Why have a lens hood?

[keleko17]

I have no clue why a hood is a good thing, other than to help keep unwanted light from the lens. Is there other reasons? I recently purchased an 85 1.8, from a member, and he didn't sell it with a hood. Should I buy one? If yes, should it be Canon, or are 3rd party hoods just a good?

[Jon]

Helps keep rain from the lenses, or fingers, sticks or other stuff from coming in from the side. May provide some protection against bumps as well.

[LBaldwin]

Yes, it looks cool!!. Not only that it can protect your lens from a healthy smack. Unwanted stray light causes focus issues, unwanted lens flair, and lowers contrast that you may not see til you get to your computer. I have that lens and the hood. BTW I use hoods on ALL my lenses except one that needs replacment.

[SkipD]

Properly sized lens hoods shield unwanted light sources from impacting the lens and causing degradation of the image by things such as flair, reduction of contrast, etc.

Rigid lens hoods (as opposed to folding rubber lens hoods) also provide quite a bit of physical protection for the lens. For example, they keep your fingers off the lens' surfact and also act as a "bumper" to ward off damage from day-to-day impact with things around you.

Rigid (but bendable or breakable) lens hoods also can provide protection in the event of a crash to the ground because they can bend or break up, absorbing energy that could otherwise contribute to internal damage of the lens. Folding rubber lens hoods provide much less protection from this sort of situation.

[Overread]

Many reasons:

first and foremost its the most effective protection against lemurs with dirty little paws:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3569/3372256987_23bb018a25_o.jpg

Secondly its a general good front line of protection from bumps, scraps and twigs that will hit the hood instead of hitting your front glass element - not something you want to happen

Thirdly they help to limit/prevent lensflare when you are shooting into a bright light source.

And forthly they make the lens look darn longer and better and you look more pro! :)

[LowriderS10]

It increases any lens's Perceived Badass Factor by 1.6 points. But, aside from the healthy bump in PBF, it protects the lens from unhealthy bumps against walls, railings, the tourist next to you, etc...I always have a hood on everything just in case...

[hairy_moth]

Many reasons:

first and foremost its the most effective protection against lemurs with dirty little paws:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3569/3372256987_23bb018a25_o.jpg



LOL.. Made my day.

In another thread about hoods, a video was posted where the presenter used a car's windshield as an analogy for what happens to a lens when there are light sources near to, or in the field of view. That unwanted light that hits the lens (windshield) causes flare which reduces contrast and basically ruins the quality of the image.

[johnlo]

it looks cool. it came w/ the lense. i dont use any UV filter.

[keleko17]

So now that I have decided to keep the lemurs of my lens, I have found that any hood will work, I have one last question. Is there a difference in the mounting of the hood? I found this with a bayonet mount (http://cgi.ebay.com/ET-65-III-ET-65III-Lens-Hood-for-CANON-EF-85mm-F1-8-USM_W0QQitemZ370200683422QQcmdZViewItemQQptZLens_A ccessories?hash=item5631ae239e) style or is there something else that I should look for?

[Jon]

Well, not just any lens hood - they have to be designed for the lens you have. The lens hood you linked to is designed for the lens barrel diameter and focal length of the 85 mm f/1.8 lens, which you don't have. It's the same style as that used on Nifty, with "pincer" attachment, but not the same diameter; the hoods for your 18-55, 75-300 and 10-22 will all be different and are true bayonet types (you mount them to the lens like you do the lens to your camera).

[SkipD]

So now that I have decided to keep the lemurs of my lens, I have found that any hood will work, I have one last question. Is there a difference in the mounting of the hood? I found this with a bayonet mount (http://cgi.ebay.com/ET-65-III-ET-65III-Lens-Hood-for-CANON-EF-85mm-F1-8-USM_W0QQitemZ370200683422QQcmdZViewItemQQptZLens_A ccessories?hash=item5631ae239e) style or is there something else that I should look for?For the Canon 85 f/1.8 lens, I would recommend that you buy the original Canon ET-65 III lens hood rather than a knock-off. I have read some rather poor reviews of some of the knock-off hoods and I would not waste money on them.

The Canon hoods cost a little more, but have a better probability of fitting properly and are lined with a light-absorbing flocking to assist in controlling stray light better than hoods that are not treated the same way.

[keleko17]

The lens hood you linked to is designed for the lens barrel diameter and focal length of the 85 mm f/1.8 lens, which you don't have.

I just got the 85, and haven't put it on the signature yet...

So now I am a little confused. On another thread I have found it says that it is just plastic, find the cheapest possible. However Skip is recommending a true Canon hood... Any others want to weigh in on that?

[Naturalist]

Not much more I can add to these comments except to stress GET A HOOD!

[Jon]

If you buy one made by a third party, you really don't know how sturdy it'll be - as one of the things a hood does is take some of the bumps that would otherwise hit on your lens, you want a hood that will actually stand up to the impact without flying into pieces. It should bend, not break. Canon's hoods will do that; if you get somebody else's that's "compatible", it might not be as resilient.

[jcarp618]

truth be told ive have one legit canon hood and two knockoffs that are just as good :P. if you dont want to spend the extra money for the canon ones go with some ebay hong kong hoods...it will work as it should unless they reallllllllllllllllllly screwed up the sizing (not very likely considering they want to make them as close as possible so they can stay in business)

[yogestee]

first and foremost its the most effective protection against lemurs with dirty little paws:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3569/3372256987_23bb018a25_o.jpg





Great pic!!

[Jon]

Well, there's a limit to what they'll protect against . . .

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=177214&d=1180591256

[Woolburr]

I just got the 85, and haven't put it on the signature yet...

So now I am a little confused. On another thread I have found it says that it is just plastic, find the cheapest possible. However Skip is recommending a true Canon hood... Any others want to weigh in on that?

You are always going to find clowns telling you to buy the cheapest crap possible. After buying your third "bargain" hood in a week, you will realize that you get exactly what you pay for. Buy right the first time and be done with it.;)

[SuzyView]

I like to use the hood on all the lenses now. I never used one before joining the forum, but I use the gear so much, if nothing else, it protects those expensive lenses. The 24-70 lens is very unusual in that when you zoom it goes in and when you do a close up it extends. So, the hood helps with the confusion. :);)

[jdang307]

Veiling glare, even when shooting without the sun near the FOV, is always a concern, right? From pictures I've seen that's the case.

http://toothwalker.org/optics/flare.html

[LowriderS10]

I use quite a bit of non-Canon stuff (lenses, flashes, tripod collars, etc) and, despite everyone saying "buy Canon, buy Canon, buy Canon" I'm completely happy.

3 of my 4 lenses came with a factory hood and I use them all, but for the 4th lens (Canon 50 1.4) I think I'm going to buy a third party hood. If it's garbage...lesson learned (and for cheap!) if it's good, well then I'm only spending 10 bucks vs. 30.

[Ezekiel97]

i've seen regular tube hoods and than a tulip/flower hood, which is better to use?

[CyberDyneSystems]

Any light hitting the lens that is not part of the image you are making can cause image degradation, in some cases severe degradation.

This is THE reason why lens hoods are made, and the best reason to use one.

Getting a good lens and camera with the intention of improving your image quality, and not using a hood would be like getting the best sports car you can afford, but buying cheap tires that will seriously hamper your performance in corners and top speed.

[lazer-jock]

i've seen regular tube hoods and than a tulip/flower hood, which is better to use?

I believe that the difference is whether they have a rotating front element. The cut corners of the petal hoods cannot rotate (so they stay lined up with the corners of the frame). Lenses that have rotating front elements need the non-petal variety.

As for cheap hoods, I say all the better. The eBay ones are starting to come with the flocking now if you hunt around a little. Plastic is plastic. As long as you're not giving it to your toddlers to cut teeth on, the cheap Chinese knock-offs shouldn't perform any of the tasks listed any better than the expensive Canon ones.

[klr.b]

if it's for the 85 1.8, just but the canon branded hood. after shipping and whatnot, you're only saving ~$10 buying a knockoff. if you look around and wait, you can buy them for ~$20. i bought mine off of amazon when it popped in my gold box.

once they get to the >$50 price range, you may want to look at alternatives.

[Shockey]

If you don't have one I wouldn't bother getting one.
Some people put them on for protection from falls and some for blocking unwanted light.
In neither application does a lens hood really do much.

[klr.b]

If you don't have one I wouldn't bother getting one.
Some people put them on for protection from falls and some for blocking unwanted light.
In neither application does a lens hood really do much.
are you sure about that? have you any first hand experience that disputes what everyone's been saying? my lens hoods have saved me a bunch of times from people bumping into me and my gear. ever try shooting kids in a play area where those plastic balls are flying everywhere?

yeah, i'll continue to use hoods on all my lenses.

[LowriderS10]

If you don't have one I wouldn't bother getting one.
Some people put them on for protection from falls and some for blocking unwanted light.
In neither application does a lens hood really do much.

Don't listen to this guy ;)

Ashamed as I am to admit it, my lens hoods have had to take the odd bump here and there (I shot for newspapers for years, shot weddings, take my cameras hiking regularly, etc...it's bound to happen). Every time that happens, I'm thankful to have the cheap plastic "bumpers" at the ends of my lenses.

[ralff]

Have hoods for ALL my lenses, better protection than a UV filter.

[LowriderS10]

I use both...why cheap out on protecting your expensive lenses?

[lazer-jock]

I wrap mine in bubble wrap. Sure, it degrades the image quality a little bit, but why would I take my expensive SLR and lenses out of the house without the most thorough protection I can find? :p

[LowriderS10]

very funny...as far as I'm concerned a B&W filter isn't going to degrade my IQ one bit...and I can't count how many times I've been thankful for having the filters on my lenses...

[MT Stringer]

I use them mainly for protection. I have been hit by basketballs as well as footballs and volleyballs. The hood also helps when I shoot through the backstop netting to keep the netting off the lens glass.

[FlyingPhotog]

Insofar as the black lens hoods go (17-40, Brick, 70-200, 1-4, 85 1.8, 135L), if I ever sell any gear here, no one will want them based on the hoods alone as they're pretty beat.

Savvy shoppers though will know that means they've done their job and the glass is pristine!

[ralff]

I bought one "Non-Canon" lens hood and ended up throwing it away, inside was NOT threaded like the Canon hood, could NOT put a lens cap on without removing the hood PITA, never bought another "inexpensive" hood.

[CyberDyneSystems]

i've seen regular tube hoods and than a tulip/flower hood, which is better to use?

The "petal" hoods are purpose designed for the lens in use, and cast a square shadow around the parts of the lens not making up your image..
ie: the petal hood is more effective at preventing unwanted light from hitting the front of your lens.

[shaftmaster]

I use both aftermarket and Canon hoods. My only bad experience was an aftermarket ET-65III which didn't fit well. I got it to fit by filing the inside diameter to make it larger. I eventually bought a used Canon hood and it fit much better, but the ET-65II hood design is rather poor to begin with. My other aftermarket hoods have been great and some of them have the same black flocking that Canon uses.

Before I started using hoods, I dropped a camera about 4 or 5 times and each time I only had a filter on the lens. In each case I smashed the filter to bits, and in some cases I damaged the filter threads or caused other problems. I'm pretty sure having a properly fitting lens hood on the lens would've saved the filter and filter threads. Anyway, lens hoods are cheaper than lenses and filters. I now use hoods without filters unless I have a reason to think adding a filter will provide more protection (salt and sand).

[TheBrick3]

Can I use one inside, mostly for badass factor, without being a dork?

[Overread]

Indoors my hood hits all sorts of things - so each time I am greatly thankfull that the hood hit them and not the front of my lens! Indoors (esp with longer lenses) there is often surprisingly less room to move around than we realise - esp when we are using camera - so hoods indoors? Yes!

[LowriderS10]

Absolutely...my hoods stay on 24/7, inside or out. If someone thinks it's dorky...great, what do I care? ;)

And, as Overread said, inside you're running the risk of bumping into all sorts of things that are in close proximity to you...

[SkipD]

I use rigid hoods on ALL of my lenses, and except when the hood prevents making an image (such as some macro shots where the hood would shield the light from the subject), no lens is out of the case without the hood mounted in the "for use" position.

Most of my lenses have the hoods ready to use in the camera case. My 70-200 f/2.8L IS is the only lens that I have to reverse the hood for storage in the case.

[shaftmaster]

Can I use one inside, mostly for badass factor, without being a dork?

Do you have lemurs or small children in your house?

[FlyingPhotog]

Do you have lemurs or small children in your house?

Or perhaps even immature Lemurs?

[Shockey]

Don't listen to this guy ;)

Ashamed as I am to admit it, my lens hoods have had to take the odd bump here and there (I shot for newspapers for years, shot weddings, take my cameras hiking regularly, etc...it's bound to happen). Every time that happens, I'm thankful to have the cheap plastic "bumpers" at the ends of my lenses.

I just love it when people think only their opinion is worth anything :rolleyes:

Whatever, no bid deal either way.
I have taken a few hundred thousand photos without them and never had a single instance where I wished I had one on or felt it would have made enough a difference to make it worth the hassle of using them.
A few times there were sun in the lens issues, a lens hood would not have helped much, I just hold my hand up there to block the sun.
If your camera takes a hard fall a lens hood is not going to do much.
I guess you need to weigh for yourself the hassles of using one as opposed to the benefit you will gain.

[LowriderS10]

How exactly is it a hassle to use one?

You put it on...and it stays on. Pretty simple, if you ask me.

And mine has protected my lens/UV filter from countless tiny bumps...I even like it that when I put my camera down on a table it rests on the hood, not the end of the lens...

But, I take extremely good care of my gear and all of my current and sold gear is and has been in 100% mint condition, despite having been through hell and back.

[JWright]

I've been using lens hoods for years and wouldn't shoot without them.

The thing I don't like about the way hoods mount these days with the bayonet mount is that they will wear over time. I was constantly chasing the hood for my 100-400 because it kept falling off. I finally started slapping a strip of gaffer's tape on it. We never had this problem back when the only hoods you could get screwed into the filter threads on a lens.

[SkipD]

We never had this problem back when the only hoods you could get screwed into the filter threads on a lens.While I agree with the statement above, the lenses in the olden days were generally NOT zoom lenses like the majority of today's lenses seem to be.

Today's zoom lenses - with their extending inner barrels - are far more susceptible to damage on impact than a fixed focal length lens made thirty or forty years ago when taking an impact on the filter threads.

Canon's 24-70 lens hood is superb for more than one reason, but the fact that it fastens to the non-moving outer shell of the lens rather than to the moving inner barrel (such as the Canon's 24-105) makes the hood much better for impact protection.

[shaftmaster]

Lens hoods also provide something for your subject to grab onto.

441335

[MT Stringer]

I finally started slapping a strip of gaffer's tape on it.

Me too. Especially the Sigma 120-300 f/2.8. I have had it come loose several times, so now I put a strip on the opposite side of the tightening screw.

[krb]

Can I use one inside, mostly for badass factor, without being a dork?
Are you saying it's possible to choose gear for "badass factor" without being a dork? ;)

You can still have bright lights just outside the frame that will cause flare and reduce contrast. Indoors also means closer quarters. If you think lemurs are bad about putting their paws on the front of a lens then you've never seen a roomful of my friends when they've all been drinking.

[TheBrick3]

Are you saying it's possible to choose gear for "badass factor" without being a dork? ;)

Photography is all about badass factor. It's really the only thing that matters.

[CyberDyneSystems]

Can I use one inside, mostly for badass factor, without being a dork?

There is still light inside, and thus still light that is not part of the image you are making that could arguably detract from image quality if it hits the front optic.
So yes!

this however does in no way guarantee you protection from looking or feeling or simply being, a dork :p

[Tom Reichner]

Rigid (but bendable or breakable) lens hoods also can provide protection in the event of a crash to the ground because they can bend or break up, absorbing energy that could otherwise contribute to internal damage of the lens. Folding rubber lens hoods provide much less protection from this sort of situation.

It can be very important to ahve the hood properly affixed to a lens. A friend of mine had his tripod blow over in strong wind. His 1D mk3 and the attached 500mm f4 fell face-first onto the hard road surface. The 1D mk3 was trashed, but the lens was fine, due to the fact that the hood was on. The lens hood acted like a crumple zone for the lens. The hood was completely destroyed, but saved the lens itself. Unfortunately, my friend had to pay $550 for a replacement hood, but that's much better than having to pay $6100 for a new lens.

I like to keep the hood on my 400 f2.8 because it keeps dust off the lens. It's a deep hood, extending out from the front element about 6 inches. The velvety material that lines the inside of the hood tends to absorb dust, which keeps it from getting onto the lens' front element. A shallower hood would undoubtedly let much more dust get onto the glass. The way the hood is so deep, it's as if the dust has to travel down this long tunnel en route to the glass. Almost all of the dust gets stuck to the inside of the tunnel, preventing it from messing with my IQ.

[LowriderS10]

That Canon can justify charging $550 for a piece of round plastic is nothing short of disgusting.

[Tom Reichner]

That Canon can justify charging $550 for a piece of round plastic is nothing short of disgusting.
$550 does seem to leave a lot of profit margin for Canon and the retailer. Too much profit.

[Overread]

I'll agree to that - especaily for canon as they often don't ship non-L lenses with the hoods and you have to get them separatly. Heck the original 100mm f2.8 macro didn't ship with either lens hood or tripod collar - adding the cost of those into the price and you could get another 50mm with the sigma 150mm for around the same price (at least a few years ago)

[LowriderS10]

Yeah, my 50 1.4 came w/out a hood...every other lens I have came with a hood. And don't even get me started on their stupid tripod collars...$150 for them? Give me a freaking break...I bought one from China for 8 bucks that looks and functions exactly the same :D Screw Canon on this kind of stuff, I say!

[TheBrick3]

Without commenting on whether or not that's a fair price for a lens hood, spending $550 on a hood is definitely bad ass.

[Jon]

That Canon can justify charging $550 for a piece of round plastic is nothing short of disgusting.
The lens is $7100. Adorama Grey Market, not MSRP. What do you think the production run is on those hoods? Either you're paying for them warehousing them or you're special-ordering them.

[LowriderS10]

The lens is $7100. Adorama Grey Market, not MSRP. What do you think the production run is on those hoods? Either you're paying for them warehousing them or you're special-ordering them.

I was waiting for someone to bring out the low-volume argument...it doesn't matter how many they make. If they only make ONE hood, $550 is still too much for it.

I bet if you went to a plastics company and got them to make you a hood with those specifications, you could have it for the fraction of a price.

It doesn't cost them that much...the mentality is simply this: "If you can afford $7,100 for a lens, you can afford $550 for a hood." They gouge you because they know they can, simple as that. Same with the tripod collar. If you can afford $2k for a 70-200 2.8 IS, then you can plunk down $150 for the collar.

They're ripping their best customers off and I refuse to take part in it :)

[krb]

I bet if you went to a plastics company and got them to make you a hood with those specifications, you could have it for the fraction of a price.

You greatly underestimate the cost of manufacturing a plastic part.

[LowriderS10]

You greatly underestimate the cost of manufacturing a plastic part.

And you greatly overestimate it ;) If it costs Canon a penny more than $55 to manufacture that $550 hood, I'll cut up both of my 30Ds, smother them in ketchup and eat them for dinner.

I could probably make that bet with $5 and still not have to eat camera for dinner :)

[jdang307]

I was waiting for someone to bring out the low-volume argument...it doesn't matter how many they make. If they only make ONE hood, $550 is still too much for it.

I bet if you went to a plastics company and got them to make you a hood with those specifications, you could have it for the fraction of a price.

It doesn't cost them that much...the mentality is simply this: "If you can afford $7,100 for a lens, you can afford $550 for a hood." They gouge you because they know they can, simple as that. Same with the tripod collar. If you can afford $2k for a 70-200 2.8 IS, then you can plunk down $150 for the collar.

They're ripping their best customers off and I refuse to take part in it :)
If they can manufacturer a full 55-250mm lens, with IS, and glass, and autofocus, and sell it for a little more than $200, they can manufacture a hood with no moving parts for less.

[Overread]

You greatly underestimate the cost of manufacturing a plastic part.

The intial cost will be high because of the lack of a mold or sample product - So I can well understand that a single production of a product will cost a significant' amount and take time to produce. However Canon already have the product molds to work from so production costs would be far less for them.

Seriously though a solid plastic hood for a 70-200mm f2.8 IS L is very costly from canon whilst the same on ebay is far cheaper. The simple fact is that we are (at some point) paying for the brand name when we get canon products. (as is the case with many large companies)

[krb]

The intial cost will be high because of the lack of a mold or sample product - So I can well understand that a single production of a product will cost a significant' amount and take time to produce. However Canon already have the product molds to work from so production costs would be far less for them. Those initial costs didn't just go away, they are divided over the costs of the items produced. A product made by the hundreds is going to be far more expensive per item than one made in the hundreds of thousands. Even when you already have the molds on hand you still have setup and tear down costs associated with each production run and those costs have to be divided over the number of units produced. The less popular item is always going to cost more per unit.

[LowriderS10]

In generic terms that's true. But, as I've stated before, even if Canon only ever made ONE hood, it wouldn't cost that much. My dad used to run a home business where he has had local manufacturers make a few COMPLETELY original things out of plastic, so I have a rough idea of what it costs to make a one-off plastic product. That hood costs Canon a tiny fraction of the $550 they charge to make...

[krb]

In generic terms that's true. But, as I've stated before, even if Canon only ever made ONE hood, it wouldn't cost that much. My dad used to run a home business where he has had local manufacturers make a few COMPLETELY original things out of plastic, so I have a rough idea of what it costs to make a one-off plastic product. Then why are you even bothering to post on here? If you honestly believe that you can produce lens hoods at such an incredibly low price then why aren't you having hoods made by those local suppliers and selling them yourself? If it's so cheap to make them, even as one-off custom items, then you could even start producing versions that are not otherwise available. I'm sure you'd find a large market for hoods to fit L series lenses that are optimized for use with APS-C cameras.

Just make sure they are made of a decent quality plastic, not the weak stuff that is commonly used for prototyping. And don't forget to check each one for fit on the lens it is intended because you wouldn't want a reputation for poor quality control.

That hood costs Canon a tiny fraction of the $550 they charge to make...Name even one manufactured good that you can't say this about. Acutal manufacturing costs are always a small part of the total cost. Sure, your dad was able to get the part made cheaply. What about the value of the time he spent designing the part he had made locally? What was the value of the time he spent finding a local company that could make it and the time he spent working with them? Did your dad sell these items for the same price that it cost to have the plastic pieces made or did he act like these money-grubbing corporations who think they deserve to sell a product for enough money to recover their entire cost of designing, producing and delivering the item?

[jdang307]

Those initial costs didn't just go away, they are divided over the costs of the items produced. A product made by the hundreds is going to be far more expensive per item than one made in the hundreds of thousands. Even when you already have the molds on hand you still have setup and tear down costs associated with each production run and those costs have to be divided over the number of units produced. The less popular item is always going to cost more per unit.

I think everyone can agree with what you said but the fact is, more expensive doesn't mean 10 times more expensive. If the hood cost $100-150-200 max, fine. But $550? That's a reaming

[krb]

Everybody gets upset at $550 but I bet these hoods have the smallest markup (as a percentage) of any hood available from Canon.

[LowriderS10]

whoaaaaaaaa....slow down there, hot rod. Getting a little agitated.

I'm not designing and selling hoods because I have better things to do with my time like get an education...besides, the Chinese are already doing it and doing it rather well.

And I bet they don't have the smallest markup.

I'll bet you Canon's $550 hood costs them marginally more to make than it takes the Chinese to make their $10 knockoff hoods.

Just because it says Canon on it, it doesn't mean it's worth an arm and a leg.

[krb]

Getting a little agitated.No reason for you to feel agitated...

I'm not designing and selling hoods because I have better things to do with my time like get an education...besides, Really? Just think of the quality schooling you could afford with all the profits from such an easily produced product. :lol: Or maybe you should include some business classes in your curriculum. Study up on the total cost of producing an item and bringing it to market.

[keleko17]

I had no clue how strongly people felt about their hoods when I started this thread. A few things I have noticed...

1. Most people would agree, get a hood for all lenses, they are cheap in comparison to a new lens.

2. While I have no experience in plastics, if it cost me $30,000 to create a mold for the hood on a 70-200 f/2.8 IS, and I sell them for $300 each, I would only need to sell 100 before I started making a profit. I think I would sit in a factory, all alone, test fitting each one, every day for the next 10 years.

On a side note, I plan to buy an original Canon hood for my newly purchased 85mm f/1.8. But I am also going to by a generic for the rest of my lenses. Until I find a problem.

Thanks everyone that added opinions to the thread.

[krb]

2. While I have no experience in plastics, if it cost me $30,000 to create a mold for the hood on a 70-200 f/2.8 IS, and I sell them for $300 each, I would only need to sell 100 before I started making a profit. I think I would sit in a factory, all alone, test fitting each one, every day for the next 10 years.
That would take care of the molds and I guess you're volunteering to handle QC. I'll even grant that you're just copying an existing product so there's not too much cost for engineering and you're just doing the cheap Chinese style lens hoods that don't have the flocking inside or anything like that so they come out of the mold ready to be boxed up and shipped with no additional work required. And cost of the unmolded plastic is small enough that we won't worry over it.

What about the equipment that melts the plastic and injects it into the molds?
The workers to operate that equipment?
The shipping and receiving workers who accept shipments of raw materials and prepare shipments of finished products?
The sales/customer service people to deal with your customers?
Accounting staff to make sure it all gets paid for?
HR staff to hire all these people?
Managers to ensure all of those people do something besides sit around and drink coffee?
Lease for the building where all this work is taking place?
Insurance?
Utilities?
Taxes?

[LowriderS10]

Then how do you explain the Chinese manufacturers that create PERFECT replicas for 10-30% of what Canon charges?

They, too, have the same challenges. I'm not talking about the crappy knockoffs, I'm talking about the stuff that looks and functions exactly as the Canon stuff does?

Face it, Canon makes some excellent bodies and lenses, some of them rather affordable. But when it comes to accessories (remote releases, hoods, tripod collars) they try to rape the customer every possible way.

[krb]

Then how do you explain the Chinese manufacturers that create PERFECT replicas for 10-30% of what Canon charges?Compare salaries in China to Hong Kong or Indonesia. Compare insurance costs, legal fees and costs of real estate for the factory, too.

And then actually try comparing the replica to an original. I have and use several replicas and they identical only in their external dimensions. There's no flocking on the inside to reduce glare. The mounts are not made to the same tolerances as the OEM parts (which I prefer so long as they are a little tighter) and the plastic itself does not seem to be the same. Close, but not the same. They are functional but not exact replicas.

[LowriderS10]

It's true that all those costs are higher...however, Canon also makes a lot bigger profit than any of the Chinese companies. Why? Because of insane markup on certain things.

Anyways, I'm getting bored of this and my essays sadly won't write themselves...cheers!