buying an off brand hood lens? Does it matter?

[scrapbookworker]

I'm needing a lens hood for my 28-135 IS lens. Does it matter if it's not made by Canon? The only thing on Ebay are the knockoff "FOR" Canon hoods. But boy the price is right!

[johnlo]

if it fit, no it doesnt matter.

[taylorwilsdon]

if it fit, no it doesnt matter.

Not entirely true. Much of the benefit is forgone if you've got a wonky flower pattern that doesn't block any errant light, and some that have shiney plastic on the side facing towards the lens element can actually be more detrimental then helpful.

If it has a light dampening felt lining (like canon L lens hoods do) then you should be okay.

[cdifoto]

If it has shiny plastic on the inside AND it's a problem, you can simply take some fine to medium grit sandpaper to it.

[Cyrus]

yeah you can fix where it is lacking

[DDWD10]

I just got an official Canon EW-63II hood for my 28-105... it is felt-lined on the inside and well-constructed. None of the third-party hoods were felt-lined and I've heard that even if they are slighty differently-shaped than the purpose-made Canon hood they can have a detrimental effect on I.Q.

I just bit the bullet and spent 4x as much on the official Canon hood - but since I'm keeping this lens until it gives out, I see it as a good investment.

[SkipD]

The strength of the hood itself also matters. A good, properly designed (for the individual lens), rigid hood not only protects against stray light but against the inevitable impacts that a lens takes in the real world.

If the cheapie hoods are weaker than the Canon hoods, they won't be able to give you the mechanical protection that you deserve.

Buying the cheapie third-party hoods would be like buying insurance from a fly-by-night company unless someone can buy several different hoods from both Canon and the 3rd-party supplier and do some serious testing to determine their construction and strength characteristics.

[cdifoto]

Buying the cheapie third-party hoods would be like buying insurance from a fly-by-night company unless someone can buy several different hoods from both Canon and the 3rd-party supplier and do some serious testing to determine their construction and strength characteristics.

I don't quite agree that buying a realistically priced piece of plastic instead of the overpriced OEM version is quite the same as getting scammed by an insurance company. When you buy insurance from a fly-by-night insurance company, you're throwing money into the wind...nothing to show for it. When you spend $6.50 on a generic hood at least you got a hood.

Even if the generic version isn't as tough as the OEM, the price paid justifies it. I don't expect a lens hood to stop a freight train no matter who molded it, so if it survives a bump into a doorway that's extensive enough testing for me.

[JDubya]

I have a few Canon hoods and 1 generic (for a 100mm MACRO). The generic one isn't felt lined but it has a flat black coating. In regards to strength, the generic one is actually stiffer (when flexing the sides).

[argyle]

There's a misconception that 'stiffer' correlates to 'stronger'...not always the case. A rigid hood that's more flexible will generally deform (flex) a bit as it absorbs most of the impact forces. A very stiff hood that does not deform will translate those same forces to the lens itself, which in turn can damage the lens. I'm not pro or con third party lens hoods either way...just pointing out a critical design feature.

[Wilt]

A hood made by Canon is optimized for the FL range of that lens. A off-brand MIGHT afford the same degree of optimization if the mold is a knock-off of the Canon product, with same dimensions. The rubber universal hoods are NOT a knock-off, so no optimization at all. Unfortunately, if you use EF lens on APs-C body, the Canon hood is optimized for 135 format, not APS-C format! But often the EF-S lens has a hood which fits on the EF lens, and provides the APS-C optimization.