lens hood for the EF-S 17-55 F/2.8

dpark wrote in post #9447687
That's not the Canon hood. That's one of the knock-offs (hence the low cost).

Sure, but it's identical in almost every aspect of the word except that it doesn't say Canon on the outside. It's a cheap piece of plastic. Paying $50 for it seems silly.

I have a 17-55mm coming to me as we speak, and I actually ordered the POTN knock-off hood. I'll be sure to give a small review on it once it gets here. If it's good, I saved myself $40. If it sucks, I'm only out $12, so no biggie.

I have both - original Canon as well as Ebay hoods. When I next have to buy one, it will be an Ebay knock off again.

I have also replaced all original lens caps with Ebay ones, which at least can be gripped reliably.

Another point: I read a review recently (Amazon, maybe?...who knows) of someone that bought a knock-off, and he brought up a good point. Hoods really serve 2 purposes - preventing lens flare and preventing damage to the lens if you smack it against a wall or drop it. He bought a knock-off hood and only a few days after he got it, he dropped the lens. The hood cracked, but the lens was in tact. He said he immediately just bought another knock-off hood and was glad he did because had he bought the original Canon hood, he would've been out $100 instead of just $30.

I bought a knockoff EW-83J. I dropped the camera twice, the hood took the beating and it came out all right. Cheap hood works well enough for me. My lens hood has never had the problem with vignetting or black corners as long as it's properly put on right.

I hate all plastic hoods. They're overpriced, a pain in the ass to mount/unmount and put back on the lens backwards for stowing away in a kit.

I get those rubber ones off ebay that expand/collapse into 3 positions. You never have to take them off. Plus, they aren't as big and are less distracting. And I only use a hood to protect the lens element from banging on to something since I carry 2 bodies.

Fangs404 wrote in post #9449300
Sure, but it's identical in almost every aspect of the word except that it doesn't say Canon on the outside. It's a cheap piece of plastic. Paying $50 for it seems silly.

I have a 17-55mm coming to me as we speak, and I actually ordered the POTN knock-off hood. I'll be sure to give a small review on it once it gets here. If it's good, I saved myself $40. If it sucks, I'm only out $12, so no biggie.

It's also (presumably) missing the felt lining. I'm not saying it's not a good hood, though. I have knockoffs on my lenses, too. I just wanted to point out that it isn't the Canon version.

dpark wrote in post #9451435
It's also (presumably) missing the felt lining. I'm not saying it's not a good hood, though. I have knockoffs on my lenses, too. I just wanted to point out that it isn't the Canon version.

Why would a felt lining matter?

[edit]
Oh, you're probably thinking about light bouncing around on the inside of the hood. I can't seriously imagine it makes that much of a difference.

Fangs404 wrote in post #9451512
Why would a felt lining matter?

[edit]
Oh, you're probably thinking about light bouncing around on the inside of the hood. I can't seriously imagine it makes that much of a difference.

I'm sure the impact to actual real-world performance is minimal, but the difference in reflectiveness is quite apparent on these snaps I just took:

IMAGE LINK: http://lh4.ggpht.com …tTBA/s1600/IMG_​6171_1.JPG

IMAGE LINK: http://lh4.ggpht.com …CrYo/s1600/IMG_​6177_1.JPG

IMAGE LINK: http://lh5.ggpht.com …WLsA/s1600/IMG_​6179_1.JPG

I have the one posted directly above. I have no issues. The difference I find is in the inside coating. Its more of a flat black paint that scuffs easily when taking on and off the lens cap.

Pmolan wrote in post #9451613
I have the one posted directly above. I have no issues. The difference I find is in the inside coating. Its more of a flat black paint that scuffs easily when taking on and off the lens cap.

Agreed, you can see my fingernail scuffs on the inside of the knockoff hood on the left. The felt on the OEM hood seems to absorb the light quite nicely.

I've got the scuffs inside my knock-offs, too. But they don't really matter, so I'm still happy I paid half as much for my lens hoods. I must admit that one of them is more finicky getting on and off, though.

Ditto the above post . . .for the $$$ savings the knock off works just fine for me!

I've been playing around with my 17-55mm and the knock-off hood I got from POTN. It's a fantastic hood, and as I guessed earlier in the thread, it's pointless to spend money on the official Canon hood. Here's my review:

I've got the fake hood the same as the one on the left in 3ntreri's pictures. Works fine with no vignetting, the matte plastic on the inner surfaces does it's job. the outer surface has a few scratches now, but I'd rather they were there than on the lens itself! Cost me £7.99 delivered, which is one quarter of the cheapest price I can find the official hood for in the UK.

I was able to find a used Canon hood in excellent condition on ebay for $19 plus $6 shipping. So for about half the price of new I got the genuine Canon. I was about to order the knock-off hood but thought I'd check out ebay first after reading some of the comments about the fit of the hood on the lens. I'm sure they are fine though, just saying that a used one on ebay is another option.