Hood for 50/2.5 CM

[igord]

<p>Does anybody know about good lens hood for 50/2.5?<br>

Canon says "no hood" but I would like to get one.</p>

[PuppyDigs]

<p>Just buy a 52mm screw-in metal hood. There are dozens on the market. I have this one and it looks and works great:<br>

http://www.amazon.com/RainbowImaging-HM52-Metal-Nikkor-Standard/dp/B0031CS83U/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&qid=1402258283&sr=8-5&keywords=lens+hood%2C+52mm</p>

[igord]

<p>Thanks Puppy Face, I thought maybe canon's hood from the other lens would match.</p>

[ruben leal]

I don't have this lens, and I always use a hood on all of my lenses, however, from the photos of the lens I found over the

net, I believe you could use this lens without a hood, as the front element seems to be quite deep within the lens body.

Regarding adapting another lens' hood to be used with this one, I don't think that's possible, as the hoods usually attach

to the front to the retracting part of the lens body, but in this case there are no groves to attach a hood, so the only two

options would be the suggestion from Puppy Face, or attaching a hood with some screws, which may damage the lens if

excessive force is applied when attaching such hood.

[PuppyDigs]

<blockquote>

<p>"I thought maybe canon's hood from the other lens would match."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Canon didn't bequeath the 50 2.5 with the notch/groove to fit a clip-on or twist on Canon hood. I find these Chinese metal hoods more attractive and durable than Canon's plastic fantastic hoods. <br>

<br>

However if you want a name brand hood, Nikon makes a couple screw-in metal hoods for 52mm. They'll cost ya a pretty penny tho' but are cute as all get out. The Nikon HS-9 screws on but has an ingenious quick release. Plus it makes the 50 2.5 look like it's wearing a mini skirt! The HN-3 also fits but is a bit shallow. I didn't buy them for the 50 2.5 but they're what's left of my Nikon film kit. I kept them around once they're great designs and 52mm is a common size.</p>

[igord]

<p>Ruben, shooting against strong light is a little problem.</p>

<p>Puppy Face thanks for your research, CM has a sort of clip-on ring that's why I started to think about canon hood.<br>

Canon's ET-65II which came with my 85/1.8 has a pefrect length (I use it with my 50/1.8 "mark I") but is too big to clip-on on CM.</p>

<p>Will check nikon's HS-9, thanks.</p>

[igord]

<p>Edit: nikon's HS-8 for 85/2 seems to be 52 mm hood.</p>

[Robin Smith]

<p>I don't really see why you need one. If Canon say one isn't needed, then I don't see the point. Doesn't it just increase the size of the lens unnecessarily? I like lenses that don't need hoods.</p>

[james_elwing]

<p>It's a macro with a built in lens hood, like many other macros going back to the dawn of time; well at least 50 years. Canon is telling you a lens hood isn't necessary. If you want one, the camera junk bin will have lots of 52mm lens hoods, or you can buy new. It doesn't matter what kind, because you don't need it. This is just about the only kind of lens that really doesn't need a hood. Relax.</p>

[igord]

<p>Robin, James. In canon's theory everything is simple and you probably never used 50 CM in reality. As you see, in some situations this lens does need a hood, as nobody wants to use hand as a hood.<br>

Last time I asked question about jpeg settings experience I got most answers "shoot raw instead" :D</p><div></div>

[PuppyDigs]

<p>Haha, you need to wear a hat: makes a much better hood than your hand (unless you're blessed with jumbo mitts).</p>

[Robin Smith]

<p>Sometimes a hand <em>is</em> the best thing to use, even if there is a hood. The point I think is not that a hood is never necessary with the macro, but that most the time it will not be, and that you are adding size for little benefit. Is it particularly flare prone? It looks to me in that right photo that the sun has moved behind the leaf/branch, unless that dark upper right hand corner is the edge of your hand (unlikely I think since it is sharply rendered). If that corner is your hand then the lens hood would not have helped you anyway, unless you are happy with it vignetting the corners.</p>

[ruben leal]

Another option is a hood that doesn't attaches to the lens, like the Flare Buster (http://www.flarebuster.com). I have used

this for around a year with very good results for landscape photography, and it may also work as a small reflector when

doing macro photography.

[PuppyDigs]

<p>One of the nice things about the 50 2.5, although a macro design, it makes a fine general purpose lens and even a nice portrait lens on APS-C. So while macro doesn't need a hood, it's not a bad idea while shooting outdoors, especially since a 52mm metal hood is cheaper than a Big Mac.</p>

[igord]

<p>Thanks for your tips, I don't look good in hats! <br>

The nikon hood is ordered at the price of sushi lunch.<br>

50 CM is good as a portrait lens on FF camera too, at least for me!</p>

<div></div>

[igord]

<p>Walking with 50 CM.</p><div></div>

[james_elwing]

<p>It's a good little lens. I do use a Nikon lens hood on the front of a polariser when using a polarised light copying set up, mostly to help get the cross polarisers aligned; it's very fiddly otherwise.<br>

I guess this would keep excess light off the polarised filter, or any filter, in normal photography, so maybe you have a point; grovel grovel.</p><div></div>

[james_elwing]

<p>I keep the polariser and the hood together just for copying.</p><div></div>

[igord]

<p>Thanks James!<br>

I had similar setup for making ad slides for cinemas screened before the actual movie.</p>

<p>When I shoot through tiffen's low contrast filter I always need hood or anything that can stop the side/backlight. </p>

[james_elwing]

<p>But of course, you hardly need a UV to protect the front element in normal use</p>