multipurpose lenshood?

[hemuni]

Im wondering if the 24-105 lenshood will fit the 17-40?
Did anybody try this?

Im thinking about getting the EW-83D as a substitute for the included EW-83E, suplied with my 17-40 (I never liked the shape of that thing and its so shallow it hardly seems able to to any signifigant difference).

[SIZE=2]I read in another thread, that the hood for the 24mm will fit my 17-40 (if on a 1.6x body- like my 20D). Im going to get a 24-105 as soon as its available again (here in Denmark) and sinze the 24-105 and the 17-40 have same size 77mm filter i was wondering if this goes for the hood aswell?

[DaveG]

Have you ever given any thought to buying a bellows lens shade like the Lee? It's actually effective, and not just pretending to be effective. The Canon hoods (and those from any manufacturer) are way too short. They also are designed not to vignette at the widest focal length ON A FULL FRAME camera! So the hood for the 17-40 wouldn't vignette at 17mm if you used it on a 5D. So ask yourself how effective this hood is going to be at 40mm on your 20D.

I've written this before here but as a joke I put the hood from my 70-200 f2.8L on my 16-35 f2.8L (on a 20D) and it vignetted only when I had the lens at focal lengths wider than 21mm!

Now you have to be careful with a bellows shade since the idea is to extend it until it ALMOST vignettes. If you do that you can't be zooming in and out without repositioning the hood length. And for many assignments this isn't possible. But if you do want the best lens shading, and subsequent flare control and greater contrast, then a bellows shade is the best option. Once again though, any lens hood is better than none.

[jjonsalt]

This just points out why did not Canon design the hood arrangement for the new 24-105L to be as effective as it is for the 24-70L? Why not change th set up for the 16-35L and 17-40L? After all these are top of the line lenses.

[Jon]

This just points out why did not Canon design the hood arrangement for the new 24-105L to be as effective as it is for the 24-70L? Why not change th set up for the 16-35L and 17-40L? After all these are top of the line lenses.
Because making an additional design requirement that the lens barrel get shorter at longer focal lengths, as the 24-70 does, will add to the design complications. I rather suspect that the hood arrangement wasn't a design objective in the 24-70, rather the result of an "aha!' moment when they saw the final design recommendations.

[jjonsalt]

Because making an additional design requirement that the lens barrel get shorter at longer focal lengths, as the 24-70 does, will add to the design complications. I rather suspect that the hood arrangement wasn't a design objective in the 24-70, rather the result of an "aha!' moment when they saw the final design recommendations.

But the 24-105L's lens also gets shorter at longer focal lengths as does the 24-70L. It would be a matter of mounting the hood on the lens barrel and not the lens itself. No?

[hemuni]

...OK, so to answer my own question - YES IT DOES!!! :D

A few minuttes after putting up this post, a sales rep from Goecker (http://www.goecker.dk/) told me that the 24-105 is available again. So i asked the guy to hold it for me and i left early from work to pick it up.

I just arrived home and tried the hood on the 17-40 and it apperently fits perfectly. There are some vignetting but im not sure if thats not just from the lighting (flash fired against my ceiling at 17mm), ill have to test this further later. sample (http://www.hemuni.dk/sample1.jpg)

I will check out this bellows thing later, this is all new to me - but right now im going to see my sister sing and try out my BRAND NEW 24-105 :lol: :lol: :)
Ill post a thread on my new lens later...

Thanks for the reply's

[DaveG]

Even if the hood somehow moved with the zoom, the size and length required is going to be too short to be effective. The reason for that - and it's not Canon's fault - is that the hoods would be so long that no one would want one. Imagine a lens hood for the 70-200 that's a foot and a half long! Yet that's probably close to what would be needed, or at least would be "most effective".

I'm reading about people who find the lens hood for the 10-22/16-35/17-40 way too big, yet it has to fit on that 77mm lens front and not vignette. Imagine a separate bag for your hoods!

I think that what Canon has done is that they've provided some lens hood shading and to fix it further with hard lens shades isn't practical. Bellows lens shades, if you care that much, are the best choice, and you only need one.

[RAitch]

But the 24-105L's lens also gets shorter at longer focal lengths as does the 24-70L. It would be a matter of mounting the hood on the lens barrel and not the lens itself. No?
Nope... it extends as you zoom in (longer focal length = longer lens length)... backwards to the other lens.
The hood is attached to the 24-105 end, where I remember another lens had the lens attached to the main body, and zoomed in was all the way inside. When you zoomed out (going wide) the lens actually extended... which works for that lens configuration. I'm not sure if that was the 24-70 or not... but I remember a certain lens was like that.

The 24-105 hood is 77m... and should fit any other 77mm L lens... but you'll obvisouly have to worry about vignetting etc.

[jjonsalt]

Nope... it extends as you zoom in (longer focal length = longer lens length)... backwards to the other lens.
The hood is attached to the 24-105 end, where I remember another lens had the lens attached to the main body, and zoomed in was all the way inside. When you zoomed out (going wide) the lens actually extended... which works for that lens configuration. I'm not sure if that was the 24-70 or not... but I remember a certain lens was like that.

The 24-105 hood is 77m... and should fit any other 77mm L lens... but you'll obvisouly have to worry about vignetting etc.

OK, twenty lashes with a wet noodle for me. I'm guess just fond of the 24-70L's hood setup.

[hemuni]

hmm - you guys want that i move to another thread?