CANON 10-22 Hood Alternative (Pics)

Like many of you, I don't like the hood for the CANON 10-22 simply because of the size. It's huge, gets in the way and I end up not using it. But I do want to use a hood with this lens so I researched and found a few posts on the subject. One of the recommended alternative hoods was this one, the EW-83II (for the CANON 20-35 f/3.5-4.5). It's much smaller, fits perfect, does not vignette and I have no way of proving this but I think it would protect better since it sits closer to the front element. I've seen people post on the subject, so I thought I'd post a few pictures so you can get a better idea what it looks like mounted on the lens. The last image is a shot through my balcony at 10mm, f/11 to show that there's no effect on the image.

pixel_junkie wrote in post #10170967
...I think it would protect better since it sits closer to the front element...

Umm... if it's protection you are worried about, is it not better to have things kept further away from the lens rather than allowing something closer?

There's always a UV filter you could use.
Damn...didn't mean to open that can of worms.

Maybe I meant stray light, Phil.

Maybe you can try to take a pic with both hoods and see if there's any difference? I'm sure there's a reason why the hood size is the size it is.

tnguyen600 wrote in post #10171265
I'm sure there's a reason why the hood size is the size it is.

Of course.

Personally, when I get this lens I will not worry about a hood or a UV filter. I'll just use it and, should I need to stop flare then that is what I'll use a hat for - to block the sunlight. When shooting UW lenses, its hard to effectively use a hood.

Hey, I like the look.

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

I figure since the 10-22 was designed for crop bodies and nothing else, I am sure Canon engineers have already thought this through. It's not like the case of the 17-40L hood on crop bodies where using a narrower hood yields better results.

I do not have factual evidence or anything to back it up, just speaking from the mind.

However if the OP really stumbled on something like this without any drawbacks, I'd gladly use that alternative. The 10-22 hood is very obtrusive. I ditched the same hood on the 17-40 for the 17-55 hood, on 7D of course.

like how it looks, looks more professional...

Well done OP!

I forgot to ask, but have you tried shooting the lens wide open with the lens on? I saw that you listed the picture was taken at 11mm @ f/11. Maybe you should try it at f/3.5 to see if theres any loss of light.

I never liked the hood on the 10-22. This seems to be a better option if it does not vignette.

jp129 wrote in post #10171841
I figure since the 10-22 was designed for crop bodies and nothing else, I am sure Canon engineers have already thought this through. It's not like the case of the 17-40L hood on crop bodies where using a narrower hood yields better results.

Of course #2

KenjiS wrote in post #10171879
like how it looks, looks more professional...

Vanity has no place for the serious photographer in lieu of performance.

With rare exception, the 24-70L being one, hoods for zoom lenses are effective, against stray light, only at the widest of it's focal range. None the less a hood should be used and the one designed for an EF-S lens takes in consideration the format it was designed for.

jr_senator wrote in post #10174859
Vanity has no place for the serious photographer in lieu of performance.

Duh :P But if it works just as well or better...

KenjiS wrote in post #10175919
Duh :P But if it works just as well or better...

As I said, "...in lieu of performance.". I find it difficult to accept that a hood other than the one designed by Canon for a particular lens could be better (or as good as).

I don't understand why people think they are smarter than Canon's engineers. Canon knows their lenses BETTER than anyone. They designed the hood for the 10-22 the way it is for a specific reason. I'm sure they took into account angle of view, vignetting, flare control etc. If there was any way to make it smaller, and still deliver the performance they wanted, then THEY WOULD HAVE MADE IT SMALLER. I stick with the hoods that are designed for the lenses, because I feel like Canon knows the lenses better than I do.

And since we are talking about an EF-S lens on this one, don't try and bring up the "well on a crop sensor you aren't using the full image circle on an EF lens, so you can use a smaller hood" argument because it don't apply to this one.