve_dunn2]

<p>I agree with the first response; the difference in depth between a hood for a 70mm lens and the hood for a 112mm lens is not that great, so while certainly there's a theoretical benefit to putting a deeper hood on this lens when using it on a 1.6-crop body, in practice it's not likely to make much of a difference very often. Alternative hoods are much more useful for wider lenses (e.g. the 17-40/4L USM), where the official hood is very open and has little effect when used on a 1.6-crop body.</p>

 

<p>For that matter, Canon has in the past used one hood on a variety of medium telephoto lenses and telephoto zooms; for instance, the 85/1.8, 100/2, 135/2.8, and 100-300/4.5-5.6 all use the same hood (and while I'm not 100% sure, I think the 70-210/3.5-4.5 also used that hood). I used to have that hood on the 100-300 (used on a film body), and despite the hood being designed for a 70mm or 85mm field of view, it was quite effective on the 100-300, even at the long end.</p>

 

<p>So I'm not saying there isn't an alternative hood, but rather that the official hood should be just fine. And, actually, the only other Canon telephoto hood I can find that has the same mount size as the 70-300's hood (ET-65B) is the one for the lenses I mentioned above (ET-65*), so it wouldn't offer significantly different protection, and from the pictures on Canon's Web site, it appears the mounting mechanism is different so this probably wouldn't fit anyway.</p>

[bobatkins]

If you really think it's worth it you can always tape a short extension on the "correct hood". As long as it doesn't show in the image, it's not too long!

 

If you object to paying Canon $30 for a hood, there are now cheap copies of some of them on eBay!

[m3rdpwr]

This has some, but not the lens you mention...

 

http://www.burren.cx/photo/alternate_hoods.html

 

-Mario

[ulrich_brandl]

Many thanks to all for your contributions. It is clear that the lens hood is much more critical for WA lenses, but I din't assume that is has so little relevanvce for the tele. You saved me lots of times for searching the 'optimal' hood.