Sigma 105mm macro lens hoods rant! * (new title!)

Janice

Janice

Suspended / Banned
Messages
11,626
Name
Janice
Edit My Images
Yes
Why can't Sigma realise that no-one likes their ridiculous lens hoods that dont reverse onto the lens like all other manufacturers have?

Surely there can't be ONE sigma owner who thinks its a good idea that you cant fit them solidly in reverse for storage or even have them on in reverse all the time....and that, with the lens hood on, its really difficult to get the lens cap on/off.

Stupid design!! :cuckoo: :bat:
 
What d'ya mean, they don't reverse? Mine lives in the bag reversed and is solid enough.

My 10-20 also has an 'easy to remove' lens cap.

The 24-70 has an 'impossible to remove' lens cap though.

My complaint is that it doesnt keep the rain off the lens, but am guessing on a wide angle if it was too big a hood it would cause vignetting.
 
I use the 150-500mm lens and the hood slots on in reverse just fine.
 
Sigma 105mm macro. It just doesnt reverse and stay there... no clip or screw-in or whatever to keep it there.

Yes... you can get pinch grip covers for them on ebay... but it just seems stupid from a big manufacturer like that.

You have to screw the lens hood on for use, then cant put the cap on at the same time so cant carry it round with the hood and cap on.

Then you cant reverse it and have it stay there all the time like other lenses.. its just loose and would fall off.



Sorry to imply it was ALL lenses! Just my 105 macro.
 
I have to agree with you on this one, Janice. It always ticks me when I have to use that lens and when I have to tuck it away.

It sure is one stupid design :cuckoo:
 
my sigma 150 has reversed hood securly locked and i have the pinch lens cap for it as well.
is it an EX thing? my other 72 mm lens the 17-70 doesnt have pinch cap so will be looking for a replacement one as well.
 
sounds like its just the 105mm. the sigmas ive had/still got the hood would fit fine reversed. as for the cap, i think sigma finally realized they were crap as they're now selling lenses with a pinch cap. any old style caps i replaced asap with a pinch cap.
 
Totally agree with Janice,

The amount of times I've had to go back on location to hunt for it again. :bang:
 
My Sigma 150mm has a dcent lens hood. The Nikon 70-200mm hood however is so easy to knock off and just feels flimsy. On a 1k+ lens I would expect a metal hood with a locking nut to hold it in place.
 
I never use the lens hood on my 105 for precisely the reason Janice states, that and its a right royal pain to fit/fiddle with
 
I have never used it. The lens is burried so deep in the housing flare isn't a problem.
 
^^^ never used it for the same reason as Dave just gave, My sigma 24-70 hood fit backwards.
 
One of the reasons I just got rid of my Sigma 70 - 200 was because I got fed up of the lens hood reversed over the barrel keeping knocking the lens cap off in my bag.So I am with Janice on this one.
 
At least you got a lens hood with your 105mm. Jessops had lost mine, so they sent me a replacement -which is for an entirely different, much bigger lens. Just as well I have no intention of using it anyway...
 
I think Janice specified the 105 Macro in the thread title, not every single Sigma lens ever made.......:thinking:

And yes Janice, it is a right royal PITA...........:thumbsdown:........and yes, I did get an aftermarket centre pinch cap.

Oh poo, Janice has edited the title...............:coat:
 
I never have trouble with lens hoods I leave them in the box.

Pete
 
Hang on, you mean if you buy a £1000 lens,for example, for a canon, you then have to buy a lens hood?
 
CaptainPenguin said:
I have had 3 Sigma's over the years and they have all reversed perfectly,and at least they supply a hood unlike those mean sods at Canon
Click to expand...

Its the 105mm macro which doesnt.
 
That is bloody ludicrous.........:thumbsdown:

What about the long primes, same scenario?
 
I bought a Canon 70-200 F2.8L from Kerso and it had a lens hood included.
 
fracster said:
Hang on, you mean if you buy a £1000 lens,for example, for a canon, you then have to buy a lens hood?
Click to expand...
Flash In The Pan said:
Makes you feel much better about Nikon, doesn't it :lol:
Click to expand...
Apparently there's a bit of Canon disinformation being spread here. Every Canon "L" lens is supplied with a hood and a pouch or case. Non-"L" lenses generally aren't, though they seem to be gradually changing their attitude here - I noticed that the most recent EF-S 10-22 I bought, out of about 8 over the last 6 months, was supplied with a pouch. (But no hood.)

So the most expensive Canon lens which isn't supplied with a hood seems to be the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS at about £620. The cheapest "L" is the EF 70-200mm f/4 L at £395.


My pet peeve is that I just wish camera manufacturers were more consistent about what accessories you get with a lens.
* Sigma are top of the class, IMO. They nearly always supply a hood and case. But not quite always. (For example my 18-200 came without a case.)
* As noted above, Canon always supply a hood and case/pouch for "L" lenses, and usually don't for non-"L" lenses. But ironically their moves towards supplying more accessories are reducing the consistency of their approach!
* But Nikon are, as usual, all over the shop. Why does the 1.7x TC come with a pouch, but the 1.4x and 2x TCs don't? Why does the 80-200mm f/2.8 come without a hood, but if you buy the hood it won't fit in the case? Why do the 105mm VR Micro and the 85mm f/1.4 come without cases? And so on, and on, and on...


Anyway, back on topic, if you want to see a crap hood get a Nikon 85mm f/1.4. Lovely lens, if a bit dated, but the hood is a metal thing that screws into the filter thread. Convenient, NOT. And it simply can't be reversed onto the lens for storage. Ugh!
 
Must agree there Stewart, the goody bag I got with my last Sigma lens was excellent.........:thumbs:
 
fracster said:
Hang on, you mean if you buy a £1000 lens,for example, for a canon, you then have to buy a lens hood?
Click to expand...

Unfortunately I buy at the cheaper end on the market so I assume that the top of the range canons do come with hoods,however I do object to paying over £200 for my Canon 24-85 and still having to pay another £15 for the Lens Hood
 
CaptainPenguin said:
Unfortunately I buy at the cheaper end on the market so I assume that the top of the range canons do come with hoods,however I do object to paying over £200 for my Canon 24-85 and still having to pay another £15 for the Lens Hood
Click to expand...

My Cheaper canon lenses all have ebay hoods, the colapsable rubber one on my nifty for example cast a might £4 delivered from HK. The price of genuine canon hoods is a total micky take.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top