Canon Releases New (Lacquerware) Lens Hoods

[LogicExtremist]

And they have tons of lenses but only the hood is missing?!?

Those are the ones that don't count, they're Canon's unworthy children that don't deserve lens hoods.
Think of them as Canon's charitable afterthought for the buyers who can't afford L series lenses, and a way of reminding them that lens hoods are a priviledge for their more important buyers...

 

[LogicExtremist]

I agree. I've bought the JJC ones for the RF 100-400 and 800. They are about 1/5th the price in the UK and function more than adequately. I regard these plastic hoods as disposable crumple zones. It's not like putting a dodgy 3rd party battery in your camera.

Exactly, they're good for a bit of extra insurance to protect those lens front elements against accidental bangs and scrapes, and to keep light rain and other things off the glass. I've found the JJC ones very durable, they're probably 80% as good as the Canon lens hoods for 1/5 to 1/4 of the price.

 

[Del Paso]

Next to the real lens hoods on the big whites, the one for the Canon RF 35mm f/1.8 macro looks like an overgrown lens filter adapter, costs $45 and probably feels somewhat inadequate by comparison...

Do not complain before having taken a look at the Leica price list.
Of course, their lenshoods are certainly made of military-grade kevlar-reinforced hyper polymers (NASA and ESA tested).
Not to forget: Kardashian approved!
My worst nightmare is about losing such a delicate item (I usually wake up sweat-drenched).

 

[[email protected]]

Next to the real lens hoods on the big whites, the one for the Canon RF 35mm f/1.8 macro looks like an overgrown lens filter adapter, costs $45 and probably feels somewhat inadequate by comparison...

That's a blast from the past. I remember opening up the packages for my lens and hood and searching the boxes over and over again for the "actual hood." Never had I been so disappointed by a Canon product.

In point of fact, having a more substantial hood with that lens design would start to affect the edges, but to have priced that adapter ring at $45 was itself a suggestion that it served a purpose, causing me to think I should buy it.

Other weirdly inconvenient-for-the-value hoods: the EF 40 f/2.8, and the tiny one that came with the 35mm M-mount lens. While I'm at it, the ancient TS-E 24mm hood can't reverse, so it's a huge pain to keep in a bag.

I think I waited about 8 months to finally get my RF 800mm f/11 hood. That's genuinely useful, but for the cost and time it took, Canon must have started making them after the lenses were already sent out. Somewhere there's a company that must have an exclusive contract and a very cozy relationship. Perhaps an internal division. But here we are shelling out $ for them. Dumb us.

 

[HenWin]

I think the title needs a correction...

Canon Releases New (Ripoffware) Lens Hoods​

That's much better!

From the company that's always been too stingy to include a lens hood worth a few dollars on lenses costing hundreds of dollars, and sell lens hood as overpriced optional extras.

Now ripped off consumers can buy similarly overpriced novelty lens hoods, because they have money to p*** away when many people can't afford fuel for their cars.

For real lens hoods, buy third part JJC lens hoods, they're a high quality alternative that are much cheaper.

All 3 of the RF lenses I purchased in the USA (November and December, 2021) came with hoods. A 14-35, 24-105 and 100-500, so I don't understand your "From the company that's always been too stingy to include a lens hood worth a few dollars on lenses costing hundreds of dollars, and sell lens hood as overpriced optional extras." statement.

 

[becceric]

Do not complain before having taken a look at the Leica price list.
Of course, their lenshoods are certainly made of military-grade kevlar-reinforced hyper polymers (NASA and ESA tested).
Not to forget: Kardashian approved!
My worst nightmare is about losing such a delicate item (I usually wake up sweat-drenched).

Has Harryfilm been slipping you Leica product descriptions?

 

[LogicExtremist]

All 3 of the RF lenses I purchased in the USA (November and December, 2021) came with hoods. A 14-35, 24-105 and 100-500, so I don't understand your "From the company that's always been too stingy to include a lens hood worth a few dollars on lenses costing hundreds of dollars, and sell lens hood as overpriced optional extras." statement.

Well, someone on this forum is cashed up lol!
The lenses you purchased, they're all L series lenses, Canon's top tier, priced at US at $1699.00, $1299.00 and $2899.00 respectively. For close to US$6000 you would expect they will throw in three lens hoods with a real cost that's likely less than $30!

There are around 27 RF lenses, 9 of these (30% of them) are the standard lenses from US$199 - 999 and all come without lens hoods. The rest are L-series lenses, mostly priced from US$1,299.00 - $3,099.00, which come with lens hoods. Only Canon L series lenses come with lens hoods and pouches/bags. The other lenses are just crudely bubble-wrapped in a box.

It's interesting that 2/3 of RF lenses released to date are the more expensive L series lenses. Also rather curiously, after the R and RP, which use recycled DSLR 6DIi and 5DIV sensors, all the truly new camera bodies have been on the more expensive end. It looks like the RF platform is quite skewed towards the expensive end so far, especially with the whole mid-tier of lenses mostly missing.

 

[Michael Clark]

I think the title needs a correction...

Canon Releases New (Ripoffware) Lens Hoods​

That's much better!

From the company that's always been too stingy to include a lens hood worth a few dollars on lenses costing hundreds of dollars, and sell lens hood as overpriced optional extras.

Now ripped off consumers can buy similarly overpriced novelty lens hoods, because they have money to p*** away when many people can't afford fuel for their cars.

For real lens hoods, buy third part JJC lens hoods, they're a high quality alternative that are much cheaper.

I agree. I've bought the JJC ones for the RF 100-400 and 800. They are about 1/5th the price in the UK and function more than adequately. I regard these plastic hoods as disposable crumple zones. It's not like putting a dodgy 3rd party battery in your camera.

I've bought JJC and other third party lens hoods. For my use case I really need some sort of flocking to prevent reflection off the inner surface of the hood. The cheap hoods from JJC, Altura, etc. are too smooth and shiny on the inside. The flocking on the Canon hoods reflects practically zero percent of the light that falls on it.



Several years ago my Canon EW-83H absorbed the lion's share of a nasty drop of my 5D Mark III + EF 24-105mm f/4 L IS from about four feet onto a concrete driveway and cracked completely in two at the narrowest point between two of the "petals". The camera and lens suffered no damage at all. After supergluing it black together and reinforcing that with black duct tape on the outside a couple of times over the next few years, it refused to be glued together again. So I bought a cheap replacement hood.



Most sporting events and many other places I shoot are in environments where bright point sources of light are in the frame of many of my images. The unlined plastic can actually make lens flare worse, even the ones that claim to have a matte finish.




My solution is to line the cheap hoods myself.

It's a real pain creating a pattern to fit the inside of a truncated cone.

Once I've got a pattern, though, it's pretty easy to cut some Peel & Stick felt to fit. I get 9x12 inch sheets of the felt for about $2 each at the local craft store. You can get packs of 6-10 sheets from third party sellers on amazon for less than $10.



Then its another pain to get the felt lined up inside the hood without it sticking before it's positioned precisely. But once I've got the lining in them, they work just as well as the OEM hoods do.

So far I've lined Altura or JJC hoods for my EF 24-105mm f/4 L IS, EF 35mm f/2 IS, EF 50mm f/1.4, and EF 85mm f/1.8 (the same hood also fits the EF 100mm f/2). Due to the irregular shape of the interior of the ET-65 III and knock-offs, it was a real pain lining that one. There are two bulges on the interior that house the spring loaded clips that hold the hood onto the front of the lens. Why Canon didn't design the 85/1.8 and 100/2 with a conventional bayonet mount for the hood is beyond me.

 

[LogicExtremist]

So far I've lined Altura or JJC hoods for my EF 24-105mm f/4 L IS, EF 35mm f/2 IS, EF 50mm f/1.4, and EF 85mm f/1.8 (the same hood also fits the EF 100mm f/2). Due to the irregular shape of the interior of the ET-65 III and knock-offs, it was a real pain lining that one. There are two bulges on the interior that house the spring loaded clips that hold the hood onto the front of the lens. Why Canon didn't design the 85/1.8 and 100/2 with a conventional bayonet mount for the hood is beyond me.

I know the older EF L series lenses had a flocked inner surfaces on their lens hoods, but my new RF 24-105 f/4 L doesn't, it has a ribbed plastic inner surface.
For those of you who have other RF L series lenses, are the inner surfaces flocked, or has Canon dropped that surface treatment with the new RF lenses?

 

[AlanF]

My solution is to line the cheap hoods myself.

It's a real pain creating a pattern to fit the inside of a truncated cone.

Once I've got a pattern, though, it's pretty easy to cut some Peel & Stick felt to fit. I get 9x12 inch sheets of the felt for about $2 each at the local craft store. You can get packs of 6-10 sheets from third party sellers on amazon for less than $10.



Then its another pain to get the felt lined up inside the hood without it sticking before it's positioned precisely. But once I've got the lining in them, they work just as well as the OEM hoods do.

So far I've lined Altura or JJC hoods for my EF 24-105mm f/4 L IS, EF 35mm f/2 IS, EF 50mm f/1.4, and EF 85mm f/1.8 (the same hood also fits the EF 100mm f/2). Due to the irregular shape of the interior of the ET-65 III and knock-offs, it was a real pain lining that one. There are two bulges on the interior that house the spring loaded clips that hold the hood onto the front of the lens. Why Canon didn't design the 85/1.8 and 100/2 with a conventional bayonet mount for the hood is beyond me.

You have obviously made a good job of it. I would guess that Canon and co might spray the flocking on. I googled and came up with sites like this https://www.flockingunlimited.com/pages/how-to-apply-flocking but it's probably quicker and more effective to do what you have done.

 

[Michael Clark]

I know the older EF L series lenses had a flocked inner surfaces on their lens hoods, but my new RF 24-105 f/4 L doesn't, it has a ribbed plastic inner surface.
For those of you who have other RF L series lenses, are the inner surfaces flocked, or has Canon dropped that surface treatment with the new RF lenses?

Ribs work pretty well, too. It's just that smooth plastic that creates too many reflections.

A few years ago when I did not own a FF digital camera one of my most used lenses was a Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 that had a ribbed hood. I shot plenty with it in gyms and in stadiums at night and never had any issue with it adding flare that would not have been there with the hood not in place.

 

[Michael Clark]

You have obviously made a good job of it. I would guess that Canon and co might spray the flocking on. I googled and came up with sites like this https://www.flockingunlimited.com/pages/how-to-apply-flocking but it's probably quicker and more effective to do what you have done.

I did look at some of those sprays before I found the peel-and-stick felt. It looked to me like way too many different materials to buy that, when added together, would have cost almost as much as a genuine Canon EW-83H!

In fact, I had went to the hobby store intending to buy some flat black modeler's paint to spray on with an airbrush. But the felt goes on without making a total mess and doesn't require several days to dry. I can do it sitting at my desk when the weather outside is not ideal for painting with aerosols.

 

[AlanF]

I know the older EF L series lenses had a flocked inner surfaces on their lens hoods, but my new RF 24-105 f/4 L doesn't, it has a ribbed plastic inner surface.
For those of you who have other RF L series lenses, are the inner surfaces flocked, or has Canon dropped that surface treatment with the new RF lenses?

The £89 Lens Hood ET-83F for the RF 100-500mm is ribbed.

 

[becceric]

I've bought JJC and other third party lens hoods. For my use case I really need some sort of flocking to prevent reflection off the inner surface of the hood. The cheap hoods from JJC, Altura, etc. are too smooth and shiny on the inside. The flocking on the Canon hoods reflects practically zero percent of the light that falls on it.

View attachment 202877

Several years ago my Canon EW-83H absorbed the lion's share of a nasty drop of my 5D Mark III + EF 24-105mm f/4 L IS from about four feet onto a concrete driveway and cracked completely in two at the narrowest point between two of the "petals". The camera and lens suffered no damage at all. After supergluing it black together and reinforcing that with black duct tape on the outside a couple of times over the next few years, it refused to be glued together again. So I bought a cheap replacement hood.

View attachment 202878

Most sporting events and many other places I shoot are in environments where bright point sources of light are in the frame of many of my images. The unlined plastic can actually make lens flare worse, even the ones that claim to have a matte finish.

View attachment 202876


My solution is to line the cheap hoods myself.

It's a real pain creating a pattern to fit the inside of a truncated cone.

Once I've got a pattern, though, it's pretty easy to cut some Peel & Stick felt to fit. I get 9x12 inch sheets of the felt for about $2 each at the local craft store. You can get packs of 6-10 sheets from third party sellers on amazon for less than $10.

View attachment 202879

Then its another pain to get the felt lined up inside the hood without it sticking before it's positioned precisely. But once I've got the lining in them, they work just as well as the OEM hoods do.

So far I've lined Altura or JJC hoods for my EF 24-105mm f/4 L IS, EF 35mm f/2 IS, EF 50mm f/1.4, and EF 85mm f/1.8 (the same hood also fits the EF 100mm f/2). Due to the irregular shape of the interior of the ET-65 III and knock-offs, it was a real pain lining that one. There are two bulges on the interior that house the spring loaded clips that hold the hood onto the front of the lens. Why Canon didn't design the 85/1.8 and 100/2 with a conventional bayonet mount for the hood is beyond me.

I’ve used fiber optic polishing film to take gloss off of shiny plastic. It seems like 2, 3, or 5um grit would do. This would eliminate the need match shapes precisely. While my first choice would be 5um silicon carbide, the others are a little smoother.

 

[LogicExtremist]

The £89 Lens Hood ET-83F for the RF 100-500mm is ribbed.

I just checked my RF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM lens and its lens hood is the Canon EW-83N, which has the ribbed inner surface.
Much to my surprise, the EF 24-70 f/4L has exactly the same lens hood, I didn't realise that was the case till now!
The Sigma 50mm f/1.4 Art prime lens also uses a ribbed interior surface on its lens hood.

 

[Juangrande]

I

I think the title needs a correction...

Canon Releases New (Ripoffware) Lens Hoods​

That's much better!

From the company that's always been too stingy to include a lens hood worth a few dollars on lenses costing hundreds of dollars, and sell lens hood as overpriced optional extras.

Now ripped off consumers can buy similarly overpriced novelty lens hoods, because they have money to p*** away when many people can't afford fuel for their cars.

For real lens hoods, buy third part JJC lens hoods, they're a high quality alternative that are much cheaper.
every Canon lens I’ve bought came with a hood??

I think the title needs a correction...

Canon Releases New (Ripoffware) Lens Hoods​

That's much better!

From the company that's always been too stingy to include a lens hood worth a few dollars on lenses costing hundreds of dollars, and sell lens hood as overpriced optional extras.

Now ripped off consumers can buy similarly overpriced novelty lens hoods, because they have money to p*** away when many people can't afford fuel for their cars.

For real lens hoods, buy third part JJC lens hoods, they're a high quality alternative that are much cheaper.

Every lens I’ve bought from Canon has come with a lens hood? did you buy grey market items?

 

[neuroanatomist]

Every lens I’ve bought from Canon has come with a lens hood? did you buy grey market items?

L-series lenses include the hoods, as do select others (the 70-300 DO, and IIRC the old non-L TS-E 45 and 90). Non-L lenses do not include the hood in most geographies (there are exceptions, e.g. the 50/1.8 includes a hood in Malaysia, or at least it did at one point).

 

[LogicExtremist]

I


Every lens I’ve bought from Canon has come with a lens hood? did you buy grey market items?

No, I buy brand new Canon gear from official outlets.

As I stated earlier, and Neuro has just confirmed, only the expensive Canon L series lenses come with lens hoods (and lens bags), while the rest generally do not.

Why do they do this? Consider that a Canon RF 50mm f/1.8 STM lens sells for US$199, the Canon ES-65B lens hood is sold as an optional accessory for US $40, which is 20% of the price of the lens! It's like selling the lens with the hood at a price that is inflated by 20%, but in it make the lens price look cheaper.

This is a ripoff as the actual manufacturing cost is nowhere near that, and all other lens manufacturers usually include lens hoods with their lenses.

 

[2 cents]

I think the title needs a correction...

Canon Releases New (Ripoffware) Lens Hoods​

That's much better!

From the company that's always been too stingy to include a lens hood worth a few dollars on lenses costing hundreds of dollars, and sell lens hood as overpriced optional extras.

Now ripped off consumers can buy similarly overpriced novelty lens hoods, because they have money to p*** away when many people can't afford fuel for their cars.

For real lens hoods, buy third part JJC lens hoods, they're a high quality alternative that are much cheaper.

Yes. I've been a sucker purchasing Canon products and original hoods/accessories for over 30 years. I'm a pro photographer, but this is the year I'm drawing a line in the sand. I bought JJC hoods for my new lenses and cost a fraction, and are well made. For the first time I will also be considering 3rd party lenses. Their prices are stupid.

 

[LogicExtremist]

Yes. I've been a sucker purchasing Canon products and original hoods/accessories for over 30 years. I'm a pro photographer, but this is the year I'm drawing a line in the sand. I bought JJC hoods for my new lenses and cost a fraction, and are well made. For the first time I will also be considering 3rd party lenses. Their prices are stupid.

That's precisely why Canon is preventing third-parties from manufacturing lenses on the RF platform, because people would be able to buy reasonably priced third party lenses that are almost as good (and sometimes better in some ways) for much less. By eliminating any third-party competition, Canon becomes the sole supplier of lenses, and can charge whatever they want, take it or leave it!

There are only a few Chinese brand lenses available on the RF mount, and it appears that Canon scared off Sigma and Samyang/Rokinon with legal threats, so they have no competition to their limited range of mostly overpriced lenses. While this does sound like anti-competition practice to create a monopoly, it's legal because Canon can claim you can still use adapted third-part EF lenses, or just sell your gear and change brands. Swapping brands is a less likely option for anyone invested in a lot of Canon lenses already, as there's a considerable financial loss involved.

Pro photographers only change their gear when they need to, but when a whole platform changes, the outlay can be considerable as they're potentially purchasing a lot of top-tier top dollar gear. If the EF lenses still work, and the RF lenses don't add any real value, speed up work or bring in more money, then why bother? Apart from a few exceptions, most RF lenses are only marginally better and some are a bit worse than their Ef counterparts, for a lot more money.