So, after being sick of Canon's ridiculously crappy hoods (well known issues - no flames please), I bought the knock-offs on eBay for my 28 - 70L and 135L.

Impressions?

Great fit, look, etc.


and for about $27 (for both - free shipping) it can't be beat.


greg

Marumi is a good discount lens hood maker. I got one for my 100 mm macro.

Do they have the black felt on the inside of the hood? I bought a cheap hood for my 50 1.4 a while back from Amazon and it was poorly made since then I've gotten the Canon hoods but they are so expensive!

I bought a few cheap knock off lens hoods, the really cheap ones are poorly built (very thin plastic, and hard to put on/take off) and don't have the felt lining, while the more expensive ones are just as good as the genuine Canon hoods.

chrisbergmann wrote:
Do they have the black felt on the inside of the hood? I bought a cheap hood for my 50 1.4 a while back from Amazon and it was poorly made since then I've gotten the Canon hoods but they are so expensive!
Look closely at the pictures, you can sometimes tell. At $5-8 each I actually once bought hoods from two different vendors just to be able to pick out the one I like best (both were actually fine). My knockoffs for both my 35/2 and 50/1.4 are both felt lined.

Which ones are the lined models? I've only received the unlined types, but don't think that matters a whole lot. I've considered getting some flocking to add the lining myself, but never have. I agree that the Canon models are just ridiculously priced. Especially when you get into the large telephotos. I think the 300 2.8's shade is like $600!!!

I will take collapsible rubber hoods over metal hoods any day:

http://www.camera-filters.com/pages/lenshoods.htm

Collapsible rubber hoods are useless. They don't shield much light because they aren't well shaped and they don't absorb any energy on impact with obstacles. Plastic cracks, absorbing energy. Metal deforms, absorbing energy. Rubber collapses instantly, absorbing no energy, and then the hard threaded ring transmits the energy into internal elements.

Imagemaster wrote:
I will take collapsible rubber hoods over metal hoods any day:

http://www.camera-filters.com/pages/lenshoods.htm


until you drop your camera lens-first

greg

gheller wrote:
Imagemaster wrote:
I will take collapsible rubber hoods over metal hoods any day:

http://www.camera-filters.com/pages/lenshoods.htm


until you drop your camera lens-first

greg

Rubbish. The rubber absorbs the shock better than metal and the lens is unlikely to get damaged.

And I don't drop my camera.

Imagemaster wrote:
gheller wrote:
Imagemaster wrote:
I will take collapsible rubber hoods over metal hoods any day:

http://www.camera-filters.com/pages/lenshoods.htm


until you drop your camera lens-first

greg

Rubbish. The rubber absorbs the shock better than metal and the lens is unlikely to get damaged.

And I don't drop my camera.



Of course, if you don't *ever* drop your camera, you could use tofu as a hood and it wouldn't make a difference in that respect.

*but* if you think those rubber hoods offer *any* sort of protection in a drop...

(pauses)

in reading this again out loud, I concluded that you are simply jesting and trying to get a rise out of the respondents.


Have a nice day.

greg

Ever heard of physics?

Imagemaster wrote:
Rubbish. The rubber absorbs the shock better than metal and the lens is unlikely to get damaged.

And I don't drop my camera.

Thank goodness for that, because if you did drop your camera lens first, that crappy rubber hood aint protecting anything ;-)

Monito wrote:
Marumi is a good discount lens hood maker. I got one for my 100 mm macro.



From where?

I can only seem to find dealers in the UK (need new ones for my 85/1.8 and 17-55)?...

Monito wrote: Marumi is a good discount lens hood maker. I got one for my 100 mm macro.


Lance Couture wrote: From where? I can only seem to find dealers in the UK (need new ones for my 85/1.8 and 17-55)?...

From Henry's, a Canadian chain of retailers. They ship to the USA.

http://www.henrys.com/search/marumi.aspx/1/80000000%5E168

Monito wrote:
Collapsible rubber hoods are useless. They don't shield much light because they aren't well shaped and they don't absorb any energy on impact with obstacles. Plastic cracks, absorbing energy. Metal deforms, absorbing energy. Rubber collapses instantly, absorbing no energy, and then the hard threaded ring transmits the energy into internal elements.


Wow, a physics expert. In your opinion, they are useless. They shield all the light that I need them to shield.

Rubber does not absorb energy. What a crock.

And in case you don't know it, the main purpose of a lens hood is to prevent stray light from reaching the lens elements, not for protection. If you want the best protection, use a protective lens case.

Rubber is flexible. That's why it does not absorb energy.

People think that car rubber tires absorb energy. They don't. The air in the tires absorbs the energy. The rubber is just the container for the air. The rubber absorbs very little energy. The air absorbs the energy by heating up. That is why it is important to under-inflate car tires before traveling at high speeds in hot conditions (but not too much or else you get excessive side-wall flexing).

Same with collapsing rubber lens hoods. They collapse and don't absorb energy. Then the hard ring that is attached directly to the lens transmits the energy into the lens.

You can denigrate knowledge all you want ("Wow, a physics expert") but it doesn't make you look pretty or help your case. I never claim to be an expert at anything. Since you start in on the personal attacks, ... I suggest you don't go any further down that road.

Yes, it is obvious the main purpose of a lens hood is to prevent stray light from reaching the lens elements. Rubber lens hoods do a poor job of that because they are not designed for the optics of specific lenses but instead are generic.

I used to use rubber lens hoods, but I got rid of them all. Now I use specific lens hoods properly designed for the specific lens for all the lenses for my DSLRs, except the Hartblei Super-Rotator.

Monito wrote:
Rubber is flexible. That's why it does not absorb energy.




Well I guess structural engineers don't have a clue what they are doing when they use rubber as a seismic isolation material in buildings.

Monito wrote:
Rubber is flexible. That's why it does not absorb energy.

Imagemaster wrote:


Well I guess structural engineers don't have a clue what they are doing when they use rubber as a seismic isolation material in buildings.

I think that seismic isolation is a situation where resilient mounts permit lateral displacement, and so avoid the requirement to absorb seismic energy, as opposed to an opportunity to "absorb energy".

OTOH, rubber and other spring/damper materials provide significant energy dissipation through compression and extension as a result of changes in displacement and velocity. YMMV.

P.S. not to mention the "added mass" effects of bodies accelerating while immersed in fluids.

jcolwell wrote:
OTOH, rubber and other spring/damper materials provide significant energy dissipation through compression and extension as a result of changes in displacement and velocity. YMMV.

I find that to be true with rubber beer glasses. Of course it could be just because I don't like the taste of rubber in my beer. It bounces right back at me and does not absorb any of the taste.

Imagemaster wrote: Well I guess structural engineers don't have a clue what they are doing when they use rubber as a seismic isolation material in buildings.

You may guess they are clueless, but I know they have a clue, certainly. Let me provide it to you:

Rubber damping for seismic purposes is completely different from the situation of a rubber lens hood.

The seismic damping material is already in contact with the grounded elements and the structural elements. It does not receive an impact. The rubber absorbs the energy but retransmits it on the other side. The ground delivers a very sharp shock to the rubber: a high G force, since as you know, G stands for gravitational acceleration. The ground delivers a very high acceleration (second derivative) to the rubber and that also includes higher order derivatives (the third derivative is known as "lurch"). When the rubber transmits the energy, it does so more slowly than it received it. So the acceleration (dv/dt) is reduced because of the longer time involved. Thus the building does not experience the sharp shock.

The absorption and retransmission of energy is the principle by which a rubber ball bounces.

The situation with rubber lens hoods is very different, as will be obvious to most of our readers. A lens hood that receives an impact is not in contact with the impacting object until the moment of impact. But more importantly, the material is very different. Collapsible rubber lens hoods are not resilient. They collapse on impact, moving out of the way of the impactor and absorbing no energy. The energy of the impacting object is not impeded until it hits the hard metal ring that tightly connects the hood to the lens. The small dimension of the ring does not permit energy absorption in any significant amount and the energy is transmitted into the interior of the lens, where it can dislodge elements and disturb IS and AF mechanisms. Without a metal or plastic hood in the way, the impactor may also reach the front glass element.

Collapsible rubber screw in lens hoods can also impede the use of filters due to vignetting when stacked.