TS-E 17mm lens hood

[kanellopoulos]

<p>Happy to be holding it, at last. <br /><br /> However, I wonder why there is no lens hood provided. Any speculation? "Unnecessary" seems to be a wrong answer, as the manual advises us to holdcardboards over the lens. Or would it have to be huge? <br /><br /> Anyway. Has anybody come up with an acceptable workaround? The huge, protruding front element makes me nervous... </p>

 

[zml]

<p>Would vignette unless huge (= not very practical and effective.) Stick with cards, umbrellas and such.</p>

[alan_bryant1]

<p>The actual view out the front element moves around as the lens is shifted and tilted. It really isn't possible to make a hood that would both allow for all the possible configurations of the lens, *and* do any good. Even without tilt and shift it's hard to make a useful hood for a 17mm.</p>

<p>I would suggest keeping the lens cap on it, except when you're actually composing or taking a shot.</p>

[eric_boutilier_brown1]

<p>I've been using the 17mm since it came out in early June, and can honestly say that a hood would be next to useless - to cover the possible angles of view of the lens, it would have to be so wide to barely protect the lens from flare.<br>

In regards to flare, there's a couple of things to say. The lens does flare, but it is some of the best controlled flare I have ever seen, unless the sun is in the image. When the sun is in the frame, flare is certainly prominent, but still well controlled, all the same.<br>

When working with the lens in contrasty light, I have used my hand, hat, or any other convenient item to block the light from hitting the lens. It should be noted I do this often with other lenses, as hoods are seldom perfect.<br>

If you wanted a perfect solution, and were patient, then an articulated arm and flag of some sort would be idea, but I prefer the simplicity of a hand, hat or whatever is on hand.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>Isn't the front of the lens mount as much hood as there can be? That's how I interpreted the specs, and L lenses normally "come with" a hood.</p>

<p>I'm jealous.</p>

[yakim_peled1]

<p>No lens hood. Not feasable. <a href="http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/792161/0#7291497">Cokin X-Pro holder</a> might be of some use but it is extremely expensive. <br /> </p>

<p>HTH.</p>

<p>Happy shooting,<br>

Yakim. <br /> </p>

[kanellopoulos]

<p>Thank you all.</p>

<p>Do your answers imply that the built-in hood of the EF 14mm 2.8 is also useless? The 14mm, as wider, seems to be a more difficult case. At least in my eyes... </p>

[scott_ferris]

<p>Nick,</p>

<p>A fixed lens is easy to make a hood for, so the 14mm one just goes to the edge of the image circle, easy. The TS is impossible because you are never using the whole image circle, just a part of it, the hood could never be effective because it can't know what part of the image circle you are using. A hood that went out to the edge of the image circle would not offer much flare resistance as it would be so far away from where it could be. With no movements the hood could be effective, but what would be the point :-)</p>

<p>Take care and enjoy it, Scott.</p>

[zml]

<p>Yeah, even the hood on the 24 mm T/S lens will vignette with movements so no point using one (or including it) with a way wider 17 mm T/S lens. The hood on the 14 mm WA lens does not vignette but how effective it is, is anyone's guess.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>Yes, the hood I got for my old PC-Nikkor 35mm was so wide for the reasons Scott lays out, that it was for all practical purposes no hood at all.</p>

[RickDB]

<p>The 17mm TS-E is actually an approx. 11mm lens from which you can select 17mm worth of image, which is why the lens hood that might be effective on a 14mm lens won't come close to working on the 17mm TS-E.</p>

[yakim_peled1]

<blockquote>

<p>Yeah, even the hood on the 24 mm T/S lens will vignette with movements</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That sounds very weird. Can you post examples?</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>The 17mm TS-E is actually an approx. 11mm lens</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Kindly elaborate.</p>

<p>Happy shooting,<br>

Yakim.</p>

[scott_ferris]

<p>Yakim,<br>

 <br>

Rick's point is that you can get the field of view of an 11mm lens (but only in stages) with the various shifts, obviously you get a lot more angle of view when shifting from one side to another than a regular 17mm lens so a standard 17mm hood would cut off large parts of the image when you shift.<br>

 <br>

For a great explanation and examples of 24mm hood issues look here http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/article_pages/tilt_and_shift_ts-e.html</p>

[yakim_peled1]

<p>

<p dir="ltr">But if you mount a regular 17mm lens (e.g. the 17-40) on a panorama rail, wouldn't you get the same effect?</p>

<p dir="ltr"> </p>

<p dir="ltr">Happy shooting,</p>

<p dir="ltr">Yakim.</p>

 

<p dir="ltr"> </p>

</p>

 

[scott_ferris]

<p>Yakim,</p>

<p>Basically yes, not quite though. There is a difference between moving the lens (a T/S lens), moving the camera (a camera with movements), and moving them both (entry point/nodal point panoramic stitch). The T/S lens is best for a flat field, a row of houses or a bookcase, it keeps the plane of focus flat across the images. The Panorama technique does not, the camera is pointed at different places so the plain of focus is moved, it is better for circular imaging, 360's and the like.</p>

<p>Hope this helps, Scott.</p>

[yakim_peled1]

<p>O.K. That's enough. I understand. I'm convinced. I'll buy it.... </p>

<p>:-(</p>

<p>Happy shooting,<br>

Yakim.</p>