17-40/4L: lens hood unneccessary ?

[carsten_ranke]

On my 300D, I feel that the giant lens hood that comes with the 17-

40/4L is not only inconvenient, but unneccessary because of the 1.6

crop factor. I made some shots in the sun without lens hood and was

quite happy with the results. Has anyone evidence for real advantage

of the lens hood here ? Or should I use the BW-83DII that would fit

the FOV better and is more convenient ?

 

Thank you for your advice

 

Carsten

[PuppyDigs]

With the 1.6x factor a deeper hood would be even better. The hood helps protect the lens during drops and bangs. My hoods have saved me a couple times by taking the intial impact (& popping off).

[david choo]

I've never found the hood for my 16-35mm L was worth much. When i see stray light hitting my front lens element, I flag it off with a notebook or something of the sort, often I'm under an umbrella when I shoot, but that isn't exactly an option for most types of photography.

 

On super wide angle lenses, I suggest flagging off the light hitting the front lens element with something... but further off camera. If that is not an option then even the Canon hood helps.

[alex_tudor]

Use the hood for protection if nothing else! How much does your lens cost and how much a replacement hood should it get banged?

 

Think about it. A hood is just as much to protect the lens as it is to reduce flare, etc.

 

And BTW, on my 16-35mm f/2.8L (which has the same hood as yours) the hood is not a bother at all. Compare that with the hood on the 24-70mm f/2.8L or 70-200mm f/2.8L.

 

Alex

[yakim_peled1]

>> I made some shots in the sun without lens hood and was quite happy with the results.

 

If you were happy, why ask others ?

 

Happy shooting ,

Yakim.

[paul_rogers1]

I did a round of tripod landscape shots with the camera at various angles to the sun. Flare didn't seem meaningfully different, but I did see a big improvement in contrast for shots where the sun was just off frame.

 

Since I don't always use a tripod, or necessarily have time to check whether sunlight is hitting the front element, I decided to keep the hood on for walking around shooting.

 

Paul

[edgreene]

$50 hoods protect $1,500 lenses. Do the math.<p>In addition, a hood, as has been noted, reduces flare (no matter how much luck you've had so far), in instances where the photographer is totally unaware of the possibility for flare.<p>All my EOS lenses wear Canon EOS lens hoods and HOYA 1b skylight filters (wherever possible).<br>Why? I'd rather occassionally have to clean a fliter or buy another HOYA Pro filter than scratch the front element of my $1,500 EOS "L" lens.

[aaron_lam]

You can use the EW-83D hood for the 17-40 or 16-35 on a DSLR with no vignetting. http://www.burren.cx/photo/ew83d.html

It took me a while to find one but it is great. It doesn't fit perfect on the lens (doesn't rotate on and off that smoothly) but the tighter fit lets me leave it on at all times in the camera bag. It has been SO much more convienent and was actually one of the selling points for the 17-40.