Canon 17-55 hood question

Is there a real reason to get the factory canon hood instead of an after market?

The only big difference I see is the price.

Factory:
http://www.cameta.com …7-55mm-f-2-8-IS-19914.cfm

After Market:
http://www.cameta.com …55mm-f-2-8-EF-S-25506.cfm

How about for $11...

http://www.amazon.com …keywords=hood+c​anon+17-55

I bought an aftermarket hood - it feels a little cheap but sturdy enough. I haven't noticed any problems not having the flocking inside the hood.

Go to eaby try some Chinese ones, even better than opteka..

Those third party hoods usually lack the flocking on the inside. If you like to DIY, you could replicate it yourself. It's hard to say if they are truly identical in make up. The OEM hoods will absorb the impact if you bump into something. The third party hoods don't always fit as well, and I haven't really seen someone praise their third party hood for saving their lens.

So flare prevention can be pretty close. Actual protection is up in the air. I bought OEM hoods because I didn't want to risk it. The Canon hoods are proven, and saving $30 isn't worth the risk on >$1000 lenses. On a $100 kit lens, I wouldn't mind the risk of a cheap hood, though.

I go the OEM myself and I agree with Gordon on the bumping protection and fit. On the other hand, they scratch and get fingerprints fairly easily, so it is your call. But in a 1K lens I decided to go original.

Another vote for eBay. I think mine was about $5.00 and was mailed from Hong Kong. I have been happy with it but have banged it up quite a bit and am about ready to order another.

Thanks for the replies on this. What is the true benefit of the felt they put inside the hood?

Checking over amazon I found the OEM hood for $34. I can't believe they can sell this thing elsewhere for $50 - $60. $34 is outrageous as well but I may ask for it for fathers day

i have both, originally bought a aftermarket and later got a used OEM.

I use the OEM and retired the 3rd party because 1) better reverse fitting, 2) much stronger plastic, and 3) flocking. I did not notice any real difference with and without the felt, but I never shoot into or towards the sun.

I can imagine that the flcoking might decrease the prescence of scattered and off angled photons hitting the front element, but the relative improvement in terms of decreased flare is probably nothing compared to the improvement with and without hood.

I bought two 3rd party hoods and regretted it. The first one was such a poor fit, that it wouldn't attach without a lot of force. It also vignetted. The second one (more expensive) seemed to be just fine, except it started to warp a bit (not very good plastic) and eventually it too vignetted.

I ended up buying the Canon hood and been done with it.

Grand_gator wrote in post #14552752
I go the OEM myself and I agree with Gordon on the bumping protection and fit. On the other hand, they scratch and get fingerprints fairly easily, so it is your call. But in a 1K lens I decided to go original.

Same here. It's not that expensive when you consider what you're buying it to protect. The flocking prevents any possible shine or reflection off the plastic inner surface.

mosabi wrote in post #14554014
Thanks for the replies on this. What is the true benefit of the felt they put inside the hood?

I'm not sure there is an advantage. I have a Canon hood (with teddy bear fur) for my 70-200 and a cheap aftermarket hood (inside painted flat black) for my 17-55. The reflectance seems to be about the same.

A disadvantage of the furry hood is it picks up dust...

-js

I have two Chinese made, eBay hoods (one for a back up). The bayonet models work great.

However, I once purchased an Opteka, screw mount, butterfly, lens hood and it would not screw into my filter threads.