Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > petal hoods

Reply
Thread Tools

petal hoods

 
 
NC
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-07-2005
Just ordered a canon 28-135 IS lens - and now thinking about what hood
to get. The Canon hood is of the petal type, and is about 20. 7dayshop
do a rubber hood for about 9. Is the petal hood worth the extra - whats
the advatange over the 'normal' circular hood (collapsable rubber) ?
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
David Littlewood
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-07-2005
In article <d83rjq$cq3$(E-Mail Removed)-infra.bt.com>, NC
<(E-Mail Removed)> writes
>Just ordered a canon 28-135 IS lens - and now thinking about what hood
>to get. The Canon hood is of the petal type, and is about 20. 7dayshop
>do a rubber hood for about 9. Is the petal hood worth the extra -
>whats the advatange over the 'normal' circular hood (collapsable rubber) ?


(1) The petal shape is designed specifically for the lens, and gives the
maximum obstruction of unwanted light.*

(2) the Canon hood attaches by bayonet, takes 1-2 seconds. I don't know
the rubber hood you mention, but the odds are it will screw on, which
takes a lot longer.

(3) The Canon hood is rigid, which will give much greater protection to
the lens if its front should accidentally strike a hard object.

*Of course, with a zoom, all fixed hoods are themselves a compromise;
they can only be optimised for the wide end. If you want the very best,
then an adjustable bellows hood (Lee, or Shade+) is the thing to use.

David
--
David Littlewood
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
David J. Littleboy
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-07-2005

"NC" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> Just ordered a canon 28-135 IS lens - and now thinking about what hood to
> get. The Canon hood is of the petal type, and is about 20. 7dayshop do a
> rubber hood for about 9. Is the petal hood worth the extra - whats the
> advatange over the 'normal' circular hood (collapsable rubber) ?


If you are using this lens on a 1.6x dSLR, you might want to consider a
_different_ hood. Presumably the Canon hood is designed for use on a
full-frame camera. For example, I use the EW-83D II hood on the 17-40.
(That's the hood for the 24/1.4; I use the 17-40's hood (EW-83E) on the
10-22.)

Since the 28-135 is a seriously long telephoto on a 1.6x camera, you might
want to consider also getting a hood that's more effective for the long end
of the zoom and only using it when zoomed out. Just remember to check for
vignetting if you zoom out...

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan




 
Reply With Quote
 
Sharp Shooter
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-07-2005
Isn't it irritating that a long-standing expert company like Canon
doesn't sell hoods with lenses. It's not like mudflaps on cars. Hoods
aren't optional! Full marks to Sigma here. Canon charge way too much
for plastic hoods, which is, of course, why they don't package them
with the lenses. Take the money and run is good for business at our
expense! The sooner this changes the better. I've just been looking at
a pro lens for outdoor mountain use (17-40mm f4), and the online
supplier doesn't list the Canon hood.

For me the advantage of a fixed hood is protection and probably better
and more accurate coverage (they should really be rectangular anyway),
but rubber hoods will fold and fit camera bags a little better so I
leave them on.

 
Reply With Quote
 
Jim Townsend
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-07-2005
Sharp Shooter wrote:

> Isn't it irritating that a long-standing expert company like Canon
> doesn't sell hoods with lenses. It's not like mudflaps on cars. Hoods
> aren't optional! Full marks to Sigma here. Canon charge way too much
> for plastic hoods, which is, of course, why they don't package them
> with the lenses.


They do package hoods with some of their lenses.. The more
expensive ones do.. I have one Canon lens that came with a
hood and a nice padded zippered nylon case.

But you are right.. Canon hoods are outrageously expensive.
(Like all their other optional equipment


 
Reply With Quote
 
Roger
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-07-2005
On Tue, 7 Jun 2005 10:06:51 +0000 (UTC), NC <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>Just ordered a canon 28-135 IS lens - and now thinking about what hood
>to get. The Canon hood is of the petal type, and is about 20. 7dayshop
>do a rubber hood for about 9. Is the petal hood worth the extra - whats
>the advatange over the 'normal' circular hood (collapsable rubber) ?


IMO you gotta have a hood. It's protection from fingers, light and
bashing. I keep my hoods mounted all the time except when taking
portraits under controlled light (less intimidating w/o the hood). The
reason for the petal is for full time mounting on a zoom, a circular
hood cannot be deeper than the effective hood for the wide-angle
extent of the zoom. In your case, that's a 28mm hood and in all
practicality for full time use, that pretty ineffective.

David has suggested you purchase one taking into account the crop
factor of the camera. For full time use, that would be a circular hood
for a 44.8mm lens. A hood for a 50mm lens will likely cause some
cutoff at the edges. That's still not much depth.

For my telephoto lens with petal hood, I just use the recommended hood
and I have a piece of cloth that is weighted on each end that I drape
over it to give more protection at the telephoto end if I'm shooting
with a strong light source just off of center in front of the camera.

Anyway, I think the petal hoods are practical. As David suggests, you
can optimize the situation if you can discipline your technique.

Regards,
Roger

 
Reply With Quote
 
DHB
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-07-2005
On Tue, 7 Jun 2005 21:08:38 +0900, "David J. Littleboy"
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>
>"NC" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> Just ordered a canon 28-135 IS lens - and now thinking about what hood to
>> get. The Canon hood is of the petal type, and is about 20. 7dayshop do a
>> rubber hood for about 9. Is the petal hood worth the extra - whats the
>> advatange over the 'normal' circular hood (collapsable rubber) ?

>
>If you are using this lens on a 1.6x dSLR, you might want to consider a
>_different_ hood. Presumably the Canon hood is designed for use on a
>full-frame camera. For example, I use the EW-83D II hood on the 17-40.
>(That's the hood for the 24/1.4; I use the 17-40's hood (EW-83E) on the
>10-22.)


Very good point that I suspect few people take into
consideration. The lens hoods are designed to exclude as much light
outside of it's FOV as possible, hence the petal style hoods which can
extend out further both horizontally & vertical without causing
vignetting in the corners. Use the same lens & hood on a 1.6x crop
factored DSLR & you no longer have the best hood for the application.

As strange as it sounds, I often use filter extension tubes as
lens hoods when using a standard lens on a 1.6x crop factored DSLR,
especially telephoto lenses. These tubes are very inexpensive & can
be stacked if needed. The 1's I use are a bit too shiny on the inside
so I lightly sand them & spray paint them with a flat black paint,
thin self-adhesive black felt added inside would work well too but I
have yet to find a source for it.

Even on my 50mm f1.8 lens I use a 1.5 inch filter extension
tube with no vignetting. It does make the lens look more like a
telephoto lens but I am more concerned with results than looks.

Here is an link to a place I have ordered some from in the
past, unfortunately they only carry 4 filter sizes 49, 52, 55 & 58mm &
2 lengths 1" & 1.5" inches. They call them "Spacer Rings":

http://www.camerafilters.com/pages/cg.aspx

They carry a lot of other interesting accessories @ very
reasonable prices. I have ordered from them several times @ suspect
that they are a reasonably small company because they don't always
have everything in stock which can cause shipping delays but I have
always received what I ordered & can't complain about the prices.
These delays usually only resulted when I ordered several very
different items.

Hope this information or concept is helpful to somebody.


>Since the 28-135 is a seriously long telephoto on a 1.6x camera, you might
>want to consider also getting a hood that's more effective for the long end
>of the zoom and only using it when zoomed out. Just remember to check for
>vignetting if you zoom out...
>
>David J. Littleboy
>Tokyo, Japan
>


Thanks David J. Littleboy,
if memory serves correctly, you
are 6' x ?" tall & have a wonderful web site that I visited about 2
years ago. As I recall you are quite creative & can think outside the
box when it comes to photography. I'm just an amateur photographer
with 25+ years in film SLR & 4+ years in digital. Loving digital but
have much to learn.

It's a wonderful hobby for me & likely will never be more than
that but I do so enjoy sharing my efforts with family & friends.
Being able to give them a CD of the pictures I took @ a wedding,
graduation or similar event is a joy. They get all of my unedited
pictures to do with as they please & I get the practice of the event,
in my book, that's a "win-win" to me!

Respectfully, DHB


..
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong,
is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918
 
Reply With Quote
 
Richard Kaszeta
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-07-2005
DHB <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:
> Very good point that I suspect few people take into
> consideration. The lens hoods are designed to exclude as much light
> outside of it's FOV as possible, hence the petal style hoods which can
> extend out further both horizontally & vertical without causing
> vignetting in the corners. Use the same lens & hood on a 1.6x crop
> factored DSLR & you no longer have the best hood for the application.


Indeed. My regular travel lens for my 10D is a 17-40mm f/4L, which
came with a decent petal hood. However, unless I think I'm going to
be using my film back as well, I leave the petal hood behind and just
use the straight hood from my 24-70mm lens. I get better coverage and
it's one less item for the bag.

--
Richard W Kaszeta
http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed)
http://www.kaszeta.org/rich
 
Reply With Quote
 
Sam Lowry
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-08-2005
On Tue, 7 Jun 2005 11:38:00 +0100, David Littlewood wrote:

> (3) The Canon hood is rigid, which will give much greater protection to
> the lens if its front should accidentally strike a hard object.


I have seen this said a lot, but I don't follow. Surely a rubber hood would
act as a cushion and therefore offer better protection. Or am I missing
something?

-SL
 
Reply With Quote
 
Sheldon
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-08-2005

"Sam Lowry" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> On Tue, 7 Jun 2005 11:38:00 +0100, David Littlewood wrote:
>
>> (3) The Canon hood is rigid, which will give much greater protection to
>> the lens if its front should accidentally strike a hard object.

>
> I have seen this said a lot, but I don't follow. Surely a rubber hood
> would
> act as a cushion and therefore offer better protection. Or am I missing
> something?
>
> -SL


You make sense, but... A rubber hood will absorb a shock up to the point it
collapses and the lens takes the hit. Plastic will hold up a bit better and
eventually break. IMHO the best hoods are soft metal, like the older Nikon
hoods. You can pretty much drop the camera on the lens hood and it will
absorb the shock the same way a car collapses when hit to protect the
occupants.


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Petal Shaped Lens Hoods Ed Digital Photography 26 03-19-2007 04:53 PM
Can you go lens... then Circular Polarizer Fitler... then "Petal" type hood? Ryan Bygland Digital Photography 14 01-14-2007 08:32 PM
RE: Lens Petal Hoods - Reasons ? Bernard Rother Digital Photography 5 06-01-2005 06:32 PM
Lens hoods for dSLR Leonard Digital Photography 0 10-23-2003 11:38 AM
Time for a new range of lens hoods? Alan F Cross Digital Photography 0 08-04-2003 01:41 PM



Advertisments