PDA

View Full Version : Hood for 17-40mm on 1.6 crop factor (10D, D60, D30 etc.)


CyberDyneSystems
7th of August 2003 (Thu), 20:22
The beginning of a little experiment....

The 17-40mm f/4 "L" is supplied with what looks like one of the most useless lens hoods around. Like any lens hood desighned to work on a Zoom lens, it's only really effective when the lens is Zoomed to its widest setting. However in the particular case of the 17-40mm, the extremity to which this occurs is most prominenet.

http://www.usa.canon.com/eflenses/images/accessories/ew83cii.jpg

Add to that fact a 1.6 crop factor of a Canon DSLR,. and the resulting combination is a completely useless lens hood. In the case of the 1.6X focal plane of the DSLR, even at 17mm the lens hood is much too wide and short to be efective.. zoomed in to 40mm,.. this lens hood is doing absolutely nothing.

My first attempt at a solution involved the lens hood from my telephoto Sigma 70-200mm which shares the 17-40mm's 77mm filter size.

Amazingly,. this lens hood actually "sort of" fits!

The results though were not perfect. The 70-200mm lens hood is either too long,. or not wide enough (it has a much narrower "bell" than the 17-40mm's hood)

BUT!
Believe it or not this telephoto lens' very long narrow lens hood worked with the 17-40mm perfectly from 40mm down to about 25mm.

Vignetting did not start untill 24mm!!

This went a long way to illustrate how woefully inadaquate the stock lens hood was for anything other than 17mm on a full 35mm focal plane camera!

So I took a gamble on all of Canons 77mm threaded lenses having the same mount for a lens hood,. and I ordered the much more substantial EW-83B.

http://www.usa.canon.com/eflenses/images/accessories/ew83bii.jpg

This Vs. the rather idiotic looking stock Hood the EW-83E

http://www.usa.canon.com/eflenses/images/accessories/ew83cii.jpg

It arrived today (I was able to get it for $11.00 from MPSuperstoors!!!! B&H Sells it for $47.00!)

This lens hood is just as long as the Sigma 70-200mm's lens hood,. but it also has a wider "bell"

Well the gamble paid off,. the hood snaps onnto the 17-40mm jsut as well as the stock hood does.

RESULTS?

Again it functions from the lenses narrowest setting of 40mm, but this time all the way down to 21mm before any sighns of vignetting.

So now the next step,.. do I keep the seperate hood for use on the lens with shots 21mm or wider? Or do I cut the hood down untill it functions all the way down to 17mm on the DSLR's 1.6 crop factor and thus cripple it's usefullnes for any of the narrower end of the zoom?

Hmmmmmmmmmm............

petiot
8th of August 2003 (Fri), 02:55
happy to see someone who did something about it. Shame on canon for not (at least) proosing a range of lens "digital hood" for their lens.

dan

mattij
9th of August 2003 (Sat), 17:27
CyberDyneSystems wrote:

RESULTS?

Again it functions from the lenses narrowest setting of 40mm, but this time all the way down to 21mm before any sighns of vignetting.


You really could have get a hood that fits perfectly to the 17-40 and 1.6 multiplier: EW-83DII designed originally for Canon 24 mm prime. No vignetting at 17mm. Ofcourse it is not a petal type hood used on most zooms, but this seems to be the best stock alternative for the original hood.

Discussed on dpreview:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1029&message=5610165

CyberDyneSystems
9th of August 2003 (Sat), 20:25
Thanks for the link,.. but I disagree with the Dpreview assessment.

The 83B,.. despite being MUCH longer than the 83D,. DOES NOT Vignette on the top or bototm,. only on the sides and corners,.

I had considered trying the much shorter 83DII. But in reality it is also woefully inadaquate at doing the job. Yes it does not Vignette,. bu tthat is because it,. like the stock unit doesn't come close to being long enough....

http://www.usa.canon.com/eflenses/images/accessories/ew83dii.jpg

Vs.

http://www.usa.canon.com/eflenses/images/accessories/ew83bii.jpg

....to get a "Perfect" lens hood for the 17-40mm I will need to cut the 83b II VERY little off the sides and cut slightly deeper into the corner "inlets" that make the petal shape.

//I am going to need to upload a pic of the Vignette to clarify some of this,....

CyberDyneSystems
23rd of November 2003 (Sun), 08:38
The update,. I used a dremel and a smal saw to trim the side petals about 1/4 inch and to make the corner cuts a little deeper. Again,. the top and bottom "petals" did not need altering.

This is the lens hoos I now use,.. (when I don't have a polarizer,.. which sucks! The whole polarizer OR hood thing is an entirely different issue,. but a big one!)

DaveG
23rd of November 2003 (Sun), 10:27
petiot wrote:
happy to see someone who did something about it. Shame on canon for not (at least) proosing a range of lens "digital hood" for their lens.

dan

The problem for Canon is what IS the "digital shade" conversion? For the 1Ds it'd be the standard hood, for the 1D it's be 1.3 and for the 10D, 1.6. Which do they pick? Should they have three different shades?

My solution was to get a Lee bellows shade and custom extend the hood to where it's really effective.

kenpix
1st of May 2006 (Mon), 16:13
Hi
Just dropped my ew-83b hood in the sea!!
Looked on MP Superstore but it is not listed
Any ideas please where to get another cheap... $11 sounds great!!
Thanks
Ken

I Simonius
1st of May 2006 (Mon), 18:18
The beginning of a little experiment......


pics not loading...:evil:

LewisImaging
1st of May 2006 (Mon), 18:22
pics not loading...:evil:

it's a 3 year old thread lol...

Papaw
1st of May 2006 (Mon), 22:20
I am probably showing my ignorance but I thought the lense cover was just to protect the lense and draw attention to the lense in public. I just feel much more comfortable having the cover on a lense in a crowd while walking and shooting and in storage while screwed on backwards. What other purpose is it suppose to serve?

kaitanium
1st of May 2006 (Mon), 22:35
man who brought this one back up =P

I Simonius
2nd of May 2006 (Tue), 03:07
it's a 3 year old thread lol...

at what period do the pics expire?

joeseph
2nd of May 2006 (Tue), 04:27
the period where the poster removes them from their website...
(canon USA appear to have changed their website in the last year or so)

mdr
2nd of May 2006 (Tue), 07:18
I use the EW83H (that came free with my 24-105mm f4 L IS).

LewisImaging
2nd of May 2006 (Tue), 11:50
at what period do the pics expire?

it looks like they were linked to the canon website or something. so they must have removed them.

Panza
25th of August 2006 (Fri), 12:00
Pics.
EW83B and EW83DII:

Panza
25th of August 2006 (Fri), 12:00
EW83E:

SDK^
25th of August 2006 (Fri), 16:15
I'm using the hood from the new EF-S 17-55 F2.8 IS

http://www.photo.net/bboard-uploads//00GgUd-30183784.jpg


Some other options

EW-83DII hood from Canon 24mm F1.4 L USM
EW-83H hood from Canon 24-105mm F4L IS lens

http://www.photo.net/bboard-uploads//00Gh7I-30204884.jpg

jevidon
25th of August 2006 (Fri), 21:25
hmm...i might have to test this out sometime. never really had any noticeable distortion with my 17-40 on the 30D...

DavidW
26th of August 2006 (Sat), 05:56
I've got an EW-83DII on my EF 16-35mm f/2.8L when using it with a 1.6x camera. It works well, though it's a rather stiffer than the stock hood on the 16-35. If you wish, you can modify the hood's bayonet slightly with a craft knife or similar to solve that problem (look at the bayonet of the EW-83E and compare).


It's not about distortion - it's about a physically smaller hood that's more effective without causing any vignetting.



David

michael_
26th of August 2006 (Sat), 06:14
i am getting the EW-83DII with my 17-40 tomorrow ;)

kevin_c
26th of August 2006 (Sat), 15:51
Blimey, this thread does go back a bit...

Interestingly I notice that my Canon 10-22mm comes with the EW-83E and this is an EF-S lens so it makes you wonder how effective it is on a 17-40 when used on a cropped body.