What do you think? ... Is Canon cheap for excluding lens hoods in their lens boxes? (Page 8): It is foolish to shoot outside in bright sunlight, without a hood. Not only will you get...

Chris T Loc: from England across the pond to New England

nervous2 wrote:

Yes but 25% of the time you do need them and if they are not there then that is just a bit of a problem.

It is foolish to shoot outside in bright sunlight, without a hood. Not only will you get glare, you might even get a little ghosting. Hoods take care of problems like this - for the most part. They also afford just a little more protection for the lens.

Whilst I am a Canon user, and do buy Canon lenses, from time to time, I consider it highway robbery for them to charge $40-50 for just a piece of plastic, because it's shaped to fit the lens you bought, for some pretty big bucks.

Apparently, Nikon doesn't include hoods with all their lenses, either, but with them - it's hit or miss. Canon doesn't even bother packing them in the boxes. In most cases, you have to order them afterwards .... YIKES!!!

RichardSM Loc: Back in Texas

ChrisT wrote:

It is foolish to shoot outside in bright sunlight,... (show quote)

RichardSM Loc: Back in Texas

Canon's lens hoods are a lot better than most the after market one's. Canons fit very well, lock on is very frim where after mkts.ones are poorly designed the few I've tried fell off after a few weeks I ended up just tossing them and bought Canon's 40 to 50 dollars is not that bad at all especially since they have lastered now for many years.

rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA

Jakebrake wrote:

I'm with you Robert. I have hood's on each and every lens I own, and the only time they come off is when I use a flash. They not only serve the purpose of unwanted light hitting the lens, but it protects the lens as well. Not to mention the fact they look pretty cool!

I think they look ugly. My style is to shoot with the sun in the 180 degrees behind me, so primary work of a hood is to take up already limited space in my camera bag.

Chris T Loc: from England across the pond to New England

rehess wrote:

I think they look ugly. My style is to shoot with the sun in the 180 degrees behind me, so primary work of a hood is to take up already limited space in my camera bag.

a) Get a bigger bag!

b) Most hoods can be reversed and put on, over the lens, after use ... thereby, they do not take up extra room.

rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA

ChrisT wrote:

a) Get a bigger bag!

b) Most hoods can be reversed and put on, over the lens, after use ... thereby, they do not take up extra room.

(a) I don't want a bigger bag. I stopped using battery grip because it increased volume and weight.

(b) Hood still increases diameter which increases space taken {volume}.

Robert Bailey Loc: Canada

I agree that if you only shoot with the sun at your back you don't need a lens hood.
The problem is that you are rejecting 75% of your photo opportunities!
(Sun on the right side, sun on the left side and backlighting.)
For me, that would get boring pretty quickly.
For the 75% of the images that you don't consider shooting you would need a lens hood.

Chris T Loc: from England across the pond to New England

rehess wrote:

(a) I don't want a bigger bag. I stopped using battery grip because it increased volume and weight.

(b) Hood still increases diameter which increases space taken {volume}.

That it does ... but it's dollars to doughnuts ....

You'd be amazed at how they make bags, now ... big as all get out, inside, yet, light ....

rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA

Robert Bailey wrote:

I agree that if you only shoot with the sun at your back you don't need a lens hood.
The problem is that you are rejecting 75% of your photo opportunities!
(Sun on the right side, sun on the left side and backlighting.)
For me, that would get boring pretty quickly.
For the 75% of the images that you don't consider shooting you would need a lens hood.

Please read my post again. I avoid 50% of possible situations - and I hate backlighting; basically I want the primary surface I'm photographing to be lighted by the sun; I'm not sure when hoods became "a thing", but my style developed before then, and I'm quite happy with it. You,on the other hand, may purchase Canon hoods or you may change brands.

Robert Bailey Loc: Canada

Rehess- I won't be buying Canon hoods because I use Nikon cameras.
(It is possible to buy an adaptor so that I can use Canon lenses on a Nikon body.)

I have had to buy a number of lens hoods over the years to replace ones that
were lost, or for lenses that did not include them.
For me, it is simple to have the lens hood on 100% of the time,
then I can photograph whatever catches my eye.

Jakebrake Loc: Broomfield, Colorado

rehess wrote:

I think they look ugly. My style is to shoot with the sun in the 180 degrees behind me, so primary work of a hood is to take up already limited space in my camera bag.

Thank goodness there are choices in life.

Jakebrake Loc: Broomfield, Colorado

Robert Bailey wrote:

Rehess- I won't be buying Canon hoods because I use Nikon cameras.
(It is possible to buy an adaptor so that I can use Canon lenses on a Nikon body.)

I have had to buy a number of lens hoods over the years to replace ones that
were lost, or for lenses that did not include them.
For me, it is simple to have the lens hood on 100% of the time,
then I can photograph whatever catches my eye.

Exactly!

StanMac Loc: Tennessee

Well, yes I do think it's being cheap. With the prices of today's lenses, no one will convince me there isn't enough margin to include what is typically a plastic injection molded lens hood in the package. If it's an injection molded, machined anodized metal one, now that may be a different story.

Stan

Chris T Loc: from England across the pond to New England

StanMac wrote:

Well, yes I do think it's being cheap. With the prices of today's lenses, no one will convince me there isn't enough margin to include what is typically a plastic injection molded lens hood in the package. If it's an injection molded, machined anodized metal one, now that may be a different story.

Stan

I think Tokina has a monopoly on that kind of thing ...

Perhaps, the Machinists Union only allows one company at a time to use the patent ....

Hey!!! ... I tried!!!!

DrPhrogg Loc: NJ

amfoto1 wrote:

Some Canon hoods are rather pricey! The hoods for the EF 35mm f2.0 IS USM and 24mm f2.8 IS USM are $50 apiece. Because it's an L-series a hood comes with it... but a replacement hood for the 100-400mm L II costs $70. And it'll set you back $640 to replace the OEM hood that comes with the EF 500mm f/4L IS USM II. So don't lose or damage those hoods!

Please forgive my ignorance because I only own 1 "L" lens, but are they not standard diameters for various filters? ND & CPL would be expensive if they required none-standard threads. What does a $640 hood do that a $36 hood doesn't? On the Canon site, both hoods read: "Designed to prevent stray light from entering the lens in order to keep unwanted glare from affecting your photographs.
Compatible with the EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM lens"