Lens hood on UWA lens?

I'm still in love with my EF-S 10-22mm. The only drawback is that now I can see what a difference a quality lens makes, it makes my other lens seem inadaquate and I can see it costing me a fortune upgrading them.

Anyway, I was planning on buying a hood for the 10-22 but the hoods are so shallow and the petals so small, I was wondering if they are actually all that effective?

Thanks in advance.

They're shallow because of the extremely wide angle of view...107 degrees on the EFS10-22. If the hood had more depth to it, you'd get some serious vignetting.

marginally effective. if i find myself in a glare situation i just block it out with a finger. easy. i dont use my hoods for my 16-35 or 10-22 at all! those hoods are so wide they are a hassle to carry around too.

I always hood my lenses, UWA or not. Not as effective doesn't mean totally ineffective and I'd rather have both hands on the camera than trying to shoot with one hand and shade with the other.

Because the Canon hood costs so much, I bought one on eBay for less than half the brand price. It fits perfectly and with inner felt, and I like it a lot. I still experienced flare with the hood on, though, but I don't think it had anything to do with the fact that it was an off brand. Because the size is somewhat ackward, I tend to get lazy and don't use it as often as I should.

Can't hurt, might help. So, why not?

Yeah..since you love it so much, get the hood as means of protection from ppl walking into it.

Vendee wrote in post #4917916
The only drawback is that now I can see what a difference a quality lens makes, it makes my other lens seem inadaquate and I can see it costing me a fortune upgrading them.

Just wait until you get some L glass.

After my first few outings with my 70-200L f/2.8 IS, I felt the same way about my other glass.

I use my lenshood with my 10-22, helpful in some situations, useless in others; but a good practice nonetheless. Just make sure you get one thats designed for that UWA.