Lens hood coding, e.g EW, ET, ES - what are differences?

[joe_hunt1]

<p>I've just bought an EF 24mm f.2.8 IS USM and will use it on APS-C. I want to keep the hood as narrow and compact as possible, and don't need the wider recommended hood for 24mm as the lens is 38mm equiv. on the smaller sensor.<br /> I want a narrow 58mm hood such as ET67, and shorten it (I've done this kind of thing before!) so it's compact and gives some impact protection even if it's not the best for shielding from light. There are other hoods also with the more common EW designation, as well as ES as in ES 71 II for 50mm f.1.4.</p>

<p>I'd like to know if the different coding refers to changes in the bayonet attachment or in the diameter of the bayonet on the different hoods I'm considering - even though they are all 58mm filter threads. While I intend to radically alter the length of the hood I buy, obviously the bayonet attachment needs to be the same as on the recommended EW-65B hood for the 24mm f.2.8 IS.</p>

[ljwest]

<p>My guesses...</p>

<p>EW: EF Wide<br /> ES: EF Standard <br /> ET: EF Telephoto</p>

<p>I think these have more to do with the lens range than anything else. Maybe the basic shape.</p>

<p>The number is the "size" in mm. Not the filter size, but the outer diameter size. The ET-83C for my EF 100-400 can swap with the EW-83J for my EF-S 17-55 (yes, the 100-400 hood vignettes a lot on the 17-55...). They both use a 77mm filter thread, but I'm not 100% sure once can always say that a lens with "X" filter thread takes a "Y" hood diameter...</p>

<p>The letter following groups the hood with a particular lens, when used with the rest. This may mean a different design (straight, petal shaped, deep, shallow, etc.) to work with the FOV or FOV range (for zooms) of the lens.</p>

<p>In your case, any "65" hood should mount to your lens. If you haven't shopped them, Canon charges an arm and a leg for hoods, considering what they are made of. And that's just for the regular black plastic ones. Look for knock-offs on auction sites, or find used/new genuine Canon at KEH for about 1/3-1/2 what Canon charges.</p>

[bobatkins]

<p>That's pretty much it. See also <a href="http://www.lensplay.com/lenses/lens_hoods1.html">http://www.lensplay.com/lenses/lens_hoods1.html</a></p>

<p>You can sometimes use a hood that's not specified for your lens when you use an EF lens on an APS-C body to get better shading without vignetting. For example, <strong>if you can get it to fit</strong>, you could use a hood designed for a 35mm focal length lens on a 24mm lens mounted on an APS-C body. It's the "if you can get it to fit" part that's tricky!</p>

<p> You should be able to cut down an ET or ES hood designed for the same diameter lens (65mm), but note that the type number doesn't tell you if it's a clip on hood or a bayonet mounting hood. Many of the earlier hood were clip on, most, if not all, of the current hoods are bayonet mount. I think the ET-65B is bayonet mount (though the "B" is a version number, not a bayonet designation)

[robin_sibson1]

<p>Canon has done nothing to support the use of EF lenses on 1.6-factor bodies through the provision of hoods more suitable than those designed for FF use, but there are a few cases where the fit is common and a better hood that that for FF can be found. Probably the best example is the EW-83J hood designed for the EF-S 17~55/2.8IS. This fits and works perfectly on the 17~40 when that lens is used on a 1.6-factor body, and is significantly better than the standard EW-83H hood on the 24~105 on a 1.6-factor body. But note that the diameter does not tell you the exact fit – not all "83" hoods can be fitted to a lens of that size.</p>

[bobatkins]

<p>Lens hood are often not truly optimized for the lens. There are quite a few examples from a number of manufacturers who use the same identical hood on one or more similar focal length lenses. I suppose it saves manufacturing costs.<br>

For example Canon specify the ES79II for both the 50/1.2L and 85/1.2L, so I guess it's not surprising they don't make hoods for EF lenses mounted on APS-C bodies, not to mention it also avoid vignetting complaints from people who don't know what they are doing!<br>

The added benefits from an exactly optimized hood are probably pretty marginal anyway. 99.9% of the time they'd probably be no better than the supplied hood.</p>

 

[joe_hunt1]

<p>The responses have been very helpful - thanks. I'm surprised at getting so much info on the identifying letters and numbers so quickly, on what I'd thought was an obscure topic. The link supplied to lensplay.com was also helpful in pairing the hoods with the lenses.<br>

I checked out all the Canon "65's" I could find, some of which were clip-on not bayonet, and now intend to get locally an independent Fusen brand (at 2/3rds the price) for Canon ET 65 B and cut it down to size!</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>Also, it is important, if you get into modifying hoods, that you remember that the viewfinders are not 100% views, except for the more expensive ones.</p>

<p>So you have to look at the images, not the viewfinder for obstruction/vignetting.</p>

[joe_hunt1]

<p>Good point JDM - I would check the screen (hopefully 100%) at near and far focus to be sure.</p>