I want lens hood

[ajfotofilmagem]

Let's do a campaign to offer Canon lens hood on all your lenses. The other lens manufacturers offer lens hood as part of the package, and only Canon does not ... Strangely, the same Canon does so in some markets, such as Asia. Will some customers are worth more than others?

 

[thgmuffin]

They offer hoods with all of their L series. But to be honest some lenses just do not need hoods.

 

[privatebydesign]

They offer hoods with all of their L series. But to be honest some lenses just do not need hoods.

And which lenses would those be?

 

[ajfotofilmagem]

They offer hoods with all of their L series. But to be honest some lenses just do not need hoods.

I think the only lens that needs no lens hood is a circular fisheye. Because fisheye 8-15mm is an "L" series, should not need to, but paradoxically comes with lens hood. When a really useful accessory costs 2% of the price of the lens, seems acceptable. But when it costs more than 20% (50mm plastic fantastic) is an abuse and disrespect to the consumer.

 

[viggen61]

While Canon does sell their "L" lenses (and DO lenses as well) with hoods it would be a nice addition if all lenses came with them.

My sub $400 Tamron SP 70-300 came with a hood, but I had to buy one for my $1,200 EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 ???

It's not about price, because the $700 EF 70-200 f/4L non-IS comes with hood and case/pouch.

 

[ajfotofilmagem]

While Canon does sell their "L" lenses (and DO lenses as well) with hoods it would be a nice addition if all lenses came with them.

My sub $400 Tamron SP 70-300 came with a hood, but I had to buy one for my $1,200 EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 ???

It's not about price, because the $700 EF 70-200 f/4L non-IS comes with hood and case/pouch.

Do not think it's a cost containment. It seems that canon wants buyers feel ashamed to buy a lens "not L" and pay more to get the status of the red ring and lens hood included. :-[ After many years and millions of dollars spent on research, finally Canon made lens cap "pinch" of super high-tech. ;D And we should be grateful for such generosity. Ah! Discovered because the prices of Canon lenses have increased recently. It was the lens cap style pinch...

 

[AcutancePhotography]

I would rather Canon offer, for separate sale, a selection of better quality lens hoods, than Canon just including a cheap one with every lens.

 

[Zv]

I do agree that all lenses should come with their respective hoods. It's just a piece of plastic after all. What we don't need is those useless suede lens pouches that offer no protection whatsover!

I bought the hood for the nifty fifty but ended up never using it and gave it away free when I sold the lens. The 10-22 and 17-40 also share a hood that is rather pointless. I rarely use that one.

The 135L has a hood that just looks ridiculous and doubles the length. I try to avoid it if I can.

The 85 1.8 had a very flimsy hood.

My issue with hoods is that the majority of amateurs think they go on backwards! Which makes me look like the idiot geek that stands out!

 

[ajfotofilmagem]

I do agree that all lenses should come with their respective hoods. It's just a piece of plastic after all. What we don't need is those useless suede lens pouches that offer no protection whatsover!

I bought the hood for the nifty fifty but ended up never using it and gave it away free when I sold the lens. The 10-22 and 17-40 also share a hood that is rather pointless. I rarely use that one.

The 135L has a hood that just looks ridiculous and doubles the length. I try to avoid it if I can.

The 85 1.8 had a very flimsy hood.

My issue with hoods is that the majority of amateurs think they go on backwards! Which makes me look like the idiot geek that stands out!

It is. Besides having to pay for expensive lens hood, several models have design flaws and fragility. I Have Sigma and Tokina lenses that comes with lens hood very functional, beautiful and durable. When I look at the Canon models, I get discouraged. Do not particularly like the models lined with velvet inside, which make dust adhere. Sigma has been making remarkable improvements in their lenses, including lens hood. Hopefully Canon follow this example. Is it so difficult to make good lens accessories that are just plastic?

 

[7enderbender]

I do agree that all lenses should come with their respective hoods. It's just a piece of plastic after all. What we don't need is those useless suede lens pouches that offer no protection whatsover!

I bought the hood for the nifty fifty but ended up never using it and gave it away free when I sold the lens. The 10-22 and 17-40 also share a hood that is rather pointless. I rarely use that one.

The 135L has a hood that just looks ridiculous and doubles the length. I try to avoid it if I can.

The 85 1.8 had a very flimsy hood.

My issue with hoods is that the majority of amateurs think they go on backwards! Which makes me look like the idiot geek that stands out!

I agree with you on those silly pouches. I remember a time when Canon lenses came with an actual case. They were actually quite useful. Today you have to then spend additional money to buy one of those tamrac or loewe pouches if you occasionally just want to take a lens in a backpack or so.

I don't care so much what the hoods look like. Yes the hood for the 135 is long but that's a case where form follows function. I wish they had better locking designs available. And rubber alternatives like in the olden days.

 

[bholliman]

I do agree that all lenses should come with their respective hoods. It's just a piece of plastic after all. What we don't need is those useless suede lens pouches that offer no protection whatsover!

I bought the hood for the nifty fifty but ended up never using it and gave it away free when I sold the lens. The 10-22 and 17-40 also share a hood that is rather pointless. I rarely use that one.

The 135L has a hood that just looks ridiculous and doubles the length. I try to avoid it if I can.

The 85 1.8 had a very flimsy hood.

My issue with hoods is that the majority of amateurs think they go on backwards! Which makes me look like the idiot geek that stands out!

I agree with you on those silly pouches. I remember a time when Canon lenses came with an actual case. They were actually quite useful. Today you have to then spend additional money to buy one of those tamrac or loewe pouches if you occasionally just want to take a lens in a backpack or so.

I don't care so much what the hoods look like. Yes the hood for the 135 is long but that's a case where form follows function. I wish they had better locking designs available. And rubber alternatives like in the olden days.

+1 The pouches are worthless. Mine never leave the lens box.

I also agree that lens hoods for some lenses are not useful. I only use my 50 1.4 indoors and have no need for a lens hood for it. The 135L hood is way too long. I've only used my 135 hood a few times. I do use the hoods all the time for my 24-70 2.8 and frequently on my 70-200 2.8 II.

 

[wayno]

I do agree that all lenses should come with their respective hoods. It's just a piece of plastic after all. What we don't need is those useless suede lens pouches that offer no protection whatsover!

I bought the hood for the nifty fifty but ended up never using it and gave it away free when I sold the lens. The 10-22 and 17-40 also share a hood that is rather pointless. I rarely use that one.

The 135L has a hood that just looks ridiculous and doubles the length. I try to avoid it if I can.

The 85 1.8 had a very flimsy hood.

My issue with hoods is that the majority of amateurs think they go on backwards! Which makes me look like the idiot geek that stands out!

That 17-40 / 10-22 hood has been of assistance on many occasions in minimizing lens flare at night. I have done a check and it makes a significant difference, dependent of course on the subject matter.

I use hoods for all my lenses now largely in lieu of protector filters. I find they offer useful protection (yes even those petals) and do often help with flare.

 

[wayno]

A cheap lens hood has never left my 50 1.4. As I understand it, this lens' barrel protrudes, depending on focus and the hood offers (more) assured protection.

 

[ajfotofilmagem]

A cheap lens hood has never left my 50 1.4. As I understand it, this lens' barrel protrudes, depending on focus and the hood offers (more) assured protection.

Yes, the Canon 50mm F1.4 is an exceptional example where the lens hood prevents the front element is pressed, and damage the mechanism. The old 24-70L also had this function, which was possible due to the zoom that "shrinks" the barrel in wide angle. Never remove the lens hood from the 50mm F1.4, because I know that the mechanism would be unprotected.

 

[photonius]

Let's do a campaign to offer Canon lens hood on all your lenses. The other lens manufacturers offer lens hood as part of the package, and only Canon does not ... Strangely, the same Canon does so in some markets, such as Asia. Will some customers are worth more than others?

In a way I agree that the lenses should come with hoods.
On the other hand, there are cases where hoods are not used, or are less useful - as has been mentioned above. Also, lens hoods can be reused if a lens breaks (or vice versa), or the same model fits different lenses.
So, from an environmental point of view (less waste, less landfill), anything which is not a white L (because these hoods are 99% likely to be used), should not come with a hood, and the hood is only purchased as needed. However, Canon should offer them at more reasonable prices. Now, I just get the ones for a few $ on ebay.

Hoods in landfills are sure not the same scale of problem as the gazillion mobile phone chargers, which still work fine, but were thrown away because the new phone used a different one. Nevertheless, why include something that not everybody will use. The pouches are useless as well, indeed.

 

[ajfotofilmagem]

Let's do a campaign to offer Canon lens hood on all your lenses. The other lens manufacturers offer lens hood as part of the package, and only Canon does not ... Strangely, the same Canon does so in some markets, such as Asia. Will some customers are worth more than others?

In a way I agree that the lenses should come with hoods.
On the other hand, there are cases where hoods are not used, or are less useful - as has been mentioned above. Also, lens hoods can be reused if a lens breaks (or vice versa), or the same model fits different lenses.
So, from an environmental point of view (less waste, less landfill), anything which is not a white L (because these hoods are 99% likely to be used), should not come with a hood, and the hood is only purchased as needed. However, Canon should offer them at more reasonable prices. Now, I just get the ones for a few $ on ebay.
Hoods in landfills are sure not the same scale of problem as the gazillion mobile phone chargers, which still work fine, but were thrown away because the new phone used a different one. Nevertheless, when include something that not everybody will use. The pouches are useless as well, indeed.

Some buyers will not use the lens hood, or worse, will use mounted inverted. But, will the canon users are less intelligent than others? :-\ Will buyers lens "no L" are so unable to properly fit the lens hood? On the environmental issue, the plastic is fully recyclable and non-toxic, unlike batteries and cell phone chargers.

 

[awinphoto]

I do agree that it is wonderful to have lens hoods, I also realize back in the day, large format and even medium format lenses hardly ever came with lens hoods. While in modern day 35mm lenses the usefulness can be debatable, and surely some are more attractive than others 70-200 F4's vs 70-200 F2.8's, but for the most part, they are more important as protection than anything else. I always keep my hoods on and hardly ever take them off, unless i'm reversing the orientation for better storage in my cases.

Like others, I think they are keeping them as a "pull through" to get people to buy the L lenses. As for the cases, they are pretty but are not functional. If sigma for a lens half the cost can produce a padded case for every lens, so can canon.

 

[ajfotofilmagem]

I do agree that it is wonderful to have lens hoods, I also realize back in the day, large format and even medium format lenses hardly ever came with lens hoods. While in modern day 35mm lenses the usefulness can be debatable, and surely some are more attractive than others 70-200 F4's vs 70-200 F2.8's, but for the most part, they are more important as protection than anything else. I always keep my hoods on and hardly ever take them off, unless i'm reversing the orientation for better storage in my cases.

Like others, I think they are keeping them as a "pull through" to get people to buy the L lenses. As for the cases, they are pretty but are not functional. If sigma for a lens half the cost can produce a padded case for every lens, so can canon.

In fact, digital cameras are more prone to reflections from the sensor (which is reflective) and lens hood helps prevent light from entering the lens at angles unwanted. In addition, many people currently do not use UV filter in front of the lens, because the camera sensor already has one inside. So, the protection of a lens hood is more necessary today than in the past.

 

[AcutancePhotography]

Are there third party companies that sell lens hoods for lenses?

 

[Old Sarge]

Are there third party companies that sell lens hoods for lenses?

There are but the one I bought didn't fit the lens it was designed for very well. Had to do some knife work on it and it still was on the tight side. Luckily it fit a lens I rarely use.