Pro Digital Hard lens hood, what do you think

I am looking to get a len's hood for EF-S 18-55mm and EF-S 55-250mm.
What do you think of this hood: http://www.amazon.com …ics&qid=1259021​804&sr=8-1

Or, what would you suggest?
Thank you!

I think hoods are the second most overpriced crap Canon sells (tripod collars being the #1 rip-off)...so if it fits, go for it. It's just a piece of plastic...

I would go with the OEM hoods for each of your lenses. I know they are expensive, but they are specifically designed for the particular focal lengths and will not block any of the view. Third party hoods may not be as precisely constructed in this regard.

Do not get that hood. You will not like it. It screws on like a filter and can vignette. You can get a after market that clips in just like a stock hood, much better then the screw type.

something like this. its only $4 and free shipping. Got one for my girl friends sister and its really nice.
http://cgi.ebay.com …&ssPageName=STR​K:MEWNX:IT

LowriderS10 wrote in post #9069884
I think hoods are the second most overpriced crap Canon sells (tripod collars being the #1 rip-off)...so if it fits, go for it. It's just a piece of plastic...

No kidding! These things should be thrown in for free with all lenses.

I don't know about that particular 3rd party hood, but there are other hoods that are perfectly well usable.

Those "Pro Digital" lens hoods screw into the filter threads. Both of your lenses have rotating front elements and filter threads. Every time you focus the hood would rotate and be out of alignment.

As was said earlier, get an original Canon hood, or at least a good copy of a Canon hood.

There's absolutely no way that a single hood can be anywhere close to optimum for all the focal lengths listed in the advertisement (link in post #1). The photographs in the advertisement showing flare and no-flare in an image are, at best, stretching the truth to the limit for that hood.

As said a few times above, pass up the junk and get the original Canon hood for each lens you have.

If you want to save a little money, there are true copies of the Canon designs available. I won't recommend them, though, as I have not handled and tested any of them.

Many of these knockoff hoods do not have fabric flocking on the inside to absorb and not reflect light. The Canon's do. Look at some of the Chinese knockoffs, some do have the flocking. If you do, make sure they are the same dimensions at the petals as the Canon for your lens.

I agree with Skip, to use Canon products here.

or you can buy used original Canon hood, could save you around $10 per hood.

Generalization and a misconception...

tgara wrote in post #9070635
I would go with the OEM hoods for each of your lenses. I know they are expensive, but they are specifically designed for the particular focal lengths and will not block any of the view. Third party hoods may not be as precisely constructed in this regard.

You have the following lenses which were designed for full frame cameras: EF 24-70 f2.8L / EF 70-200 f2.8L IS / [COLOR=black]EF 17-40 f4L / EF 50 f1.4 / 85 f1.8.

The Canon hoods for these lenses were designed "not to block any of the view" OF A FULL FRAME CAMERA. The OEM hoods for these lenses are larger than necessary and will not provide the optimum flare protection when used with any of the above lenses on your 1.6x camera.

RPCrowe wrote in post #9089072
You have the following lenses which were designed for full frame cameras: EF 24-70 f2.8L / EF 70-200 f2.8L IS / [COLOR=black]EF 17-40 f4L / EF 50 f1.4 / 85 f1.8.

The Canon hoods for these lenses were designed "not to block any of the view" OF A FULL FRAME CAMERA. The OEM hoods for these lenses are larger than necessary and will not provide the optimum flare protection when used with any of the above lenses on your 1.6x camera.

Your suggestion is misleading, in my opinion. The "larger than necessary" statement is only true if you are referring to the diameter. If you maintain the diameter of the Canon hoods, you would actually need to extend the length of the hoods to make them optimum for a smaller format. Otherwise, you could reduce the diameter of the hoods to optimize the performance on an APS-C camera.

You will not find any commercially made hoods that can improve the performance for the Canon 24-70 f/2.8L and 70-200 f/2.8L IS (both of which I own) when used on an APS-C format body. I cannot speak for the others you listed.

The Canon hoods for the "L" lenses I own (the two above plus the original 16-35 f/2.8L) all mount on the non-moving outer shell of the lenses, and NOT on any part of the lens that may extend when changing focal lengths. This method of mounting makes the Canon hoods far superior for protection from impact than any hood mounting to the lens in a way that has the hood riding on the part of a lens that extends (like the 24-105's hood does). When the hood is mounted to the non-moving outer shell of the lens, all impact forces are transmitted to the shell and not the inner workings of the lens.

The design of the 24-70 f/2.8L and the hood provided for it is far superior to any other lens/hood currently produced. That's because the lens extends for shorter focal lengths and makes the hood length almost optimal for all focal lengths the lens is capable of.

And I don't know why none of the knock-off companies hasn't seized on the idea of producing hoods specifically for 15x22mm cameras. They're already making copies of the Canon hoods--all they'd need to do is extend those 1.6x and market them especially for the cropped cameras.

This website shows "Alternate" hoods that can be used on crop cameras: http://blog.davidburre​n.com …ate-canon-lens-hoods.html