LiamRowan Loc: Michigan

I recently bought the Canon 40mm f2.8 pancake lens. It did not come with a lens hood. I was surprised to see what Canon recommends for a hood (see image). Is there any reason to really use a hood with sides so shallow? Is it worth finding an alternative?

The lens makes a lovely sunstar! (image 2)

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

IMO, and as a practical matter, YES I would find an alternative ....are you on a FF camera ??

flathead27ford Loc: Colorado, North of Greeley

I don't have an answer to your question, but the photo is beautiful.

LiamRowan Loc: Michigan

Yes, FF. 5D m iv.

LiamRowan Loc: Michigan

Thx.

LiamRowan Loc: Michigan

Thank you!

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

The Nikon HN-3 hood seems to be the most logical to use - sacrilegious to use a Nikon hood on a Canon I know !!
.

User ID

Actually, THE correct hood, by use not by guessing, is the Nikon HR-4 rubber hood. The depth is just about right for FF, but most importantly it’s rubber, and very light weight.

The STM mechanism should not be asked to drive any extra weight. But very MOST importantly it should NOT have any rigid physical front end extension ... unless you’re hoping to damage the focus drive by a minor impact to its external moving focus mechanism.

———————————————————

So if you’re using a hood for protection then go the max, no hood at all.

No hood can enhance its excellent flare resistance. There’s no difference naked or hooded. I’ve tested that every way possible. You might get a slight contrast improvement at f/2.8. Thaz all.

Do use a hood if it’s raining.
.

Nikon HR-4 hood on 40mm STM

(Download)

LiamRowan Loc: Michigan

Thanks so much for this information. I am confused, though, by the statement, "So if you’re using a hood for protection then go the max, no hood at all." I would like to use the hood largely for protection, but why, if "using a hood for protection," would the max be "no hood at all." Seems like not using a hood is the least protection. Thanks for the clarification.

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

FWIW, Ken Rockwell recommends the Nikon HS-6 - https://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/lenses/40mm-stm.htm
.

LiamRowan Loc: Michigan

His comments are interesting. I suspected, and why I initiated the thread, that "the little ES-52 hood. It's an idiotic thing that won't actually shield any light." Rockwell also mentions he has no problem with flare without a hood, so he'd "forget it entirely." I still think I'd like one for safety, though. Hoods have saved me many a time.

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

He goes on to say be very careful with a hood as it could damage the focus mechanism - if so, makes you wonder why Canon offers ANY hood ?? ......I DO prefer a hood for protection - but this may be one lens where the safest protection is a GOOD clear filter ? !
.

LiamRowan Loc: Michigan

Good point.

User ID

Any extension of the moveable focus barrel enlarges the target for impact. It also increases the leverage in case of a sideways impact. With no hood, sideways impact is actually impossible. Rubber is less risky than metal, but less risky of all is no extension whatsoever.

Sony and m/43 pancake lenses have no external moving focus barrels, but are about $100 more expensive.

Optically it’s a very simple lens so a filter will not degrade it, and even a maximum quality filter would be easily affordable for the small size (52).

If perhaps you’re in the anti filter club, just leave it naked. It’s an inexpensive lens. Optical surface damage or damage to the STM mechanism would both be foolish to repair, so choose your risk. I think I’d rather risk the optical surface than the STM, since a hood also defeats the compact form that is its reason for existing. The optics are a rather small portion of its total front surface, reducing risk even further. I use a filter so none of that really matters to me anywho.

The rubber hood does seem to enhance contrast at f/2.8, but maybe that is only true with a filter in place ? I have no reason to test that, cuz I always use a filter. Maybe a black paper “format mask” behind the filter would be as effective.

Bottom line, if you’re a “hood always, filter never” type, is that Nikon’s HR-4 is your hood.

flip1948 Loc: Hamden, CT

He states earlier in the article that Canon recommends not using more than one filter for the same focus mechanism protection.

If you've read more than a couple of Rockwell's lens reviews you would learn that he always claims he doesn't use lens hoods and often recommends that you just leave them in the box.