petal hoods

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by NC, Jun 7, 2005.

  1. NC

    NC Guest

    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) ?
    NC, Jun 7, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. In article <d83rjq$cq3$-infra.bt.com>, NC
    <> 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
    David Littlewood, Jun 7, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. "NC" <> 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
    David J. Littleboy, Jun 7, 2005
    #3
  4. 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.
    Sharp Shooter, Jun 7, 2005
    #4
  5. NC

    Jim Townsend Guest

    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 :)
    Jim Townsend, Jun 7, 2005
    #5
  6. NC

    Roger Guest

    On Tue, 7 Jun 2005 10:06:51 +0000 (UTC), NC <> 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
    Roger, Jun 7, 2005
    #6
  7. NC

    DHB Guest

    On Tue, 7 Jun 2005 21:08:38 +0900, "David J. Littleboy"
    <> wrote:

    >
    >"NC" <> 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
    DHB, Jun 7, 2005
    #7
  8. DHB <> 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.kaszeta.org/rich
    Richard Kaszeta, Jun 7, 2005
    #8
  9. NC

    Sam Lowry Guest

    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
    Sam Lowry, Jun 8, 2005
    #9
  10. NC

    Sheldon Guest

    "Sam Lowry" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > 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.
    Sheldon, Jun 8, 2005
    #10
  11. NC

    Skip M Guest

    "Sam Lowry" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > 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


    Most rubber hoods are designed to fold back on themselves for storage, a
    posture they assume immediately when impacted.

    --
    Skip Middleton
    http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
    Skip M, Jun 8, 2005
    #11
  12. In fact, it's my mistake about the 17-40 - apparently the hood comes
    with it but the site I was on didn't list it as coming with the lens.

    :eek:)
    Sharp Shooter, Jun 8, 2005
    #12
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Alan F Cross

    Time for a new range of lens hoods?

    Alan F Cross, Aug 4, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    330
    Alan F Cross
    Aug 4, 2003
  2. Leonard

    Lens hoods for dSLR

    Leonard, Oct 23, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    353
    Leonard
    Oct 23, 2003
  3. Bernard Rother

    RE: Lens Petal Hoods - Reasons ?

    Bernard Rother, Jun 1, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    303
    george
    Jun 1, 2005
  4. Ryan Bygland
    Replies:
    14
    Views:
    970
    Mark²
    Jan 14, 2007
  5. Ed

    Petal Shaped Lens Hoods

    Ed, Mar 17, 2007, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    26
    Views:
    1,241
    Geoff. Hayward
    Mar 19, 2007
Loading...

Share This Page