Canon 70-300mm lens hood

[GM_of_OLC]

I just got my 70-300mm IS and I am enjoying it thoroughly, but it didn't come with a lens hood.
BH has the "official" lens hood (the ET-65B) but it's 45 dollars.
Is there another, cheaper, option somewhere, other than a rubber/soft hood?

[Bootsie]

I just got my 70-300mm IS and I am enjoying it thoroughly, but it didn't come with a lens hood.
BH has the "official" lens hood (the ET-65B) but it's 45 dollars.
Is there another, cheaper, option somewhere, other than a rubber/soft hood?

I have been looking for one as well, I have found that most of the ebay knock-offs do not have the felt flocking (?) in them, so my search continues.

[Familiaphoto]

Get the Canon hood its worth the money.

[diverdown]

What a coincidence, I just bought one for my EF 75-300 f/4-5.6 III USM not more than ten minutes ago. Here's the link...hope this helps. :)

http://www.bestpriceaudiovideo.com/catalog/55/939/?zmam=1962870&zmas=1&zmac=5&zmap=939

[diverdown]

Sorry about my previous post, I was mistaken. :oops: We have two different lenses. Anyway, I found the Canon hood for $42.85 (final cost).

http://www.digitalfotoclub.com/sc/from-pricegrabber.asp?id=964591821&rf=pg&dfdate=10_29_2007

[kevin_c]

Get the Canon hood its worth the money.

I don't know about actually being worth the money as far as 'value' goes, but I have to agree about it being worth it just to ensure it fits properly and does the job.
A collegue of mine bought a cheapie 'ebay special' for his tele-zoom and it was extremely tight and looked like it was a plastic cup with the bottom cut out!

[jemann]

The ET-65B seems to be in pretty short supply at the moment.

I've ordered it from two places, one in the UK and one in Hong Kong, only to be told they don't have it in stock and they can't tell me when they'll get more in.

If anyone knows a place that has it in stock, please let me know.

[DanC922]

$12.90 here.

http://www.dealextreme.com/details.dx/sku.3263

[Bootsie]

$12.90 here.

http://www.dealextreme.com/details.dx/sku.3263

It doesn't have felt inside though, I asked. :(

[GM_of_OLC]

That link didn't load for me.
And when did they start putting felt into hoods?
The only one I currently have is for my sigma 17-70 and there is no felt inside the hood.

[SkipD]

And when did they start putting felt into hoods?I can't tell you when they started, but Canon puts a black flocking - not felt - inside their hoods (at least the ones I have for my "L" lenses) to reduce any possible reflections off the sides of the hood that could lead to flare. It's a very good design feature, in my opinion.

[sapearl]

That price is actually pretty reasonable, plus it was engineered for the lens. Stay away from the the knock-off's. They are almost always missing a little something of the original and in the long run it's no money saved.

Hasselblad hoods started at $100+ so I regard these Canon items as a bargain ;).

I just got my 70-300mm IS and I am enjoying it thoroughly, but it didn't come with a lens hood.
BH has the "official" lens hood (the ET-65B) but it's 45 dollars.
Is there another, cheaper, option somewhere, other than a rubber/soft hood?

[RPCrowe]

I don't like Canon lens hoods - especially for 1.6x cameras. They are too big and bulky and it is often difficult or downright impossible to rotate a CPL filter when you are using a Canon OEM hood.

I use screw-in round metal filters for all my Canon lenses (including the L glass which come with an OEM hood). The only Canon lens with which I don't use a screw-in hood is the 400mm f/5.6L which has a built-in lens hood. All "L" tele lenses IMO should have this type of hood.

The metal screw-in hoods do not vignette; at least not on my widest Canon lens which is the 24-70L. They are smaller and I leave the hood on the lens all the time - even when storing. I use a neoprene OPTECH Hood Hat over my lens hoods.

I have been using round metal hoods for about 50 years with no adverse consequences. I have sometimes used the folding rubber screw-in hoods but, I like OPTECH Hood Hats and they work best with round screw-in hoods.

I have not experienced any lens flare using the round hood instead of the bulky and expensive Canon hoods.

The metal hoods do a fine job protecting the lens also. I fell to concrete on top of my 70-200mm f/4L IS lens. The round hood was damaged but, no problem with the lens and I weigh about 220#.

Additionally - lots of posters complain about their "white" L lenses attracting attention. IMO, a lens like the 70-200mm f/4L IS lens is a lot less conspicious with a metal screw-in hood than with the big OEM hood. The 70-200mm f/2.8L lenses will be conspicious whichever hood you use.

The hoods go for between five and ten dollars.

[Ebbz]

I don't like Canon lens hoods - especially for 1.6x cameras. They are too big and bulky and it is often difficult or downright impossible to rotate a CPL filter when you are using a Canon OEM hood.

I've read somewhere that when you use a polarizing filter, you don't need to have the lens hood in place; in fact, it might be better without it all together.

Has anybody else heard of this?

Rick

[sapearl]

I use the CPL and hood together on my 70-200 f/2.8. There is still the issue of physical protection that the hood will afford, and stray light is still stray light. The CPL is very effective in REDUCING unwanted light, but it is not perfect. Hoods still fulfill the "optical" purpose for which they were designed.

I've read somewhere that when you use a polarizing filter, you don't need to have the lens hood in place; in fact, it might be better without it all together.

Has anybody else heard of this?

Rick