Authentic lens hoods Vs Generic

J

JDyer

Suspended / Banned
Messages
85
Name
John
Edit My Images
Yes
This may have been approached before but wondering if there is any real difference between the 2, its a hood for a Canon 'nifty fifty'

At nearly a third of a price of the authentic one i think that the generic one should do the job. My other cannon lenses have the authentic hoods on and they fit superbly and feel quality made but i can imagine that the generic ones would not have that quality feel or as i imaging you double the price because it has canon printed on it.

Can anyone recommend a hood that has a quality feel for around a tenner?

Thanks
 
I never bothered with a hood for my 50 1.8. The front element is set quite deep inside the lens and that in itself acts as sort of a hood, and I believe the hood on a 50 is a circular one rather than a petal shaped one which makes it less effective, especially when petal hoods are perfect for prime lenses.
 
I always get my 3rd party hoods from Fotocola http://stores.ebay.co.uk/fotocola-camera/for-Canon-/_i.html?_fsub=290921015&_sid=754152475&_trksid=p4634.c0.m322 on the Bay, I have both canon genuine and 3rd party and the Canons are possibly better quality but tbh the only way to tell would be to take both and try smashing them with a hammer etc. So, are the Canons 3 times better ? Nope. Are the 3rd Party ones any good ? Yep. I dropped my camera onto concrete and it landed lens first, it was fitted with a 3rd party hood. Result? a scuff on the hood and nothing more. One saved lens, Phew! Best tenner I ever spent :thumbs:

Nuffles is right about the 50 1.8 hood though, it may be effective to a degree but I haven't noticed any difference whether fitted or not, however as my tale above shows it will certainly give a fair bit of protection to filter threads etc. As for your other lenses then have a hood fitted to all of them all the time it really does improve some shots depending on the angle of lighting,reduces flare and improves contrast it may also one day save your precious glass.
 
Last edited:
I never felt I needed a lens hood on my 50mm, or a filter for that matter. As said the element is sat far back enough so as not to worry.
 
I searched for months to find a Fujifilm lenshood for my HS10 and there none to be had anywhere in the world.
I figured in the end that a 58mm lens hood from another camera in the range should fit which it did.

Some generic lens-hoods I looked at were fiddly to fit and many are not threaded so do not allow you to fit any filters.
Most generic lens hoods will not reverse fit on the lens for when not needed.

Another important thing to consider is vignetting. If you have a bridge camera, or intend using the hood with a wide angled lens most generic hoods will not be designed for use with your specific camera lens.
 
All the 3rd party hoods for specific lenses in the DSLR ranges are bayonet fitting and are exact replicas of the OEM Hoods so no worries about fit or reverse storage. Are you talking about generic threaded hoods to fit any camera/lens with that particular thread ? not the same thing at all and another reason why bridge cameras with fixed zooms are not so easily fitted with accessories. I don't know of any bayonet lens hoods with a thread fitted as well btw, do they exist? I'm not inviting a debate on "My Dslrs better than your bridge camera" (I own both and a Canon G series compact as well and they all have there place) Not a good or bad thing just different. BTW did a google search for a fujifilm HS10 hood and got one at amazon right away !? Just dont read the user review (ouch)

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Fujifilm-Lens-Hood-for-LH-HS10/dp/B003ZNLLDY/ref=sr_1_6?ie=UTF8&qid=1301482712&sr=8-6
 
Last edited:
Just had a cheapy ebay hood delivered for my 18-135 kit lens. Got it from foto4easy or someone, £2.90 DELIVERED! It fits well, seems to be made of decent quality plastic, and reverses fine. They sell it using Canons product code, so you know its going to fit.
 
I couldn't bring myself to spend that much money on an OEM hood for a nifty-50 so bought a cheapy of Amazon and sure enough, it was rather shiny plastic inside and not the nice Canon black flocking. Could actually make things worse.

I sorted it with some self-adhesive black felt from HobbyCraft - 79p. Very easy and very nearly as good as the real thing :thumbs:
 
dont bother with a hood for the 50 1.8 . The front element moves in and out as you focus, and the hood attaches to it, so it adds length to the moving front element which poses a risk of it getting caught and damaged.
 
Thanks for the replies.

Think that the general concencus is that i either don't need one or the cheaper copied ones work ok, will take the plunge on a copy and see how i get on. If the plastic is shiny on the inside i have some matt black acyrlic paint i can put a thin layer on to dull it down, like the idea of the sticky felt though.
 
strobemonkey said:
dont bother with a hood for the 50 1.8 . The front element moves in and out as you focus, and the hood attaches to it, so it adds length to the moving front element which poses a risk of it getting caught and damaged.
Click to expand...

if its the same as my 1.4 its doesnt move with the inner barrel as its mounted to the outer barrel.

Another reason for this hood on the 50mm 1.8 & 1.4 is the delicate motors and a nock to the inner barrel can cause allignment issues rendering the lens useless.
 
JDyer said:
Thanks for the replies.

Think that the general concencus is that i either don't need one or the cheaper copied ones work ok, will take the plunge on a copy and see how i get on. If the plastic is shiny on the inside i have some matt black acyrlic paint i can put a thin layer on to dull it down, like the idea of the sticky felt though.
Click to expand...

Matt paint just isn't black. Felt is the best thing this side of flocking or velvet.
 
HoppyUK said:
Matt paint just isn't black. Felt is the best thing this side of flocking or velvet.
Click to expand...

:lol: Reminds me of the Father Ted line - "always by your socks from the priests supply shop cause they are the only ones who sell black...if you buy from an ordinary shop they sell you really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really dark blue."
 
33L said:
if its the same as my 1.4 its doesnt move with the inner barrel as its mounted to the outer barrel.

Another reason for this hood on the 50mm 1.8 & 1.4 is the delicate motors and a nock to the inner barrel can cause allignment issues rendering the lens useless.
Click to expand...

The hood on the 1.8 attaches to an adapter ring which in-turn attaches to the filter ring on the lens.

It's such a small lens, I can't see knocking it being an issue.
 
taz said:
I know this an oldish thread but I just thought I'd add my threepeneth.

I just bought a replacement hood for a Canon 24-70 of the evilbay
http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=220752253331&ssPageName=STRK:MEWNX:IT#ht_3120wt_989

Bearing in mind what people have said about Canon hoods having a felt lining and generic ones not, I was pleasantly surprised when the hood arrived this morning to see that it does have the felt lining as well.

Very pleased.
Click to expand...

Handy to know :) You can never tell by looking at the pictures - thought the one I bought might have been flock lined, but it wasn't.

Any clues on the actual brand name?
 
taz said:
I just bought a replacement hood for a Canon 24-70 of the evilbay
http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI....253331&ssPageName=STRK:MEWNX:IT#ht_3120wt_989

Bearing in mind what people have said about Canon hoods having a felt lining and generic ones not, I was pleasantly surprised when the hood arrived this morning to see that it does have the felt lining as well.

Very pleased.
Click to expand...

Some of the cheap ones have velvet lining. Your link is an example, and I'm sure the 17-85 IS lens hood also has. I'm searching for one for my 85 f1.8. The ebay cheapos don't seem to have ones with velvet.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top