Lens Hood for Canon 10-22

Goody13 · 15 Oct 2009

I have just taken delivery of my new 10-22 lens today and am on the hunt for a hood for it which I think I will need. Whilst the official one from Canon costs around £30, I have seen copies on ebay such as this http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/Canon-EW-83E-...286.m7QQ_trkparmsZalgo=LVI&itu=UCI&otn=3&ps=6 and this http://vi.ebaydesc.co.uk/ws/eBayISA...id=3&seller=tonyzhang888&bv=mozilla&caz.html#

Does anybody have any experience of these? I assume they are OK as surely a hood is a hood and, let's face it, I've seen a thread on here advocating making your own out of cardboard! Just wondered what views people had, since having recently bought this lens and a 70-300IS, I don't really want to spend much more at the moment.

rayman64 · 15 Oct 2009

had hoods of ebay from hong kong not a problem

Goody13 · 15 Oct 2009

Cheers. Can you remember where from or is it all pretty much of a muchness?

admirable · 15 Oct 2009

I use a EW-83H

Goody13 · 15 Oct 2009

Oh! The box says 83E. What's the difference, apart from 3 letters?!

admirable · 15 Oct 2009

about a tenner

ChrisJ_SLH · 16 Oct 2009

I bought the hood for the 10-22 by instinct when I got the lens. It is such a pain to carry (due to it's diameter) that I never use it.

The lens is very flare resistant anyway and I can't recall having an issue without it. With hindsight, I personally wouldn't bother.

StewartR · 16 Oct 2009

admirable said:
I use a EW-83H

Goody13 said:
Oh! The box says 83E. What's the difference, apart from 3 letters?!

The EW-83H is the hood for a 24-105L. It might physically fit a 10-22, but it's not the same shape and may cause vignetting. The EW-83E is the hood which is designed to be the right shape for a 10-22.

Goody13 · 16 Oct 2009

I was wondering about that... I like the advice that I may not need a hood! That's good for the pocket.

Vertigo1 · 16 Oct 2009

I bought the genuine Canon one from Amazon for about 22 quid.

Be aware that many of the third-party hoods don't have the felt-like finish on the inside to cut down reflections.

crumble · 16 Oct 2009

but they are matt black which is just as good I think

Byker28i · 16 Oct 2009

It's the only lens I have that didn't come with a lens hood and I've not noticed an issue. I have noticed vinyetting when using a circular polariser, so assumed a lens hood would be similar.

Freester · 16 Oct 2009

ChrisJ_SLH said:
I bought the hood for the 10-22 by instinct when I got the lens. It is such a pain to carry (due to it's diameter) that I never use it.

The lens is very flare resistant anyway and I can't recall having an issue without it. With hindsight, I personally wouldn't bother.

Goody13 said:
I was wondering about that... I like the advice that I may not need a hood! That's good for the pocket.

When I got my 10-22 I had awful problems with flare. I got the lens hood and it definitely helped.