EFS 10-22

Over £500, no case and expected to pay about £25 extra for a lens hood - what a cheek!

Canon are a bit tight! They only throw in the hoods and the cases with the L's and the DO's. The case's tend to be a bit of a waste of time but the hoods are nice to have included. Sigma have the right idea, IIRC they include hoods with all their lenses and cases with a lot of them.

racketman,
Try going to eBay. I bought a petal shade like the Canon one, but this one is made in China and costs a fraction of the Canon price.

I agree it is poor form for Canon not to supply a lens hood with every lens they sell. Companies like Sigma don't have any problem with including a hood and often a case. It must not cost more than a few cents to injection mold the hoods they sell as accessories.

Fortunately, the hood for my 17-40 fits my 10-22 perfectly so I did not have to buy one.

Well, if you think the overall 10-22 package (lens +hood) price is too steep, you could always get a 17-40 or even better, a 16-35 zoom....they both come with the hood as well as the pouch. Now, how much would that last lens cost ya ?

Until someone else shows me an f3.5-4.5 10-22mm or simaliar focal length zoom that is as fast, and includes ultra sonic FT-M focusing I think it's a moot point. The lens is worth every penny in my book, top notch build.

If you don't like it you can buy a Sigma 4-5.6mm 10-20mm glass, sure you get the hood but you get a slower glass too (not much) but you also get all the pros and cons of 3rd party glass.

I think complaints with Canon glass pricing are un-warranted, there is Sigma and other 3-rd party glass on the market. If you find that glass sub-par in anyway; then you know why Canon glass costs what it does.

LOL, not trying to rant on anyone in particular just using this thread to state what I find an obvious point. If better or equivalent glass can be had I think by all means consumers should go for it.

I tried E bay and was out bid, ran up from 7.99 to 18.00 by which time I thought dammit and ordered from Warehouse Express (25.00 ouch!).

I really wanted the extra wide angle for my 1.6 croppers (which i'm staying with).
By the by this thread in a Nikon forum doesnt exactly make you want to jump ship. Noise at 400?? Maybe its just a poor example? Hopefully it is a great camera and will push Canon along.

http://forums.dpreview​.com …rum=1021&messag​e=16227936

Not arguing its a great lens; I wouldnt have forked out if I thought it was going to be otherwise but from the customer relations point of view I would have thought a hood (which must cost a couple of dollars to manufacture) would be a nice thing to fall out of the box.

Note the 10-22, 17-40 and 16-35 all use the same hood.

Although the latter are L's and should have a hood I am not sure this is included with the 17-40, however if you plan to get one of these two it will save you some cash.

Especially on a lens that cost in the neighborhood of $600 it is really ridiculous for you to have to buy a piece of plastic for $35 on top of that.

However after I purchased that piece of plastic, I paid $50 from over seas because BHp was out of stock for weeks on end, I find that its size makes me leave it at home 9 out of 10 times. I'd say skip the hood...

too late - must be one of the most expensive pieces of plastic Canon make. It does offer a little protection against bumps on the convex glass.

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

don't feel so hard done by after seeing this ad - do people really have that kind of money to spend on a lens hood??


http://www.waltersphot​ovideo.co.uk …Replacement%20L​ens%20Hood

This lens is pretty close and a lot cheaper

Tokina

IMAGE LINK: http://www.bhphotovide​o.com …ghType=category​Navigation