10-22mm lense hoods?

I was going to buy a Canon 10-22mm lense yesterday from B&H but had read on the forums before I called that they were on backorder and B&H said they had no idea when the next shipment from Japan was coming. I held off on the lense until I could find one possibly floating around on the net. Anyone have any ideas?

Thanks,

Steve

This is not Canon Branded but works very well:
http://cgi.ebay.com …0059&item=75195​39673&rd=1
or
http://cgi.ebay.com …0060&item=75203​68964&rd=1

Canon Brand:
http://cgi.ebay.com …7737&rd=1&ssPag​eName=WDVW

Yes, I also got my hood - a Canon EW-83 off eBay for about $20. total. I forget who but it was someone near Chicgao. Works/looks great.

Dont even get me starting on this. I have had this lens for ages and still waiting on a back ordered hood. Dont know how useful it really will be (ya ya I know it will achieve some effect), as I stacked two filters on a shoot and the top filter was showing in the corners. So the petal hood must not be thicker than 1/4 inch on the smallest side. Damn canon for not including the corresponding hood with every lens!!!!

According to the FOV calculator here , your FOV is going to be almost 97 degrees. You're not going to get much of a lens hood on there anyway. In fact, based on what the lens hood looks like on my Sigma 12-24, yours would be virtually nonexistent, at least as far as the side petals would be concerned.

profit margins must be huge on Canon hoods, reguardless of the lens price the hoods are always $20-30. I think I have a kit lens for my Elan 7 were the hood would sell for more used then the actual lens.....aarrggg. For any lens over $500 the hood should be free, period.

Should be included with the lens. I would pay for it gladly in the price of the lens. I think canons policy is that lenses over 1K incude hood.

I don't understand the problem... there is a really easy way to get a Canon original lens hood for your 10-22, just buy the 17-40. It'll probably be the most expensive lens hood ever, but hey, you get a great lens with it as well... ;D

HA! Yeah, I thought of that for a milisecond...tried to give myself a good excuse to buy both lenses, due to the same hood used, but my mind was pretty slick that day and wouldn't let me do it:p


Steve

Yeah, they're really hard to come by -- I got my from onecall.com, but they're out now. I guess the 10-22 must be selling well (unless the 16-35mm and 17-40mm also do not come with the hood -- that might explain the shortage).

I say go to Google and type "ew-83e" and see what comes up. That's what I had to resort to but at least I found a place w/it in stock.

I think these guys have it in stock:
http://www.pictureline​.com/product.php?id=36​54

Alternately, these are knockoff hoods, but in a pinch...
http://www.fotodiox.co​m …h=1_17_38&produ​cts_id=219

Since I got my 10-22 the lens hood from my 17-40 gets more use than the 17-40 lens does.

At first I was PO'd when a hood didn't come with the lens, but then I found that the 17-40 hood works just fine.

Still, to sell a lens with this cost and quality without a lens hood is a stupid move on Canon's part. It must cost them all of 75 cents to stamp out those plastic hoods.

Scott

Actually I think its the same for the 16-35 not the 17-40.

Just checked with a Canon dealer in Perth and they assure me that they will be shortly (or are) in stock in Australia. I don't believe them, but I've ordered one and will let you know if I end up getting it in the promised time. If I do, maybe I should order 10?

Simon....

The 17-40, 16-35 and 10-22 use the same lens hood.

So I know its sacreligious and I'll probably need a pair of asbestos pants to avoid the flames, but has anyone shot naked (no hood) or used a rubber collapsible hood on this lens? I just received my lens and haven't had an opportunity to check it out yet.

With the wide FOV of the 10-22, no hood can be very deep & not vignette, so it seems especially ridiculous to pay $40 USD for a piece of plastic (if you can even find one) which may not have much function.