I find it not so practical (83E, one that comes with the lense). It is big and does fit well while on the lense (also in reversed position). Lense hoods of Pentax MF were fantastic compared to this one. It also takes time to fit on the lense before taking shots.
Is there any better alternative?
I have this lens and have been using the hood pretty religiously. I too am very frustrated by the difficulty of storing of the lens hood in my photo backpack. This hood does not fit anywhere. It is interesting to see others complaining.
I guess if I follow Guy's suggestion and leave it at home, I might just shade the lens with a hat when needed? This is often what I do when I shoot LF without a shade. However, I'm sure that I will sometimes get the hat in the frame if I do this.
Yes, Micheal. My problem is I had to buy a small bag (newer) for the sole reason. And the new bag also has problems. I had a tamrac bag (some kind of toploader) and it was perfect for SLR and one or two primes. Heck I also carried my M645 with 80mm (WLF). But 350D+17-40 with hood is difficult. I bought a little bigger tamrac explorer 5211...and guess what, it fits but takes effort to get out. Plus I can carry only one zoom in the bag. I thought I can atleast take 50mm for the portraits.
Now for a trip to Paris I will not take the hood. Thanks Guy.
Posted by Richard Wong on July 19, 2006 at 10:35 PM
I tried a lens hood once, didn't like it and have never used one since. If I really need to, I use a hat or my hand to block out flare.
It's crappy allright! It doesn't fit properly, and the fabric used on the inside attracts dust like nothing else in my bag (ok, maby the sensors of my dSLRs). The inside also looks torn after a few months use. Typical Canon if you ask me. If there were anyone capable of producing full frame low noise dSLRs I'd be the first to jump off the Canon wagon!
I use mine virtually all the time! A hood not only prevents flare, it also serves as some measure of protection to the front element. (Surely you guys who don't use the hood aren't *all* using UV filters, are you?) Yeah, it makes the lens a bit bulkier for storage, but that hasn't caused any problems for me...
What I really miss is a feature a Pentax prosumer-grade zoom, which I had for a whole week before it was stolen, had. Its hood had a little "hatch" in it, for the purpose of allowing you to rotate a polarizer without removing the hood. A nice little feature--but who knows how long it would have been before I lost the "hatch" cover...
Based on my experience - the hood for a wide angle is more of a hassle. I'd prefer the cokin-p filter holder - to 'act' like a hood and also hold the circ polarizer and any filters as needed.
Posted by Scott Elliot on July 20, 2006 at 11:09 PM
What camera are you using the 17-40 on? If you have a 1.6 crop camera like the 30D or Rebel XT, the lens hood is wider than you need since it is designed to accomodate a full frame camera.
I just tried the hood for my 17-55/2.8 EF-S lens on a 17-40 and it fits just fine. It is not quite as wide as the hood that comes with the 17-40, but it is a little longer. It should be a little more effective if you are using the 17-40 on an APS sized sensor.
I use the hood that came with my 17-40 on my 10-22 EF-S lens.
Posted by Mel Ladewig on July 21, 2006 at 12:26 AM
The lens hood for the 24L is supposed to fit. The hood for the 17-40 is just dumb on a APS-C camera. Its way too wide to actually be useful and it takes up alot of space. I've seen someone call it a cereal bowl, which I thought was very funny and appropriate. I still use it though.
Prashant I have used the Hood for the 24L as Mel has suggested EW-83D11 with great success
It gives much better shadeing and is smallerwhen reversed perfect with the Cropped sensor -
Of course now I have the 5D Im using the original hood .
Discussion
14 repliesIs there any better alternative?
I don't.
Guy
Guy
I guess if I follow Guy's suggestion and leave it at home, I might just shade the lens with a hat when needed? This is often what I do when I shoot LF without a shade. However, I'm sure that I will sometimes get the hat in the frame if I do this.
Now for a trip to Paris I will not take the hood. Thanks Guy.
What I really miss is a feature a Pentax prosumer-grade zoom, which I had for a whole week before it was stolen, had. Its hood had a little "hatch" in it, for the purpose of allowing you to rotate a polarizer without removing the hood. A nice little feature--but who knows how long it would have been before I lost the "hatch" cover...
-Paul
I just tried the hood for my 17-55/2.8 EF-S lens on a 17-40 and it fits just fine. It is not quite as wide as the hood that comes with the 17-40, but it is a little longer. It should be a little more effective if you are using the 17-40 on an APS sized sensor.
I use the hood that came with my 17-40 on my 10-22 EF-S lens.
It gives much better shadeing and is smallerwhen reversed perfect with the Cropped sensor -
Of course now I have the 5D Im using the original hood .
Mike