latham_portous Posted February 19, 2004 Share Posted February 19, 2004 I am wondering if anyone here uses a lens hood for the 100mm macro 2.8 USM other than the ET-67. It is $85.00AU and the other ones (non- Canon) are $10.00. Will I really see a difference between the two? Has anyone noticed more contrast, etc with the Canon brand? I know you are all going to say I have an expensive lens and that I should shell out the $85.00 but is it justified? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bob_bell Posted February 20, 2004 Share Posted February 20, 2004 I bought a rubber collapsable hood from B+H that is screw on with filter threads for 10-15 bux that works really well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bill_goldman Posted February 20, 2004 Share Posted February 20, 2004 There are at least 4 reasons for getting the dedicated Canon hood. 1.0 First of all, it is specifically designed for your lens, providing maximum coverage to prevent flare. 2.0) It is quickly fitted to the lens and reverses for storage. 3.0) It does not need to be screwed onto the filter threads and so does not interfere with installing or removing filters. 4.0) It provides maximum protection for your lens if it is bumped or dropped. If none of the above matters to you, get the $10 rubber one. BTW, is it possible for you to order the hood from B&H or other USA vendor? It might save you some money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bill_goldman Posted February 20, 2004 Share Posted February 20, 2004 And oh yes, the lens cap fits on the lens with the hood reversed for storage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bill_goldman Posted February 20, 2004 Share Posted February 20, 2004 Also, the ET-67 hood is $35 US at B&H. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
helen_b. Posted February 20, 2004 Share Posted February 20, 2004 There are at least 3 reasons to choose a "generic" rubber-type hood :) <br> 1) It can be really larger than your lens thus permitting usage of a larger filter, too (i.e. 100/2.8 has 58 mm thread but if you have alse 70-200/4L and 24-85, you may prefer 67 mm ones) <br> 2) Don't need to dismount or to "reverse" it at all to compact the entire construct. Just shrink or retract it! <br> 3) Really inexpensive. 5$ for a step-up ring (58->67), and 6$ for a hood (designed to shade a 50mm lens on a 67 mm thread mount) <br> <br> I am using the same set of things for a year and found it VERY usable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
helen_b. Posted February 20, 2004 Share Posted February 20, 2004 Eh, a little comment: <br> these cheap rubber hoods are available from Cokin (France) and Kaiser (Germany). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
latham_portous Posted February 20, 2004 Author Share Posted February 20, 2004 Thanks all. It looks like opinions are a little different! I have to think about getting the Canon one from the US if I can get it cheap enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve_armstrong1 Posted February 20, 2004 Share Posted February 20, 2004 "First of all, it is specifically designed for your lens" I have the dedicated one & my vote goes with Bill for above reason, if nothing else. Would be a shame to comprimise performance for the price - I think mine was about 20 sterling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
richard_tynan2 Posted February 20, 2004 Share Posted February 20, 2004 I'm with Bill on this one. The 100 USM macro is not a cheap lens and the front element is very exposed. The dedicated hood will offer far more protection than a rubber one. I think the ET-67 cost me 38 GBP (not cheap for a bit of plastic) but I think it is well worth it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnb Posted February 20, 2004 Share Posted February 20, 2004 Will the Hood (ET-67) for Canon 100mm Macro fit on any other Canon 58mm lens?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eosdoc Posted February 20, 2004 Share Posted February 20, 2004 G'day Latham,<P> If you are going for cheap, make a tube with some black paper and a rubber band. <P> Have you tried shopping around for the best price for the ET-67? Check the vendors on this list:<BR> <a href= http://www.acecam.com/oceania1.html >http://www.acecam.com/oceania1.html</a> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
latham_portous Posted February 20, 2004 Author Share Posted February 20, 2004 Thanks for your input everyone. I think I'll fork out the cash and get the Canon one. I'm pretty serious about outdoor macro and moreso portraits so I better get whatever is made for this lens. Thanks Julian for the tiolet roll technique...after a while I'm sure it'll give me the shits!(no pun intended:-) I checked out B&H, but after the small currency conversion and the large freight for such a small item, it's better to buy locally and spend $5 more. OK...that's it...I'm goin' to get it now...bye! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ture_p_lsson Posted February 20, 2004 Share Posted February 20, 2004 Does the Ef 100/2.8 USM macro come in different packages on different markets? When I ordered mine (from a Swedish mail-order company) I decided to put off ordering the hood for a while and then, much to my surprise, found that the lens came with both hood and a soft storage pouch in the box. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eosdoc Posted February 21, 2004 Share Posted February 21, 2004 My EF 100 USM macro came in a box with a plastic bag and caps. No hood, no soft pouch. Which Swedish mail order retailer was this? Could it have been a returned item, and was packed with the bonus materials? <P> P.S. Latham's idea with the dunny roll is not going to work. Unless he smears the inner surface with something dark and non-reflective. For some reason, Vegemite comes to mind. Yum :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ture_p_lsson Posted February 21, 2004 Share Posted February 21, 2004 Either Scandinavian Photo (www.scandinavianphoto.se) or Cyberphoto (www.cyberphoto.se); I can't remember now. In any case, the box, which looks very "canon-original-ish" clearly says "with Lens Case LP1219 and Lens Hood ET-67" on the outside. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
latham_portous Posted February 22, 2004 Author Share Posted February 22, 2004 Ture, sounds like you got great service. I like Julian only got the usual red colour Canon box with lens caps and nothing else. Julian, you are right, the dunny roll won't do. It's also too narrow. I wonder if I'll notice the difference in my photographic images after using the ET-67 hood, without a direct pre-hood and post-hood comparison. Everyone says "you gotta have the hood....it is soooo good." I'll soon find out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yakim_peled1 Posted February 22, 2004 Share Posted February 22, 2004 I don't have this lens but I have lens hoods for all my lenses. I especially bought it for three of them (24/2.8, 35/2, 85/1.8). I have peace of mind that my flare and physical protection are maximized. HTH. Happy shooting ,Yakim. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eosdoc Posted February 22, 2004 Share Posted February 22, 2004 The hood is most useful if there is significant backlighting. Since I tend to use my EF 100 USM macro with flash, the hood sometimes gets in the way. Decide for yourself. See:<BR> <a href= http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=006fWa >http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=006fWa</a> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now