16-35 f4 IS Lens hood question.
- Thread starter Viggo
- Start date
I'm not a hood expert, Viggo, but Canon has trended towards simplifying some hoods to only optimally block sunlight only at the widest FL of a zoom. That allows them to make a smaller hood.
A good example of this is the 24-70 f/2.8L (original version) vs. I believe every 24-whatever L zoom that has come since. Taken from TDP:
"The 24-70 L II is nicer to use with the much smaller Canon EW-88C Lens Hood (included) in place and it stores more compactly. The lens is also much easier to grasp with the hood in reversed position. The downside is that the 24-70 L II's hood only properly shades the front element at 24mm. A much larger hood is needed to shade this lens at 70mm."
Compare and contrast -- new version on top, old FL on bottom:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Lens-Product-Images.aspx?Lens=787&LensComp2=0&LensComp=101
(in fairness, the original version extended out in the opposite of the zoom direction, so 24mm is oddly the longest form of that lens.)
So if the internally zooming / non-housing extending UWA lenses are similar, it would appear to be a classic tradeoff -- smaller is better for packing, allows more access to the lens' features when reversed, and is more likely to come along in your bag as a result. The downside? May not block the sun so much.
(I'm waiting for a proper hood / FOV scholar to answer your question, though. The 24-70 original version I referenced is -- admittedly -- and odd duck to use to answer your UWA zoom question.)
- A
A good example of this is the 24-70 f/2.8L (original version) vs. I believe every 24-whatever L zoom that has come since. Taken from TDP:
"The 24-70 L II is nicer to use with the much smaller Canon EW-88C Lens Hood (included) in place and it stores more compactly. The lens is also much easier to grasp with the hood in reversed position. The downside is that the 24-70 L II's hood only properly shades the front element at 24mm. A much larger hood is needed to shade this lens at 70mm."
Compare and contrast -- new version on top, old FL on bottom:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Lens-Product-Images.aspx?Lens=787&LensComp2=0&LensComp=101
(in fairness, the original version extended out in the opposite of the zoom direction, so 24mm is oddly the longest form of that lens.)
So if the internally zooming / non-housing extending UWA lenses are similar, it would appear to be a classic tradeoff -- smaller is better for packing, allows more access to the lens' features when reversed, and is more likely to come along in your bag as a result. The downside? May not block the sun so much.
(I'm waiting for a proper hood / FOV scholar to answer your question, though. The 24-70 original version I referenced is -- admittedly -- and odd duck to use to answer your UWA zoom question.)
- A
Upvote
0
But this comparison might imply something other than the 24-70 reason is going on:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Lens-Product-Images.aspx?Lens=100&LensComp=412&LensComp2=949
I have noticed that the 16-35 F/4L IS does wonderfully well at wide angles with my Lee 100mm 4x6/4x4 filter setup. It allows a wider FOV before the filtering hardware occludes the corners (i.e. vignettes) than what others have reported on other similar FL lens. As the lens is not a radically different diameter up front than the other UWA lenses, the conclusion you draw from that is Canon must have (wisely) brought the filter ring as close to the front element as they could with the 16-35 F/4L IS. That might explain why the hood is of a smaller form factor, but it's only speculation on my part.
(Again, paging an UWA lover / hood junky to answer this one.)
- A
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Lens-Product-Images.aspx?Lens=100&LensComp=412&LensComp2=949
I have noticed that the 16-35 F/4L IS does wonderfully well at wide angles with my Lee 100mm 4x6/4x4 filter setup. It allows a wider FOV before the filtering hardware occludes the corners (i.e. vignettes) than what others have reported on other similar FL lens. As the lens is not a radically different diameter up front than the other UWA lenses, the conclusion you draw from that is Canon must have (wisely) brought the filter ring as close to the front element as they could with the 16-35 F/4L IS. That might explain why the hood is of a smaller form factor, but it's only speculation on my part.
(Again, paging an UWA lover / hood junky to answer this one.)
- A
Upvote
0
I can't explain it, either, but the new 24-70 f/2.8 II and 16-35 f/4 IS hoods sure are a pleasure to use compared to their predecessors. The 24-70 f/2.8 hood was actually kind of cool, but the 16-35 f/2.8 II hood was a beast and I hated it.
Upvote
0
JonAustin
Telecom / IT consultant and semi-pro photographer
I can't explain it, either, and haven't used my 16-35/4 enough yet to assess its hood's effectiveness, but the hood on the 17-40 was so wide that I always had trouble finding a place for it in my backpack. Reversing it on the lens was fine for storing on the equipment shelf, but was a no-go in the bag.
Upvote
0
Thanks guys!
As for shading only at one FL, I must ask, the 2470 v2 shades at the widest better than at the longest, compared to the superb design of the old one. That would not make sense when we know the 1740/1635 2.8 hood is wider than the 1635 IS. If the 1740 had to be that wide, why doesn't the narrower new one cause vignetting at the widest?
As for shading only at one FL, I must ask, the 2470 v2 shades at the widest better than at the longest, compared to the superb design of the old one. That would not make sense when we know the 1740/1635 2.8 hood is wider than the 1635 IS. If the 1740 had to be that wide, why doesn't the narrower new one cause vignetting at the widest?
Upvote
0
