It's so hard to justify on this lens, though...it's 1/5 the cost of the whole lens.
Canon really needs to include hoods with all their lenses...it's such a ripoff.
Thank you! I should have found that myself.
Yes, usually the manufacturers charge a high premium for the accessories. Lens will cost me EUR 225.- and the lens hood is EUR 29.- (so roughly an eight...still a lot of money). Unlike in the US those prices include VAT (19% where I live).
A 50mm f/1.7-2 was always the cheapest lens from a major manufacturer and usually did not include the hood. What is the appeal of a basic 50/1.8 today?
I lost interest in the official lens hoods a long time ago. Got the correct Nikon hoods for 50/1.2 AIS & 35/2 pre-D. I realized that the 50/1.2 hood didn't vignette on the 35 and shaded more so I used it on there.
I should try to get lens hoods they really can help. I've thought of getting rubber ones and trimming if needed. I just shade the lens using my hand if needed but I recommend lens hoods for best iq. Idk if anyone makes a substantial enough lens hood or not though. I rigged one up for a 70-210 using cardboard one time it really did a good job. Made it longer, for more shading
EB-1 wrote:
A 50mm f/1.7-2 was always the cheapest lens from a major manufacturer and usually did not include the hood.
Canon doesn't appear to include hoods with any lenses other than their L line (and 'L' grade DO lenses) as far as I have seen. Can't really speak to why, since brands such as JJC are readily available for the majority of their lineup.
EB-1 wrote:
What is the appeal of a basic 50/1.8 today?
EBH
Universal, I'd say.
Small, cheap, light, fast... and Canon's STM versions (EF and now RF) play well with DPAF both in terms of focus accuracy and in terms of smooth tracking for video.
It's the lens that I won't not own, on Canon at least!
johnctharp wrote:
Canon doesn't appear to include hoods with any lenses other than their L line (and 'L' grade DO lenses) as far as I have seen. Can't really speak to why, since brands such as JJC are readily available for the majority of their lineup.
Hoods are high margin accessories that salespeople can upsell to customers, offsetting low margins on items like bodies and common lenses. Take a few minutes to talk about the benefits of hoods (of which there are many, as someone whose saved a lens having a hood) and you've increased your profitability via attach revenue.
As for clones, I normally love clone products, including batteries and grips, but I do have one clone hood which constantly falls off and is therefore totally useless. A no name ET-65III for my 100mm f2.0. Waste of $10. So one thing you do get with genuine Canon hoods is precision tolerances.
What is the appeal of a basic 50/1.8 today?
Universal, I'd say.
Small, cheap, light, fast... and Canon's STM versions (EF and now RF) play well with DPAF both in terms of focus accuracy and in terms of smooth tracking for video.
It's the lens that I won't not own, on Canon at least!
Same here--agreed with all the above. I really love the EF 50mm f1.8 STM and I very likely will get the RF one day. Sometimes with lenses 20% of the cost gets you 80% of the benefit.
Also, we forget there's lots of people in different stages of their photography interest. If you're a veteran enthusiast, the 50mm was the kit lens on many film SLRs and they might be old hat. But imagine you're a brand new RP owner, just starting out with interest in photography and you're looking for your first lens after the 24-105mm that came with it. Well, maybe an RF 50mm f1.8 is for you.
An EF50mm f1.8 II was probably the second or third lens I bought fifteen years ago. I bet most people here did the same. Canon would be stupid not to have it in their line up.
tkbslc wrote:
Hoods are overrated. I’d keep this tiny lens tiny and go without the hood.
For me, the smaller and lighter the lens, the less I feel I need a hood. I have the Canon EF 50 1.8 STM and the 40 f/2.8 pancake. Some hoods arej just almost like not being there (light wise and protection wise) as to not be worth bothering with.
The story changes drastically, for me, with larger and more expensive lenses, where I use a hood always.
tsangc wrote:
Also, we forget there's lots of people in different stages of their photography interest. If you're a veteran enthusiast, the 50mm was the kit lens on many film SLRs and they might be old hat. But imagine you're a brand new RP owner, just starting out with interest in photography and you're looking for your first lens after the 24-105mm that came with it. Well, maybe an RF 50mm f1.8 is for you.
Yup. It's a super cheap way to explore and learn. I remember my first nifty fifty. Also my second lens after the kit. This nifty fifty seems to perform a little better than the old original EF version I had. Probably better coatings, not to mention that awful and loud autofocus motor.
Robin Smith wrote:
Don't need a hood on this lens. The front element is already recessed enough for most uses.
Actually on the RF 50/1.8, the front element isn't really recessed all that much. The EF 50 has a rather recessed front element, but this one's closer to the front:
Tomorrow I'll be able to pick up my first (if cheap) RF lens.
Can someone guide me to which lens hood is a fit for the RF 50mm f/1.8 STM?
Thank you!
I have the lens pre-ordered and included a 43mm CPL filter as I didn't have that (despite having nearly every other size). However for the hood I'm going to wait until there's a knock-off. $40 is ridiculous.
tsangc wrote:
but I do have one clone hood which constantly falls off and is therefore totally useless. A no name ET-65III for my 100mm f2.0. Waste of $10. So one thing you do get with genuine Canon hoods is precision tolerances.
Same with the EF 85/1.8 USM; the hood interface was designed pretty poorly here. On almost all other lenses I have or have used, the JJC ones are as close as one could get without being exact copies. I also prefer them because I'm apt to lose them at some point anyway...
tsangc wrote:
Same here--agreed with all the above. I really love the EF 50mm f1.8 STM and I very likely will get the RF one day. Sometimes with lenses 20% of the cost gets you 80% of the benefit.
Also, we forget there's lots of people in different stages of their photography interest. If you're a veteran enthusiast, the 50mm was the kit lens on many film SLRs and they might be old hat. But imagine you're a brand new RP owner, just starting out with interest in photography and you're looking for your first lens after the 24-105mm that came with it. Well, maybe an RF 50mm f1.8 is for you.
An EF50mm f1.8 II was probably the second or third lens I bought fifteen years ago. I bet most people here did the same. Canon would be stupid not to have it in their line up....Show more →
The journey tends to include a progression of hardware use, and what I find pretty amusing is that many photographers circle back to cheaper lenses; not because of financial reasons (or that alone), but because the cheaper lenses are usually smaller, lighter, and less intimidating for subjects!
To me, that's where the 'nifty fifties' seem to really find their niche. Shove a 50/1.2 in someone's face, and you're bound to get a reaction that is not what you're looking to capture. But this RF 50/1.8 on an RP or similar sized camera?
Also, it's very hard to understate what 'getting the shot' fully entails!
tkbslc wrote:
Imagine how good your photos would be if you used two hoods.
Better photos are more about the right tool and skill .. not excess.
No need to imagine no hood or two hoods, when one hood does fine. Usually if I need more than a single hood, it's an umbrella to keep rain mist from drifting into a hood opening.
Hoods and UV filters = arguments. Some people believe a hood works wonders whatever the conditions (even with the sun behind you) and others say they are not essential. I do notice the press photogs seem rarely use hoods on their zooms, I assume to keep the length as short as possible and less likely to be snagged on things in a crush.
