DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Hardware and Software >> Lens Hoods (high cost of)
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 25 of 28, (reverse)
AuthorThread
09/04/2007 05:57:50 PM · #1
Here's a question from a soon-to-be Canon owner...

Why do the lens hoods seem to be expensive? A hood for the Canon 70-300 EF f4-5.6 IS USM is about US$45 at Samy's Camera. A hood for the 18-55 EF f/3.5-5.6 IS runs about US$24.

Are these hoods made of some type of metal (gold, maybe? <he-he>)? For those prices, they can't be plastic, or can they? Forget about comparing the relative cost of the hood to the cost of the lens--That's not an argument. A piece of molded plastic is a piece of molded plastic.

Your thoughts? Opinions?

.

09/04/2007 06:03:01 PM · #2
I haven't tried them, but you can make your own for free!

//www.lenshoods.co.uk/
09/04/2007 06:05:22 PM · #3
It is because it says "Canon" on it. I picked up a hood for the 18-55 for about $10 on ebay. It is identical except it says "Made for Canon" on it.

Nicholas
09/04/2007 06:07:01 PM · #4
Originally posted by freakin_hilarious:

I haven't tried them, but you can make your own for free!

//www.lenshoods.co.uk/

Thanks. Sounds like a good deal for addressing lens flare.

However, in addition to flare, I use hoods to protect lenses, in lieu of a UV or Skylight filter.

.

09/04/2007 06:08:45 PM · #5
Metal Hood for 50m 1.8

or

or a rubber one.


09/04/2007 06:09:48 PM · #6
Maybe they cost so much because they are so god damned big. The hoods for the 70-200 and 24-70 2.8 are extremely inconveient to try and stuff into a gear bag. And due to that, they spend more time on my shelf than on the lens.
09/04/2007 06:11:05 PM · #7
Originally posted by routerguy666:

Maybe they cost so much because they are so god damned big. The hoods for the 70-200 and 24-70 2.8 are extremely inconveient to try and stuff into a gear bag. And due to that, they spend more time on my shelf than on the lens.


Ya, but the lens hood is included in the lens price for L lenses.
09/04/2007 06:12:19 PM · #8
Originally posted by cpanaioti:


Ya, but the lens hood is included in the lens price for L lenses.


Lol, yeah I guess it is but that's like pointing out your Mercedes came with floor mats. That's a whole lot of price to bury the cost of an accessory or two in.
09/04/2007 06:14:11 PM · #9
Originally posted by cpanaioti:


Ya, but the lens hood is included in the lens price for L lenses.


My Rebel XT came with pre-installed dust. I think I paid for that too .. LOL
09/04/2007 06:15:42 PM · #10
IMO, they really are more expensive than they have to be, but the flip side is that they are very well made. They are made of high-quality material and are flocked on the inside, which greatly reduces off-axis light from entering and causing flare. They are also well-designed... but the designs (at least for EF lenses) assume a full-frame 35mm sensor. That means that you could actually use a longer hood on an APS-C (1.6-crop) camera.
09/04/2007 07:15:34 PM · #11
I never have any trouble putting my 70-200 2.8L IS or 100-400 in my camera bag with the lens hood on... I just turn the lens hood around so it covers the lens barrel and snap it back on. When the camera isn't around my neck that's how I store the lenses in their case or my bag. They take off and put on with a simplet twist. Now the lens cap for my 24-70 2.8L is a different story. That one flexes too much and it's a pain to get on straight the first time.

On the price of a replacement, I agree about the cost. I can see a ad in the paper... "Stolen, Canon 70-200 2.8L lens. Please return lens hood... no questions asked."

:D

Mike
09/04/2007 07:20:16 PM · #12
Originally posted by routerguy666:

Maybe they cost so much because they are so god damned big. The hoods for the 70-200 and 24-70 2.8 are extremely inconveient to try and stuff into a gear bag. And due to that, they spend more time on my shelf than on the lens.


They don't take up that much space when you mount them backwards, least not on the f4 versions.
09/04/2007 07:42:01 PM · #13
Originally posted by Gordon:

Originally posted by routerguy666:

Maybe they cost so much because they are so god damned big. The hoods for the 70-200 and 24-70 2.8 are extremely inconveient to try and stuff into a gear bag. And due to that, they spend more time on my shelf than on the lens.


They don't take up that much space when you mount them backwards, least not on the f4 versions.


Could be that I'm a paste eater and have simply never tried this....
09/04/2007 07:44:52 PM · #14
Originally posted by routerguy666:

Originally posted by Gordon:

Originally posted by routerguy666:

Maybe they cost so much because they are so god damned big. The hoods for the 70-200 and 24-70 2.8 are extremely inconveient to try and stuff into a gear bag. And due to that, they spend more time on my shelf than on the lens.


They don't take up that much space when you mount them backwards, least not on the f4 versions.


Could be that I'm a paste eater and have simply never tried this....


That's okay, I'm right with you. I never noticed this until about a week ago. ;-)
09/04/2007 08:12:28 PM · #15
Just one more thing to notice for those that havent. The 24-70 hood will also fit the 70-200 2.8, but the 70-200 will not fit the 24-70. So I carry the one that fits the 24-70 and only carry one lens, if I'm going to be using 2 bodies I will carry both hoods, as I do also use them to protect the lens. But yeah I always mount them backwards.

MattO
09/04/2007 11:44:49 PM · #16
Canon was pretty smart that way... even my lens cap fits my 3 main lenses... 24-70 2.8L, 70-200 2.8L and 100-400L. Man we're they thinking or what?

:D

Mike

Message edited by author 2007-09-04 23:45:09.
09/04/2007 11:54:09 PM · #17
For on-lens storage, attach the lens hood backwards on the lens. By doing that it doesn't hardly increase the length but it does increase the width some. It fits nicely in my bag when put on in reverse for storage. When shooting I never take it off so it's just one of those needed evils.
.
Originally posted by routerguy666:

Maybe they cost so much because they are so god damned big. The hoods for the 70-200 and 24-70 2.8 are extremely inconveient to try and stuff into a gear bag. And due to that, they spend more time on my shelf than on the lens.
09/05/2007 03:17:12 AM · #18
If you don't want to buy one, you can check out this site //www.lenshoods.co.uk/ You can find a lot of printable PDF documents to make your own lens hoods.
Download the file you need, print it, cut it, you're done. :)

Message edited by author 2007-09-05 05:43:44.
09/05/2007 08:26:45 AM · #19
I want a hood for my 17-55 2.8 IS and it's $40 something from B&H, plus shipping of course.
I found some $10 deal (w/shipping) on ebay - 'direct from hong kong'.

Will is be as good as the canon? It's a freakin piece of plastic so I can't see how it can't be, as long as it attaches to the lens.

I suppose it'll arrive next week and then I'll know.

BTW, if you need a lens cap Canon's are cheaper than Tamron or Sigma, and they don't charge extra for the gold USM.
09/05/2007 09:01:04 AM · #20
Originally posted by Prof_Fate:

I want a hood for my 17-55 2.8 IS and it's $40 something from B&H, plus shipping of course.
I found some $10 deal (w/shipping) on ebay - 'direct from hong kong'.

Will is be as good as the canon? It's a freakin piece of plastic so I can't see how it can't be, as long as it attaches to the lens.



Plastics vary greatly in the quality and mechanical properties.

Also, the mold used to produce the el-cheapo hood will, in all likelihood, be less precise than the molds used for the Canon hoods, so the parts that engage the lens will give a lower quality fit, assuming that they fit at all.

The Canon hoods are well made from high-quality materials.


Message edited by author 2007-09-05 09:12:18.
09/05/2007 09:05:32 AM · #21
Originally posted by Spazmo99:

Originally posted by Prof_Fate:

I want a hood for my 17-55 2.8 IS and it's $40 something from B&H, plus shipping of course.
I found some $10 deal (w/shipping) on ebay - 'direct from hong kong'.

Will is be as good as the canon? It's a freakin piece of plastic so I can't see how it can't be, as long as it attaches to the lens.



Plastics vary greatly in the quality and mechanical properties.

Also, the mold used to produce the el-cheapo hood will, in all likelihood, be less precise than the molds used for the Canon hoods, so the parts that engage the lens will give a lower quality fit, assuming that they fit at all.


Not to mention the lining inside the hood to keep the reflected stray light from causing flare. IMHO you get what you pay for in performance and protection from a hood, why go cheap on a $40 item when you paid $$$$ so you could have that good lens in the first place. Of course if you have good insurance to cover that blown shot or that broken lens then does it really matter? :D

MattO
09/05/2007 09:11:23 AM · #22
Ever look at the lens hoods for the big 2.8 Canon prime lenses?

Left arm and the left nut
09/05/2007 09:15:25 AM · #23
Originally posted by Jacko:

Ever look at the lens hoods for the big 2.8 Canon prime lenses?

Left arm and the left nut


Hey you cant expect to spend $6500 on a lens and then complain when you have to replace the hood(that just saved its front element) for less then 10% of the cost of the lens can you? :D

Well I guess you can but would you want too?

MattO
09/05/2007 11:06:01 AM · #24
I do carry at least one collaspsable rubber lens hood in each of my big bags. I do that for several reasons. One, if I should ever lose one of my lens hoods, I have one of the rubber ones for a backup. Two, the rubber ones, when they are half folded back, put a nice cushioned ring around the front of the lens. This is great for shooting through glass. It blocks the reflection of the glass if I want to use flash or there is a lot of reflection coming off the glass and it cushions the lens and reduces vibration from coming down the lens barrel. Three, because they do fold back, it is easier to use a polorizer filter without taking off the lens hood.

I don't use a rubber hood that often though. I don't use filters on my lens for protection like many do. They degrade my "L" glass too much (event he expensive ones will to some extent). I use the original lens hood to provide protection to my front element. And if something happens and it doesn't... well, that's why I have insurance. I've never had to file a claim though on a lens and I hope I never do.

Also, I like to think that Canon did some testing on the original lens hoods to find the optimum length and shape so that it provides the best coverage for the lens it's on. A aftermarket, one size fits all, lens hood might not give the same protection and coverage that the original hood would. This might not be true of Canon, but I bet it is to some extent.

Mike
09/05/2007 11:07:53 AM · #25
I spend $10 and get tarred and feathered, but those here that suggest making a hood from notebook paper get a pass?

I can flock it if need be, but third party hoods aren't flocked and seem to work just fine.
I've not had a hood for this lens, and usually don't shoot with a hood. I don't bump into things with the front element so it's not an issue for protection.
The 10-22 has NO FLARE no matter what so no hood is needed. I wish the 17-55 was as good. It gets some now and then, so I'd like a hood to use on occasion. The hood on the 70-200 2.8 IS L lens, while quite nice and large, still allows flare (contrast killing kind that ruins an image).

Pages:  
Current Server Time: 02/19/2020 10:07:27 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Prints! - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2020 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Proudly hosted by Sargasso Networks. Current Server Time: 02/19/2020 10:07:27 AM EST.