Hoods for canon 50mm

I'm looking for a hood for the nifty fifty and was considering grabbing an ebay one. Can anyone recommend a 1) hood and a 2) store ? I shoot with a full frame and obviously want a hood that won't vignette.

Alternatively, can anyone confirm that the legit canon hoods are manufactured in north america ? If so, I'd consider paying full price for one, presuming they're reasonably priced.

thanks !

No... nothing Canon OEM is made in N. America as far as I know. Probably their hoods are made in China or elsewhere. Really don't know and it probably doesn't matter.

The 50/1.8 Canon/OEM hood uses an adapter... The lens doesn't have any sort of bayonet mount for a hood without the adapter. The adapter screws into the 52mm filter threads of the lens and provides a bayonet mount for the hood.

There is also a considerably cheaper Vello hoodthat similarly comes with an adapter, made just for this lens. (It's about $17 vs $29 for the OEM).

You also could just get a screw-in, generic "standard" hood in 52mm thread size. Those come in plastic (like the Canon and the Vello), metal and even rubber. I'm not a fan of the rubber ones (usually) because they collapse easily and don't provide much protection against bumps.

Actually, the 50/1.8 has a pretty deeply recessed front element, so might not benefit all that much from a lens hood. I'd be more concerned about using one on the 50/1.4, 85/1.8, 28/1.8 lenses (and others) that have a large front element that's not recessed, so is exposed to a lot of oblique light.

All of them are designed for full frame and shouldn't vignette.

When I owned the 50 f/1.8, I just bought a cheap collapsible rubber hood for $5. Since the lens was so inexpensive, I didn't see the point in spending a lot of money on a hood to protect it.

amfoto1 wrote in post #15045966
No... nothing Canon OEM is made in N. America as far as I know. Probably their hoods are made in China or elsewhere. Really don't know and it probably doesn't matter.

A Canon ES-62 lens hood is made in Japan, just like all their lens hoods.

Take Care,
Cheers, Patrick

Alan--thanks a lot. And you raise an interesting point about flare. I suppose I'm judging that I'll benefit from a hood because I'm comparing shots I've taken with the 50 vs. shots taken with the 17-40mm with the hood on. What I'm failing to consider (or eliminate as third variables) is the f-stop I'm shooting at. I just sense (what a terrible word) that I'm getting more flare (reduced contrast) at similar f-stops between the lenses.

I think I'm also basing my judgment that a lens hood will help on situations in which I've used my hand placed just above the lens while shooting which had a dramatic effect on flare. But, yeah, this is flagging and may not be remedied by only a hood.

@scott: I won't get the rubber one only because I'm using it in professional contexts (sacrilege ! the 50mm 1.8 used in professional contexts !) and think it may look unprofessional. But, yeah, I'd prefer a cheaper hood.

@patrick: thanks.

I use the $3 52mm screw in after-market hood from Amazon. It works just fine. Buy when you are getting something else, also. $25 orders pay no shipping, although that may be USA only.

You are worried about appearance with the rubber hood, but not the $100 lens? The hood isnt that important, just get one that fits

^ I'm not worried about the $100 lens because I've shot 50 weddings with it and it has served me well (it also doesn't have the same visibility as a rubber hood would). What if my 'cheap' lens busts ? Bah, there's another in my bag.

@TSchrief: thanks !

Christopher Steven b wrote in post #15046396
^ I'm not worried about the $100 lens because I've shot 50 weddings with it and it has served me well (it also doesn't have the same visibility as a rubber hood would). What if my 'cheap' lens busts ? Bah, there's another in my bag.

@TSchrief: thanks !

I shot for 15 years with a rubber hood, they used to be the standard. I guess I dont understand the argument.

^ fair enough. The argument is that these days I think people associate rubber hoods more with amateurs. That may be unfair, but I think that that is a common view. I could absolutely be wrong about this. I should also add that I once destroyed my 70-200 lens by sheer stupidity and was utterly saved by the solid plastic hood I had on it. Even if it is only a $100 lens, I'd like it to have a better chance at it surviving a fall should one occur.

Scott M wrote in post #15046013
When I owned the 50 f/1.8, I just bought a cheap collapsible rubber hood for $5. Since the lens was so inexpensive, I didn't see the point in spending a lot of money on a hood to protect it.

Just got mine yesterday and love it so far, 52mm screw on thread and it provide a place for a filter/cap. It's the Zeikos universal one, not bad for $5 shipped!

A TON of professional videographers use rubber hoods. This one actually replaced a hard plastic one.

Christopher Steven b wrote in post #15046166
I won't get the rubber one only because I'm using it in professional contexts
@patrick: thanks.

The main reason to not use a rubber hood with the nifty fifty.

https://photography-on-the.net …hp?t=910891&hig​hlight=wow

DavidR wrote in post #15046536
The main reason to not use a rubber hood with the nifty fifty.

https://photography-on-the.net …hp?t=910891&hig​hlight=wow

Seems to me thats an argument not to use a plastic toy lens in a professional context.. That lens has an alarming tendency to break in two. Not to mention horribly slow focusing.

^
Agreed.

I already said that I've used the nifty fiddy for 50+ weddings and have had great results with it. If it breaks I have a backup in my bag. So it's moot. I feel like I was pretty clear above. I'm cool with the mocking suggestion it is a toy. I make a decent living using that toy.