p.1 #1 · Anyone use their 300mm 2.8 without a hood outdoors?
So- I have an opportunity to purchase a well used Canon 300mm f/2.8L for a great price...I had one previously but didn't use it enough to justify keeping it, but got the itch to have one again now that any length lens can be taken to the F1 race in Austin, TX (long story, they basically changed their rules recently).
Issue is- it doesn't have a lens hood, and with 300's I've owned in the past, I've never tried using it without a hood. This guy has been using it for outdoor kids sports for years with no hood, and says that he has never noticed any flare issues due to the lack of a hood, so he didn't bother to either find one or build one himself. He's local so he said I was welcome to try it out myself to see if I notice any issues, but the IQ/AF is perfect otherwise. The price is cheap enough that even without a hood it's a good deal.
So- before I spend any money on a used hood, or bother making one myself from the hardware store, just wondering if anyone here has any experience with it, as opposed to the technical reasons why you should use a hood...
p.1 #3 · Anyone use their 300mm 2.8 without a hood outdoors?
The hood not only gets you the best image clarity, it also protects the expensive lens front element from impact/impingement of all sorts.
Even when you have the Sun in your back, there are all kinds of reflective surfaces in the front and side space which can rob your images of contrast.
Therefore, I consider hoods to be a neccessary accessory for 300 f/2.8 lenses.
A spare hood for 300 f/2.8 IS MkI might still be available, although they are pricey (new).
If the lens you are considering is the old non-IS version, unfortunately spare hoods are practically unobtainable, and you might have to improvise something there....such as getting one of those Aquatech collapsible hoods, making your own etc.
p.1 #4 · Anyone use their 300mm 2.8 without a hood outdoors?
Thanks Petkal and vsg28. I appreciate it.
Yes- I plan to test it out myself, but was hoping to get some more opinions to go along with the 10-15 minutes I'll probably test it.
And yes, I have found some spare hoods for the IS version which are indeed pricey, although based on the lens cost it wouldn't be a deal-breaker to buy one. The Aquatech collapsible hood is another option I've seen. I might take a shot at making one myself and if it doesn't work out, go with one of the other options.
Thanks for the link! I've been looking at that...not a bad price and I love the fact that it folds flat, especially as this lens will be put alongside a 70-300L or 70-200 2.8 in a small hiking backpack for travel. I'm all about traveling simple and light.
The lens already is using the Aquatech lens cap, which I also previously had on my last 300 2.8, and I thought it was great quality. I'll probably end up giving this lens hood solution a try.
p.1 #7 · Anyone use their 300mm 2.8 without a hood outdoors?
What happened to the hood? I'd make sure the lens has not been dropped thereby damaging the hood. In addition to better images with no flare, hoods serve as sacrificial lamb to your lens.
p.1 #8 · Anyone use their 300mm 2.8 without a hood outdoors?
I use my 200 1.8 without hood all the time despite Peter's very sound advice to the contrary. I also made a hood out of black posterboard and black paper tape which works very well. I want a hood and will get one someday, just always have something better to spend my $400 on... So my advice make sure that the price you pay reflects the cost of a replacement hood, otherwise you can be out a lot of money. My lens was priced appropriately thanks to Peter's help! He saved me that $400!!
p.1 #10 · Anyone use their 300mm 2.8 without a hood outdoors?
arnold1 wrote:
What happened to the hood? I'd make sure the lens has not been dropped thereby damaging the hood. In addition to better images with no flare, hoods serve as sacrificial lamb to your lens.
According to the owner, he had it on a monopod over his shoulder walking around some sporting event, and must not have had the hood screw secure, because when he got to where he was going the hood was gone...says he went back to look for it and coudn't find anything. Someone probably saw it, thought it was trash, and threw it away....
p.1 #11 · Anyone use their 300mm 2.8 without a hood outdoors?
arnold1 wrote:
What happened to the hood? I'd make sure the lens has not been dropped thereby damaging the hood. In addition to better images with no flare, hoods serve as sacrificial lamb to your lens.
Many of my detachable hoods have managed to disappear and that has nothing to do with being dropped but everything to do with random brain farts. They were left in hotel rooms and random rocks in the field. All the used lens I bought over the years have no hoods albeit they shipped with one. I like the slide out hoods on some of the older L (200 2.8L & 300 4L) and ancient Nikkor AI optics as they're always with you no matter what.
p.1 #13 · Anyone use their 300mm 2.8 without a hood outdoors?
At a local football game past Sat, I saw a photographer who used a 300/2.8L without a hood. So, if you don't use one, don't fear that you'll be the only one.
Anyhow, I agree with all above that it provides some protection to the front element. I even use a Don Zeck lens cap for extra protection while my lens is not in use. (The original cap is not convenient.) So, I'd suggest you to use a hood as well.
LensCoat had one of these that I bought for $25 but I could not find it when searching to give you a link. Perhaps you will have better luck locating it.
p.1 #18 · Anyone use their 300mm 2.8 without a hood outdoors?
I'd be looking to pay postage from down under for a freebie. My son was holding my 300 2.8 on a monopod. The collar ring was lose and the lens rotated to just the right spot and slipped out. The hood was bent out of round and it had to go to Canon for a checkup. They got it round and the lens is fine. But I bought a replacement in the interim, just in case. Yes. They are very proud of that hood.
p.1 #20 · Anyone use their 300mm 2.8 without a hood outdoors?
Nine times out of ten I leave the lens hood in the case. Most of the time I've not seen a difference optically with or without the hood. It does offer a bit of protection to the front of the lens, but then so do lens caps and I threw most of the front caps to my lenses away (really they're in a box in the cabinet).
As a working photojournalist I try to slim down my gear as much as possible when I have to hump it all day long. When running and gunning with a couple of cameras around my neck, I find the lens too long and unwieldy with the hood on. When I really need a lens hood on the 300 and don't have it, it's not too difficult to improvise one with some paper and a rubber band.
I also made a hood out of black posterboard and black paper tape which works very well. I want a hood and will get one someday, just always have something better to spend my $400 on... So my advice make sure that the price you pay reflects the cost of a replacement hood, otherwise you can be out a lot of money. My lens was priced appropriately thanks to Peter's help! He saved me that $400!!
