EW-83E hood on Canon 17-55 f/2.8 lens?

[brian_blattner]

<p>I currently have the Canon 17-40 f/4.0 lens with an EW-83E hood.<br>

I am considering getting the Canon EFS 17-55 f/2.8 lens, and know that the recommended hood would be the EW-83J.<br>

Can the EW-83E hood be used on the Canon 17-55 f/2.8 lens? Or would this cause problems?</p>

[wgpinc]

<p>The hood for the 17-40mm 4.0 lens is too wide to be very effective. I have both hoods and lenses. Either spring for the recommended hood or do what I do which is use the lens without the hood much of the time. I see that Adorama sells a house brand dedicated hood for this lens for $12 if the $50 for the Canon version offends you.</p>

[jim_krupnik]

<p>The J hood only costs about $50. Just suck it up, and buy it. The EF-s 17-55 is currently a $1,000+ lens. In fact, my 5 year old lens is worth more on the used market than I paid for it new. It is also very true that you can use it without a hood at all, but what is the point of taking "self denial" to ever greater heights of silliness?</p>

<p>Not only does the factory hood deliver the best IQ in a passive manner, no matter what the reality of your lighting might be at shot time, but it is the absolute best protection for your camera and lens kit possible within reason. Over nearly 5 years, I have never used my 17-55 (or most any other lens) without the hood in place. Canon factory hoods have saved my gear from everything from casual bumps to poking fingers to gravity kisses, time, and time again over the years. Of course, people who refuse to use a hood as a mandatory accessory would have no clue about the benefits offered by a fine lens hood.</p>

<p>Pardon my intensity here, but anyone who suggests otherwise is either a fool, or has a budget so large that they don't even care. There is no excuse for refusing to spend an additional $50 on a factory hood after spending over a grand on the lens in the first place, unless you are seriously into self flagellation. That said, there is no excuse to not use the hood either. The only times I remove a hood are when I'm shooting macro subjects. Even then, it does not apply to the EF-s 17-55 f/2,8 IS lens. NEVER leave the hood behind!</p>

<p>If anyone cares to offer a different perspective, go for it. Don't just tell me that you have managed to get along without the lens hood, as some fools have survived jumping out of an airplane without a parachute in the past. Explain the benefits of purchasing and using a better than $1,000 lens, and refusing to buy or use the dirt cheap hood made for it. Is it a matter of depriving Canon of a few extra Dollars, because they have the nerve to ask for extra money beyond the initial lens price?</p>

<p>That's not very bright, if it is the reason. The cost of the lens, as well as the additional cost of the hood for those smart enough to buy one are clearly indicated in all retail market forums. Why should someone who will never use a hood pay the additional cost of including it in the package? They really shouldn't have to pay a dime extra, while people who are smart enough to recognize the utility offered by a hood should be prepared to buy it as a matter of course. After all, they are cheap. They take serious abuse for years without complaint, and they keep IQ at the highest level. They are a bargain.....</p>

<p>As a bonus, people who know better are less likely to give you strange looks for using naked lenses in the real world....</p>

<p>Here is my 17-55 with it's factory hood condom. The battery is there for size perspective. Don't ever buy the lens without one, and don't ever leave it home. Again, if you disagree, tell me why. Tell everyone why....<img src="http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4012/4622751913_e5b0b0658e.jpg" alt="" width="500" height="375" /></p>

<p> </p>

[joshuat syd, aus]

<p>Buy the correct hood. </p>

<p>My brother just bought a 17-55 after being thoroughly impressed with mine. After shooting for the first few days without the hood he was extremely disappointed with the results (almost to the point of claiming the lens was defective and returning it).</p>

<p>For $50 it is a small price to pay to get the whole package that Canon designed and intended.</p>

[steve_dunn2]

<p>The 17-40's hood will not be very effective on the 17-55, because the 17-40's hood is designed to cover the angle of view of a 17mm lens <em>on a full-frame camera</em>, which is vastly wider than the angle of view of a 17mm lens on a 1.6-crop body. Since the 17-55 is only compatible with 1.6-crop bodies, its hood is designed accordingly.</p>

 

<p>If you can afford the 17-55, you can afford its hood. Or perhaps a third-party equivalent; I've never looked into that but I know there are cheap knockoffs on eBay for at least some Canon lens hoods. The 17-40's hood will be nearly useless on the 17-55.</p>

[brian_blattner]

<p>Thanks for all of your responses.<br>

My question had nothing to do with money, but if the hoods were not that different in design, I would only be using one of those lenses at any given time, and the reason I was asking the question. In other words, why spend an extra $50 if the 17-40 hood would have worked just fine. I have never used the 17-55 before, so I was not sure how much difference there was between the two hoods.<br>

Anyway, I went ahead and purchased the proper hood for the 17-55 lenses.</p>