Cheap Lens hoods Vs Genuine?

A

AndyG123

Suspended / Banned
Messages
398
Name
Andy
Edit My Images
Yes
I never really use lens hoods... However I do have an 85mm without a lens hood, I have my 35mm with a lens hood somewhere in the house (total mystery)
I'm wanting to try them out more and see how much difference they make to an image...
Ive seen the genuine ones for £40
Now I've seen the China ones for £2...
What difference would there be in the hoods?
 
The originals are better quality plastic and fit like a glove.
Buy £2 at your own risk.
 
IME the cheap ones are just as good, probably come out of the same factory...

I see absolutely no reason whatsoever to pay £40 for a lens hood.

How much difference it makes to your images depends on circumstances, they can reduce flare and glare if the sun is oblique and the hood shades the front of the lens.

They do offer good protection so are worth using.
 
I do have a lens hood (tulip style) for my 18-55 I think this is not genuine as it doesn't fit in reverse...
The 35mm one I had would fit backwards and was great for storage and traveling about.
 
Nawty said:
IME the cheap ones are just as good, probably come out of the same factory...
Click to expand...

Not the ones on good lenses though. Maybe the ones on cheap lenses. The ones on Canon L lenses for example are real hefty tough things that can last decades of getting bashed about
 
Caerus said:
Not the ones on good lenses though. Maybe the ones on cheap lenses. The ones on Canon L lenses for example are real hefty tough things that can last decades of getting bashed about
Click to expand...

Yes, but with Canon L lenses they are included when purchased new
If you are buying separately you can get a few generics for the price of a genuine item, so longevity isn't that important

People happily buy third party batteries, hoods are a far less risky proposition.
 
Last edited:
When I used Canon L lenses I would put the hood on in crowded places in case of knocks or scuffs on the lens its self.
If it didn't come with a hood I would get the best I could new or second hand. I didn't want to damage the thread on a £1,000 lens.

Now a Sigma 19/30/60mm for a mft camera. I buy cheap as they are cheap to begin with. Second hand lens even cheaper.

Personally I would go for the best you can afford for the L lens
 
AndyG123 said:
I never really use lens hoods... However I do have an 85mm without a lens hood, I have my 35mm with a lens hood somewhere in the house (total mystery)
I'm wanting to try them out more and see how much difference they make to an image...
Ive seen the genuine ones for £40
Now I've seen the China ones for £2...
What difference would there be in the hoods?
Click to expand...

£38 :D

I would struggle to see the need to pay the extra just for a hood ... except perhaps for re-selling on TP, where many would want the lens for half price because of it. ;)
 
One of the differences can be that the OEM hood is felt lined whereas the cheaper ones aren’t. Theory is that this reduces reflections. In my experience the cheaper hoods are fine.
 
I’ve had mixed experiences with third party hoods. Sometimes they’re fine but I’ve had third party ones for a Nikon 24-70 and 70-200 and they were awful. One was way too tight and another wouldn’t lock in place. Didn’t cost much so no great loss but sometimes you do get what you pay for. Just a shame you have to pay so bloody much!
 
redsnappa said:
I expected to see this thread full of knowledgeable people discussing the difference in flare reduction, image quality differences between OEM & 3rd party hoods. However it seems toughness of the plastic seems to be the most important measure of quality according to this thread. :(
Click to expand...

Because cardboard wrapped in duct tape or £100 hood will stop side light..... Most coffee shops give out free hoods too :)

2star12916.png



Would the op like cheap plastic hood that may damage your thread or the correct hood that cost a lot but fits like it should.

To be honest I wouldn't be able to tell the image quality if someone had used a 50 or a 5 quid hood.
 
redsnappa said:
I expected to see this thread full of knowledgeable people discussing the difference in flare reduction, image quality differences between OEM & 3rd party hoods. However it seems toughness of the plastic seems to be the most important measure of quality according to this thread. :(
Click to expand...
I’m not aware anyone’s done any scientific tests.

The thing is, some OEM hoods are quite old designs, have no flock lining and some don’t fit brilliantly.

Cheap 3rd party hoods don’t have the lining, they may or may not fit well, and they may be made out of crap plastic.

The upside is that as a hood is a relatively simple concept, just copying a shape means you’ll make something as good as the original.

The worst thing is that it’ll not fit well so will interfere with the image, or it’ll be not black enough or not flock lined so it’ll not be quite as efficient. I’m not sure it’s worth a full test, but I have considered buying some self adhesive flock to line my own hoods (both OEM and 3rd party)
 
redsnappa said:
I expected to see this thread full of knowledgeable people discussing the difference in flare reduction, image quality differences between OEM & 3rd party hoods. However it seems toughness of the plastic seems to be the most important measure of quality according to this thread. :(
Click to expand...

My Voigtlander hoods, my FE35 little hood thingy (is still in the box), my FE85 hood & even my FE28-70mm hood have never been attached I don't think. Well, not that I can remember anyway....... And some of my hoods are metal..!
 
redsnappa said:
I expected to see this thread full of knowledgeable people discussing the difference in flare reduction, image quality differences between OEM & 3rd party hoods. However it seems toughness of the plastic seems to be the most important measure of quality according to this thread. :(
Click to expand...

There's some of all that in this thread, with comparisons. Scroll down:
https://www.talkphotography.co.uk/threads/improving-product-photography.424241/#post-4949843

A really good lens hood can and will make a big difference in some situations, as well as adding significant physical protection. I use one 100% of the time.

A cheap lens hood will work fine if a) it's specifically designed for the lens in question, b) fits well and is robustly made, and c) has a properly matt-black interior. It's the last bit that's often missing, but you can put it right by lining the inside with self-adhesive black felt (75p Hobbycraft) :thumbs:
 
Last edited:
Phil V said:
I’m not aware anyone’s done any scientific tests.

The thing is, some OEM hoods are quite old designs, have no flock lining and some don’t fit brilliantly.

Cheap 3rd party hoods don’t have the lining, they may or may not fit well, and they may be made out of crap plastic.

The upside is that as a hood is a relatively simple concept, just copying a shape means you’ll make something as good as the original.

The worst thing is that it’ll not fit well so will interfere with the image, or it’ll be not black enough or not flock lined so it’ll not be quite as efficient. I’m not sure it’s worth a full test, but I have considered buying some self adhesive flock to line my own hoods (both OEM and 3rd party)
Click to expand...

I bought a second hand lens which came with a cheap 3rd party hood which was obviously too wide and was also prone to falling off. Since it was a full frame lens and I'm using it on a crop sensor camera I decided to get a narrower longer hood than the original. To my surprise this cheap 3rd party lens came with an unexpected really good flock lining. I did some comparisons of its resistance to flare, contrast loss, etc. when the sun was just outside the image. I found that a black plastic hood which was pointed close enough to the sun that the sun lit up part of the inside of the hood, but did not touch the lens, reflected enough light into the lens to cause quite obvious loss of image contrast compared to the flock lined hood.

As a result of that experiment I bought some adhesive flock paper (astronomers use it inside telescopes) to line my lens hoods. About a year ago. So I just made a New Year resolution that this year I must find it and stick into my lens hoods :-)
 
Other than my Nikon 500 f4 VR I can't think of any other Nikon lens I have bought that has come with a lens hood with a flock interior.
 
I use lens hoods for protection rather then flare etc.
I had a strap break on one of my old nikon cameras it hit a concrete path face down straight onto the lens hood
on a 70/200 2.8 !!!
Heart stopping moment but the only damage was a split hood, camera and lens both survived and continued
working perfectly, lens still does a few years later, camera I passed on a while back
So yes it was replaced with a genuine hood
 
I don't think I've ever had a lens hood with a flock interior whether it be Nikon, Sigma, Tamron or whoever - I feel unduly discriminated against :dummy:
 
Bristolian said:
I don't think I've ever had a lens hood with a flock interior whether it be Nikon, Sigma, Tamron or whoever - I feel unduly discriminated against :dummy:
Click to expand...
Neither have I, but I've never had reflections from a hood cause issues either.
Hoods for wide angle lenses usually taper outwards & telephoto hoods are usually somewhat longer. Both of these design features reduce the chances of reflections for the hood interior making it to the front element.
Matt black should be quite sufficient, and with ridged designs even gloss black might be fine.

I'd prefer to avoid pale designs like Adrian's Starbucks model - but I bet even that works :)
 
Bristolian said:
I don't think I've ever had a lens hood with a flock interior whether it be Nikon, Sigma, Tamron or whoever - I feel unduly discriminated against :dummy:
Click to expand...
I'd never come across it before myself. Perhaps it's something that Canon do to make their consumer-base feel more 'special'.
 
The saddest thing about this thread is that I'm seriously considering buying a cup of muddy brown water just to get a cardboard lens hood. Phase two will involve a trip to Surrey NanoSystems.
 
Bristolian said:
I don't think I've ever had a lens hood with a flock interior whether it be Nikon, Sigma, Tamron or whoever - I feel unduly discriminated against :dummy:
Click to expand...

Canon.

Black flocking is the most effective material for a lens hood, though dust etc tends to stick to it so they need cleaning every now and then.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top