Using ET-65 on 50 F1.8 on digital?

[isaac sibson]

The 50 F1.8 mk I uses lens hood ES-65, which is a clip on type, and

the 65 indicates that the mounting end is 65mm in diameter.

 

However, there also exists hood ET-65, which is a longer hood for

the 85 F1.8, 100 F2 and 100-300 USM. It is also a clip-on hood with

rear diameter of 65mm.

 

When you mount the 50 F1.8 on a D30, D60 or 10D the 1.6X FOV crop

results in an effective 80mm F1.8. Which is very close indeed to the

85 F1.8 spec that the ET-65 is designed for.

 

So has anyone tried using the longer hood on the 50mm lens on a

digital body? I can see that it might just possibly vignette, but it

could be filed down a little (depending on whether you use it on

anything else I guess...). I think the extra depth of the hood would

be useful.

[fj5]

I don't believe it would vignette with the 50 1.8. I use a Hama Telematic Lens Hood and I sometimes use it on my 50 1.8 extended to the second farthest length (looks to be almost the same depth of the ET-65II). I believe I can extend the hood fully (supposedly suitable for 210mm, I use it on my 75-300) and I don't recall any vignetting... of course, I don't fully remember. I'll check tonight with the hood extended completely and I'll let you know. The Hama Telematic hood is supposed to be good from 24-210mm. I've used it on my 28-105 (at 24mm setting) on top of a Hoya Circ. Polarizer (not the thin one) and didn't see any vignetting. Again, I'll recheck tonight. Of course, my Ti can only see 90% vert. and horiz. but I'll look through my older photos and negatives (there could very well have been vignetting but the cropping process of printing negatives probably got rid of them). BUT again, your D30 has a 1.6x cropping factor right? I think you'll be fine. I'm not sure about your EOS 3 though. =)

 

Consider getting a 52-58mm step up ring (also good for stacking 58mm filters without vignetting, if ever you do that sort of thing) and get a 58mm Hama Telematic lens hood (cap size is 62mm, just to let you know if you leave the hood on at all times). It is a useful accessory.

 

I assume you're asking this question without ever using the hood before correct? If not, you do have a D30, go into the store, try your idea, and take some pics. If you don't trust the image preview, you can always go back the next day.

 

Good luck!

[peter_langfelder]

Isaac,

 

I use the ET-65 hood on my 50/1.8 Mk I on my film EOS camera. I shot some test exposures of uniform blue skies to see whether it vignettes - I only see vignetting wide open, and it's the same with or without the hood on! At f/2.8 and above I saw no vignetting at all, again with or without the hood. Looking at the lens with the hood on you can see that the hood blocks only the light going to the very edge of the front element, and if you stop the aperture down, you will see that the hood doesn't block any light going through the aperture.

[isaac sibson]

Thanks!

 

I suspected that canon were reasonably conservative about their hoods to prevent vignetting, but I didn't realise that they were THAT conservative!

[jean_berthe]

I would assume the opposite: you could use the EW-65 on the 50 f1.8 with the 1.6X cropping. The crop means that sensor uses the middle part of the lens, leaving the periphery of the lens �out of the picture�. This should, in effect, remove any vignetting of the lens when used with the EW-65 hood.

 

I would not be afraid using the ES-65 hood since it is built for that lens. If you have it, keep using it.

 

Also, the ET-65 will not store reversed on the lens while it is mounted. The ES-65 fits very tight on my 50 f1.8 mk1 mounted on my EOS3.

 

Good luck

[isaac sibson]

I think you are confused jean.

 

Why would you want to use the EW-65 hood, as it is less deep than the standard ES-65? The point is to gain further flare protection from the deeper ET-65.

[PuppyDigs]

Gentleman, I have used the ET-65 on my EF 50 1.8 and EOS 35mm without any vignetting for 10 years. However, the current ES-65 II (FOR TS 90) also fits perfectly albeit slightly shorter.

[jean_berthe]

Issac

 

I meant that, to the extreme, you could use the EW-65 with the 50 f1.8 and the resulting picture would be without visual vignetting. Vignetting is caused by the edge of the hood reducing the light reaching in the edge of the lens. Because of the 1.6 crop, the little vignetting the EW-65 would cause to the 50 f1.8 would be lost. I still would use the ES-65 with the 50 f1.8 because it is matched to that lens. Even if the lens with the 1.6X crop is close to 80mm, you don�t have to put a hood designed for that 1.0X crop (ET-65). For that reason, I would first use the ES-65, then second the EW-65. I would not consider the ET-65! To file down the ET-65 would result to a ES-65!

 

You asked about vignetting. I should not be concerned about vignetting caused by the EW-65 mounted on the 50 f1.8 with a 1.6X digital crop. You did not asked about the hood protecting against flare. The ES-65 is more likely designed to protect the 50 f1.8 against flare. This is the reason why I would still use the ES-65.

 

It is trickier to use the smallest hood with optimum results. In the worst case, you could drill a hole in the bottom of a garbage can and mount your lens into it. If it is wide enough, it should not cause any vignetting and you will not get flare, unless you shoot the sun.

 

Again, if you have an ES-65, use it. Don�t worry about the bigger hood.

 

Good luck

[isaac sibson]

Of course EW-65 would be without vignetting, since it is a wider hood than ES-65. That would be the case on full frame, let alonethe D30.

 

The point about the ET-65 is the extra depth, and I've already seen situations with ES-65 where the lens is flaring, and holding my hand out to a point which ET-65 would cover has solved the issue. My hand did not intrude into the frame.

 

The ideal for most any lens is to use the longest hood you can, hence why a telephoto lens has a longer hood than a wide-angle.

[steve_dunn2]

<cite> I suspected that canon were reasonably conservative about their hoods to prevent vignetting, but I didn't realise that they were THAT conservative!</cite>

 

<p>The ET-65 is actually a hood for a 70mm lens - it's the hood for the discontinued 70-210 f/3.5-4.5 USM as well as the other lenses mentioned above. That's why it shouldn't vignette on an effective 80mm lens. (Canon may also be conservative with their hoods - dunno about that - but it's not an issue in this case.)</p>

[fj5]

By conservative, I think Isaac is referring to the fact that you may still use that hood on the 50mm f/1.8 II on a 35mm film body, not just a digital one.

 

I'd say convenient over conservative. =)

[isaac sibson]

Indeed. However, it seems worthwhile to try to find one or wait for one to come up on ebay (where I got my ES-65 for £3.20), especially if it will work on the EOS 3 also.