Hood for 24-85/3.5-4.5

[Mike H]

I'm considering getting a 24-85/3.5-4.5 as a walk-around lens. The Canon hood in the photos doesn't look very deep, so I'm concerned that it may not prevent flare very well. Has anyone had experience using the Canon hood on that lens? Thanks.

Mike H

[boBquincy]

The hood does work, and provides some prevention from flare. The problem is the hood is designed for a 24mm angle of view while those of us with 1.6x cameras get a 38mm field of view.
The hood is unique to that lens so adapting another hood will be difficult. I have Canon's 'other' 67mm lens (70-200 f4) but that hood does not fit on the 24-85.

I was looking at grafting a different hood onto the 24-85 hood's bayonet mount but haven't tried it yet. I'm not sure the benefits would be worth the trouble, when flare gets really bad you can usually use your hand to tame it.


boB

[DaveG]

I'm considering getting a 24-85/3.5-4.5 as a walk-around lens. The Canon hood in the photos doesn't look very deep, so I'm concerned that it may not prevent flare very well. Has anyone had experience using the Canon hood on that lens? Thanks.

Mike H

The Canon hood is "better than nothing". And there are times where "better than
nothing" is all that you can do. I mean if you are shooting action you can't use a
longer shade since it'll vignette as you zoom.

But when you can - and I can't overstate the usefulness of this tool - then using a
bellows shade is the best thing that you can choose as a hood. I have a Lee shade
and it's very light and that’s something that you should take into account when
you check out bellows shades. I also have Lindahl and it's way too heavy for the
delicate Canon AF lenses; at least compared to the much more robust Mamiya
manual focus 645 lenses. So all shades are not created equally.

Anyway you extend the shade to just this side of vignetting and take your
picture. A frequent review on the review (duh) screen should indicate any
possible vignetteing problems, and that you can correct during the shoot.

What a hood is for is to prevent flare, and you probably know that. But flare
comes in two forms. The obvious “Let’s count the lens elements and oh, that’s
what my aperture opening looks like.” flare. And the other is the insidious and
much more damaging “Hmm, that shot looks flat.” flare. The sad thing is when
you use a bellows shade properly, then nothing happens. You won’t look at a
shot and see any improvement at all. The shot is just contrasty and looks
normal. And what you mostly don’t see is the disaster you’ve just avoided!

If you are serious about your photography and you aren’t pursuing a genre of
photography that precludes a bellows shade (like photojournalism or sports
photography) then a bellows lens shade is going to be one of your wisest
investments.

[Mike H]

boBquincy and DaveG, thanks for the information and advice.

This discourages me a bit from getting the lens, since my main interest in it is photojournalism (mostly daylight events like the MS Tour for Cure).

After using the 10D for a while with the very nice 16-35/2.8L, I recently moved to the Mark II. Now I'm wanting more on the long end. The long end of that lens is the equivalent of a 46mm lens on a 35mm camera when you put it on the Mark II. Also, its pie shaped hood has cost me a few pictures (though I do the "hand hood" thing when I see it coming).

The 24-70/2.8L looks like a good choice, but it's so dang heavy, not to mention HUGE. The Mark II already tends to stand out, and I can't imagine that adding that big boy to the rig will make it less conspicuous. When I shoot for MS I get cornered all the time by people who want to know if they will be in the newspaper. :cry:

Looking at the deep hood for the 24-70 you'd think that you don't have to worry about flare, but check this out ...

http://www.fredmiranda.com/24-70/

That article is part of what got me wondering about the 24-85's clearly shorter hood. Decisions, decisions ... :roll:

Thanks again!

Mike H