Lens Hoods

[Hallsy]

I know that many people leave a lens hood on all the time as added protection to he front element, let alone helping to prevent flare.

Is there anytime that having a lens hood (OEM) fitted would be detrimental? If not then why aren't they built into the lens design rather than being an add on?

Slightly off topic, I want to buy a lens hood for my Canon 50mm f/1.8, is the Canon one the best to go for? I have heard of some people using the rubber ones?

 

[tdodd]

I'm happy with a cheap rubber one from eBay. As the lens is a prime there is no zooming to worry about and no need for a fancy hood design. The front element is already quite deeply recessed and any hood is just icing on the cake. A rubber hood is quicker to stow than reversing a hard hood and may even give a small advantage when trying to shoot through glass, as you can flex the hood a bit and press the edge to the glass, thus eliminating reflections. With a hard hood you can only angle the lens perpendicular to the glass and with a petal hood you can't exclude all the light anyway. Cheap rubber is perfect for the 50/1.8.

Canon L lenses do come with hoods. The cheaper consumer grade lenses do not. They are built to meet a competitive price level and if you want the hood it costs extra. Canon hood prices are pretty outrageous - £20+ for a simple piece of plastic and felt lining. I do have original Canon hoods for my other lenses (five of them), and I always use the hoods unless I'm shooting macro and need to remove the hood to get close enough to my subject and still light it properly. I think a cheap rubber hood is all the cheap plastic nifty deserves or needs.

At eBay prices you could probably try out a rubber hood and a hard petal hood without breaking the bank....

http://search.ebay.co.uk/search/sea...=compare&copagenum=1&coentrypage=search&fgtp=

 

[michaelgreen78]

Is there anytime that having a lens hood (OEM) fitted would be detrimental? If not then why aren't they built into the lens design rather than being an add on?

Only if you're trying to keep as bulk free as possible I should think.

I always fit my lens hoods onto my lenses.

They're removable to make storing and cleaning the lens easier.

 

[Hallsy]

OK good, I shall continue to use them in all conditions then

To enable me to use my step up ring and 58mm filter I'd need a larger rubber hood I guess, I'll have to look around. I do quite like the look of the offical hood, but have heard it is a little fiddly, and it would also mean I'd have to buy a possibly expensive 52mm CPL. Hmmm!

 

[michaelgreen78]

Oh yeah...filters! The square varieties - you'll not be able to use your hood with those but the screw on types - uv/skylight etc will be ok with a hood.

 

[yourapocalypse]

I'm probably doing something wrong, but the petal lens hood on my 17-40 doesn't seem to attach in reverse :s

 

[tdodd]

I'm probably doing something wrong, but the petal lens hood on my 17-40 doesn't seem to attach in reverse :s

That seems very odd. I don't have the 17-40 but do have 10-22, 17-55, 17-85, 70-200 and 100-400 and the hoods reverse perfectly well on them all. Just keep twisting it round a bit further. Hopefully at some point it will slot into place. Note that when the hood is in use you have the short petals at the sides and the long petals top and bottom. When you reverse the hood the petals are turned round 90 degrees, with the long petals at the sides and the short ones at top and bottom. That's assuming you have the camera in landscape orientation.