Lens Hoods

[Johnnynf]

Ok, I have decided to get two lenses (and I want to order tonight). I am getting the 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM and the 50mm 1.8 (provided I can find someplace that has it in stock). I also want to buy lens hoods for both of them. So my question is, which ones to I buy? If I am to stick with the "recommended" hoods for these lenses, I can find them without any problem. However, I have read many threads on this issue, and many people say that with the 1.6 crop factor of the DRebel, the recommended hoods shouldn't be used. So my questions are this:

1. Should I buy the "recommended" hoods.

2. If not, which ones should I buy for these lenses? I am new at this, and I have no idea what would fit.

[CoolToolGuy]

I have done some research on this, and:

There is no alternate hood in the Canon range for the 50mm 1.8. The lens does not have a bayonet mount like most of the rest of the Canon lenses, and it calls for a hood with an adapter that screws onto the lens. Add to that, nobody seems to have it in stock.

You can sometimes find the Canon-specified hood for the 50mm (ES-62) on eBay, as well as the EW-78C, which works with the 28-135. I got the EW-78C from Hobbymonster, an eBay seller, and it was shipped quickly, and well-packed.

Non-Canon hoods? I can't say.

Hope this helps.

Have Fun
Rick 8)

[robertwgross]

When you purchase an EF lens, the recommended lens hood is correct. Now, if you happen to mount the lens on a Digital Rebel, you *could get by* with a different lens hood that is *tighter* in front. However, if you ever try to move that EF lens to another camera, perhaps one with a different factor from x1.6, or a film camera that is x1, then you can't use that lens hood.

So, the obvious way to go is to get the recommended one or else none at all.

---Bob Gross---

[brutal]

I dont know anything about hoods for the zoom, but for the 50mm, I have been using a B+W collapsable rubber hood that I got from B&H for 10-15 bux that works really well and has filter threads. With the hood attached, I can had 2 filters without any vignetting, so It don't think its a bad choice.

[DaveG]

You could also choose to buy a bellows lens shade. This opens and closes like an accordian to fit the specific focal length of lens that you are using. The advantage of a bellows lens shade is that it actually works as opposed to the "shades" that the manufacturers sell.

Let me put it this was, I put the lens hood from my 70-200 f2.8 L lens on my 16-35 f2.8 L and it only vignetted (on a 10D) when I got it to around 20 mm. So you can only imagine how useless the lens-specific hood would be.

I do use these lens-specific shades as they are better than nothing, but when I'm truly serious about a shot I'll use my Lee bellows hood. I have a Lindahl bellows hood that I use on my Mamiya Pro-TL medium format camera but it's quite heavy and I was concerned that the weight would put too much stress on my Canon lenses.

The Lee is much lighter and is built better than the Lindhahl. I mount a lens and then extend the shade until it vignettes. Then I pull the shade back a tiny bit. Now it's effectively shading the lens. I use this technigue when I do outside group shots since I want the sun over the subject's heads and behind them, otherwise they'd squint. Without a bellows shade I'd have serious flare problems. With a bellows shade I just have to be careful.

If I was using a film camera and a zoom I'm not sure if I would use a bellows lens shade since it'd be so easy to have it vignette. But with a Digital camera you would just take a test shot to make sure.

[CyberDyneSystems]

Let me put it this was, I put the lens hood from my 70-200 f2.8 L lens on my 16-35 f2.8 L and it only vignetted (on a 10D) when I got it to around 20 mm. So you can only imagine how useless the lens-specific hood would be.



This was exactly my experience with the 17-40mm f/4.. I put the lens hood for the 70-200mm f/2.8 Sigma on it (which is much narrower than the hood for the Canon 70-200) and the vignetting was minimal. The "pie plate" that is supplied with the 17-40mm serves alomost no function on a 10D.

I, like many others have for this wide lens switched to another hood. (In my case I went so far as to modify another hood to make a "perfect" hood. :) )

[Johnnynf]

Thanks a lot for all of your replies. However, I am even more confused now than when I started. I think it is agreed that there is only one lens hood that will work for the 50mm 1.8 (provided I can ever order it)...as for the 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM, I get half of the replies that say I should stick with the recommended hood, and the other half say I should get something different. I want to get the best possible hood for this lens for digital (probably won't have too much need to shoot film any more), but I also don't want to have to change hoods based on what focal length I am using on the lens. This would seem to be very inconvenient when shooting a sporting event or something (which I plan to do alot).

Any further insight would be greatly appreciated as I want to pull the trigger on all of this today.

[CoolToolGuy]

Go for the EW-78C if your staying in Digital. I have both - the one that is specified, and the EW-78C. The alternate hood is the same shape, but slightly longer. It is not perfect, but it is better than the one Canon specifies (EW-78BII), which is good for the angle of view of a 35mm film camera. I have not noticed any vignetting with it, but I have not conducted any extensive tests.
The EW-78C is hard to find because it is specified for the 35mm 1.4 'L' lens, which comes with the hood provided. I got mine from an eBay seller, Hobbymonster.
Hope this helps. If you want, send me a private message, and we'll take this offline.

Have Fun
Rick 8)