Aftermarket Lens Hoods

[Marquis Photos]

Anyone reccomend a cheap aftermarket lens hood seller?
Some of those Canon branded hoods are way over priced.

Thanks

[DMacIntyre]

I just asked this same question to a guy in camera shop and was told there aren't any out there. I know what you mean though...I dropped $50 for a Canon hood for the 17-85MM lens I own....mind you, it's very nice quality, fits perfectly (as it should, obviously :)) and has nice touches like the flocked lining on the interior hood walls.

I would be interested to know if there are retailers out there however.

[Scottes]

No aftermarket hood - or 3rd party like Sigma or Tamron - that I have seen is as good as the Canon ones. Granted I haven't seen every one, but Canon's have the fit, the flocking, and the correct shape for the lens in use.

You get what you pay for....

[Double Negative]

The Canon hoods are the best for two reasons; they're made specifically for a particular lens (or lenses) which cut out the most stray light and secondly they work with the bayonet mount for quick handling.

That having been said, yes - they're quite expensive for a piece of plastic.

If you have some primes (e.g. 35mm, 50mm, etc.) then you can use a screw-in rubber lens hood. I often prefer these, especially with CPLs as you can put the CPL on first, then the hood... To use, rotate the whole thing! Another nice benefit is that the hood just folds back and out of the way without a thought.

Just some ideas...

[gstaylor]

I found yhis thread before asking whether anyone uses rubber screw-on lens hoods. I find they work nice, but always wonder if the "real" hood would work better.

About a month ago, I was shooting high school soccer and a ball came from the field behind me and hit the rubber lens hood on my 70-210 zoom. it took the hit well, as it just flexed and the lens was fine. If I had a ridgid hood, something may have been damaged. I guess anything can heppen when an impact is involved though.

The bayonet/ clip-on hoods are easy to attach, but the idea of turning the POL filter while it is attached behind the hood makes sense. The clip-on hoods sometimes make using POL filters difficult.

[Double Negative]

I found yhis thread before asking whether anyone uses rubber screw-on lens hoods. I find they work nice, but always wonder if the "real" hood would work better.

About a month ago, I was shooting high school soccer and a ball came from the field behind me and hit the rubber lens hood on my 70-210 zoom. it took the hit well, as it just flexed and the lens was fine. If I had a ridgid hood, something may have been damaged. I guess anything can heppen when an impact is involved though.

The bayonet/ clip-on hoods are easy to attach, but the idea of turning the POL filter while it is attached behind the hood makes sense. The clip-on hoods sometimes make using POL filters difficult.

The one problem with rubber hoods though is just that - they screw into the filter threads rather than attaching to the bayonet mount. The lens is much more sensitive to impacts on the threads/lens assembly than the bayonet mount.

I suspect that if that ball hit harder, you'd have fared better with the Canon hood.

Using CPLs with a rubber hood is great though! They're a pain in the butt with the Canon hoods.

[Mike K]

Many folks use the rigidity of the Canon hood to protect their lens, and don't use UV filters. If you are religious about putting the hood on this works pretty well. Once my camera plate jammed crooked into the clamp and the camera fell to the ground from the top of the tripod. The lens hood hit the ground first, which took the impact and not the lens itself. No damage other than dirt on the lens hood.
Mike K

[dicky109]

I bought a rigid lens hood on Ebay for my EFS 10-22 lens and do not recommend it. The hood isn't quite round, so it doesn't go on or off smoothly, and in fact slightly distorts the front of the lens.

The price is aggravating, but stick to the Canon.

[Mitcon]

I prefer OEM hoods but I do also use some 3rd party hoods which I think are good value and certainly cheap. The only thing is with 3rd party hoods is you normally have to screw them on using the filter threads. If your after some cheap after-market ones though and don't like those crappy rubber ones have a look at these alloy hoods (http://stores.ebay.com.au/Photo-xpo_W0QQssPageNameZstrkQ3amefsQ3amesstQQtZkm) and see if they suit your needs.

[Marquis Photos]

have a look at these alloy hoods (http://stores.ebay.com.au/Photo-xpo_W0QQssPageNameZstrkQ3amefsQ3amesstQQtZkm)

Thanks for the kink, I'll have a look.

[tedtedted]

Can anyone tell me what style this is?

http://cgi.ebay.com/ET-65-III-ET-65III-Lens-Hood-for-CANON-EF-85mm-F1-8-USM_W0QQitemZ250526279395QQcmdZViewItemQQptZAU_Cam eras_Photographic_Accessories?hash=item3a5487a6e3

as a Canon replica, I'd imagine bayonet-style, but what are those tabs for on the side?

[Electric Shepherd]

Push the tabs to release the clips. I bought one of these very same ET-65III eBay types for my 70-210 USM and it was flimsy and didn't hold on at all well. I subsequently bought the proper Canon version which holds on securely and has flocking on the interior to improve light absorption. I've not bought a 3rd party hood since. The old saying holds true in that you get what you pay for.

[bobn15]

looks just like the canon hood on my 85 1.8, push the buttons to remove the hood, it doesn't twist/lock like other hoods

[RDKirk]

I'm continually surprised that the 3rd party manufacturers have not caught on to the unserved market for lens hoods designed for the use of "full sized" lenses (EF mount and the equivalents of other manufacturers) on APS-C cameras. They all need hoods that are 1.6X longer than needed for the 24x36mm format, and none of the camera manufacturers supplies such hoods. All they have to to is take the manufacturer's hood and make it 1.6x longer.

[SuzyView]

I got a second hood for my 70-200 2.8 IS because I thought I lost my Canon one. It's fine. Not as expensive. And I ordered it through Adorama. I can't remember the brand, though.

[Beachcomber Joe]

I havea mix of genuine Canon and third party copies on my various Canon lenses. The third party hoods I have are no different in sturdiness. The only difference is the finish on the inside of the hoods. My Canon's have a flocked finish, my third party hoods do not.

[tedtedted]

I havea mix of genuine Canon and third party copies on my various Canon lenses. The third party hoods I have are no different in sturdiness. The only difference is the finish on the inside of the hoods. My Canon's have a flocked finish, my third party hoods do not.

Would one get a similar effect by spraying primer on the inside?

[obnoxiousmom]

Ive never held a "canon" hood but I got the cheaper version from B&H and it works fine on my 17-55

[Beachcomber Joe]

Would one get a similar effect by spraying primer on the inside?

The Canon finish would likely be slightly less reflective than sprayed on primer. The finish on the inside of my off brand hoods is duller than the finish on the outside. I think it is a non-issue.

[RDKirk]

The Canon finish would likely be slightly less reflective than sprayed on primer. The finish on the inside of my off brand hoods is duller than the finish on the outside. I think it is a non-issue.

It's not that much of an issue. The lens projects a circular image into the camera, which the sensor cuts down to a rectangle--leaving those scallops of light to bounce around the mirror box, the interior of the lens, and frequently land back on the sensor as flare. A well-made petal or rectangular hood intrudes into the lens' capture circle, presenting its black interior into those areas captured by the lens but cut off by the sensor.

So instead of having a lot of unnecessary bright sky entering the lens, you get the black hood interior. Very dark gray is pretty much as good as flocked black--you're still talking about a tiny fraction of the light that otherwise would have entered the lens.

[shaftmaster]

My $10 aftermarket hood for the EF 50mm f/1.4 lens came with flocking on the inside just like the Canon version.

[10megapixel]

I have purchased a couple aftermarket hoods labeled "Travor" brand, they fit well and are inexpensive. I most recently purchased one from THIS (http://stores.ebay.com/Travor-camera-accessory-store) e bay seller.

[Joe Ravenstein]

I bought lens hoods for my 18-55, 55-250 and my macro 50mm on Ebay and bought duplicates for my daughter and all were chinese and fit excellently and spent less than 20 bucks for a total of 6 hoods. The corresponding lens caps even fit inside the hoods and the hoods thread into my polarizing filters. I am fairly sure I was very lucky but with so little invested in them it was worth bidding for the hoods for maybe 3 bucks @.
eBay Member: selina1900 is one seller from china, atnexthk is another hood seller. I had no qualms about bidding for the hoods and they arrived in short order of like 5 to 6 days shipping from hong kong and mainland china

[shaftmaster]

I avoid buying lens hoods that screw into the filter threads. They don't seem to offer as much protection as a lens hood that connects to the bayonet mount. You could damage the filter threads or possibly the focus mechanism if there is a significant impact to a screw-in lens hood.

[Quad]

http://www.lenshoods.co.uk/canon.php