Lens hood

I purchased one of these and I must say that I don't know why we buy expensive Canon lens hoods for the non-L lenses. These are cheap, work great and they are easy to carry around on your lens in your photo-bag. Any others use them?

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

The Canon hoods are better.

For one thing this looks like a flexible hood, which is just about useless for protecting the front element in case of a fall. The Canon hoods are made for particular lenses, so they have the correct shape and length for the lens (well, on an FF camera). Canon hoods generally they don't screw onto the filter screws, but they attach to the lens body. In case of a fall I feel a hood is sturdier when attached to the lens body - no proof here, just a feeling. The flocking on the inside of most (all?) Canon hoods simply can't be beat for killing stray light.

The *only* way this hood beats the Canon hoods is price. Other than that it is at best adequate in all other regards. Well, you get what you pay for, and it's better than not having a hood.

The Canon flocking alone is enough to convince me.

Funny, some are willing to pay for a filter to 'protect' their lenses. Often for an expensive one even. But won't spring for a lens hood that will really 'protect' the lens and work/fit well (OE).

If you use the hood to protect your lenses I guess you're right, BUT this is not the main reason to use a hood. Anyway, use your massive Canon hoods, take them on and off every time you put the camera back in your bag/backpack. I'll be shooting with my camera before you get yours in position.
I guess the main problem with these hoods are that they don't have a large CANON logo, and they are way too cheap!!!

And, by the way, I have the Canon ones as well.

The only thing that this is good for is shooting through glass. Rubber hoods are more difficult to extract from the bag because, well, they're rubber and get caught on the inside of the bag, strapr, flaps, etc.

It is, however, as important a feature as blocking stray light.

This I don't really understand, above you imply that blocking stray light is THE main feature of a hood and yet you criticise an effective size. I really don't think it takes any more time to remove, reverse, and mount a large hood than a smaller one.

Maybe, but I'm not in a race with anyone. I kinda antisapate my needs and when.

I had rubber pop out ones before and I did not like them. I ripped them to shreds and made them into reversing rings. but, whatever works best for you.

Canon hoods are great cause ya can reverse them on the lens for storage....
and still put the cap on......don

Removing stray light *IS* the main reason, and a correctly-sized hood with good internal flocking is about as good as you're ever going to get.

And a generic rubber hood is not correctly sized and does not have flocking.

Do not all of these come with a lens hood as standard equipment? If so, just who is wasting their money?

I quite like my 24-70 hood. Can easily get the lenscap on & off with it still on, does it's job well, only thing that's a little fiddly is mounting the lens when the hood's reversed. Anyone else find this problem?

The Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM lens and its matching hood (the EW-83F) is without a doubt the best engineered combination ever. The hood is quite deep and mounts to the lens BODY, not to the filter threads. The deep hood works perfectly with the lens set at 70mm - the shortest physical configuration of the lens. The lens extends when zooming towards 24mm, making the effective depth of the hood less at the wide-angle positions.

I don't know of another lens - by any manufacturer - that works as well as this combination.

Incidentally, I leave the hood on my 24-70 all the time - in the normal position - and just drop it into my bag without a lens cap (and most often with the 20D stuck to the backside of the lens). In a quick-draw contest like was alluded to in a previous post, I will win .

I don't know. I got a very similar cheap one (they didnt have a proper flower-shaped one) in Jessops, and its not very good. Cuts out the corners too much, which means its a little big for my lens but still, its build quality leaves a lot to be desired, takes me about five minutes each time to screw the damn thing on.

A filter is a difficult to produce piece of optical glass. A hood is a press moulded piece of plastic. There is a slight difference there...
I'ld be happy to pay a reasonable amount for a hood if it's decent, but I do have problems with paying 30 euro's for a piece of plastic (yes, it's Canon) which I have to glue to keep it on the lens (EW65). Why aren't all hoods decent, locking, bayonet types? Or metal screw on types, like Nikon used to (?) have? Apart from that, I can't fathom the idea of spending close to 400 euro's on a hood for the 500/4.

Since my 24-70L is on my camera 80% of the time it's a small, if any, problem with me.

F.Y.I. The hood comes with that lens.