Hood for 10-22? Is it necessary?

[Toogy]

I just got the 10-22 and so far love the lens. Just wish Canon would have included the lens hood with it. :cry:
Anyways, is the lens hood worth the $35 US to get it?

[ScottE]

The hood does two things. It shades the front of the lens from light from the side that can cause flare and it protects the front element and filter thread from damage if you happen to drop the camera or swing it against something.

It probably doesn't make much difference for indoor photos, unless you have strong side lighting that hits the camera, but I beleive it is a good idea outdoors.

Scott

[Dante King]

Protection form bumps alone as that element must protrude quite a bit is worth the $35 imho.

[Bruce Watson]

I bought the hood with my 10-22 for the extra protection it gives to the front element. For the price of the lens, it seems a worthwhile investment although I agree that for the lens price, it should be included.

[DaveG]

Protection form bumps alone as that element must protrude quite a bit is worth the $35 imho.

Actually the front element is flat on the 10-22 and doesn't protrude at all. As far as that goes it's an almost exact duplicate of the 16-35 f2.8L except that it has a gold stripe instead of a red one and weighs about 40% less than the 16-35!

My feeling about this particular lens hood is twofold. First, for flare control with a lens this wide really requires that you flag the light source, rather than trying to use a lens shade on the lens. I have both the 16-35 and 10-22 and in spite of that opinion I use the hood whenever I'm using either lens on the "The lens hood can't hurt, but don't kid myself too much." plan. Second, it's unlikely that a hood will protect my front element like a UV filter would.

[trubluluc]

Short answer....YES.
I took my 10-22 to Death Valley, and had to constantly use my hat to keep errant light out of the lens. Bought one first thing when I got back.

-Luc


I just got the 10-22 and so far love the lens. Just wish Canon would have included the lens hood with it. :cry:
Anyways, is the lens hood worth the $35 US to get it?

[DaveG]

Short answer....YES.
I took my 10-22 to Death Valley, and had to constantly use my hat to keep errant light out of the lens. Bought one first thing when I got back.

-Luc

You're going to find that your hat works better.

[pcasciola]

I'm going bare with my 10-22 for now. The front element really doesn't stick out at all, and the hood is so small because of the wide angle I'm not sure it provides much light blockage or lens protection. If you do get a UV filter for it, make sure it's a good quality, thin cut filter. Anything cheap or too thick will cause bad vignetting on the edges. I've seen it a few times in shots posted by other users of this lens.

[Dante King]

Wow, I learned something. Flat front element. Cool. You would think for 800 bucks that a hood would be included. I do like the fac tthat tamrons lenses come with hoods right out of the box.