# Are Lens Hoods Universal?



## Synomis192 (Oct 24, 2012)

I posted on the forum here recently about having a Canon lens hood on a Tamron lens. No one replied (lol I wasn't expecting anyone to really) So I gave it a shot, I bought an aftermarket EW-83E Lens hood, the one compatible with the Canon 17-40mm f/4L. I bought it thinking that since they both have the same diameter lens and the same focal length, it should work on it and what do you know, IT WORKED! 

EDIT: Sorry forgot to describe the hood
It feels alright, flimsy plastic, not fabricated like the actual lens hood. It's actually a very tight fit so I keep it on the right why, even when putting it in my bag because I don't want the thread to file down or something. It doesn't do a good job with flares though. That's why I'm opting out for the EW-83H 

Now, I'm going to buy the Canon EW-83H (correct me if i'm wrong but it's the Canon hood for the 24-105 f/4L) Because I feel like this hood doesn't really do anything for flare, and since I'm shooting cropped I won't vignette.

My Question is, why are there no lens hoods that are marketed as universal lens hoods? I know there are screw on lens hood that are seen as "universal" but they don't work do they. So why can a Canon Lens hood fit onto a Tamron lens, and why doesn't a third market party create a very functional (stylish if possible) lens hood? Canon replacement hoods are extreme expensive and Tamron hoods are hard to find.

Ps. I've attached some pics to show that it does work


----------



## symmar22 (Oct 24, 2012)

My opinion about your questions :

1- Universal lens hood do exist, but the are most of the time dedicated to standard or tele lenses, since wide angles, due to their angle of view require hoods calculated for each lens. These universal hoods are generally screw type, so you can use them easily with a 50mm or tele lens, but with wide angles, the risk of vignetting is much too important, adding a filter is just impossible without strong vignetting.

Hoods for trans-standard zoom are not very efficient in general since they must be calculated for the shortest focal to avoid vignetting, hence the poor performance at longer focal setting. One exception I know is the 24-70mm f2.8 L (Model 1), where the lens is extending inside the hood with zooming, a clever system for shading since you have the best coverage for every focal length.

Wide angle hoods performance is all relative, since they must by definition be wide and short, that is in contradiction with efficient shading. As I am mainly working with a tripod, I tend not to trust the hood for perfect shading. Even with the longer ones, I use a piece of cardboard to shade the lens further, in order to limit flare as much as possible.

2- Fact that the Canon hood is fitting on the Tamron is either luck or the sign that Tamron copied the Canon bayonet type mount. Problem is every brand has its own bayonet style for the hood, so finding a different brand than fits your lens is try and error. On the other hand, now you know Canon hoods fit mechanically your lens, you have some wider choice, considering you can find a lot of 3rd party hoods for Canon for cheap (just have a look on eBay).

3-About the availability of dedicated hoods, I would tend to think that in the past lots of people have underestimated the usefulness of hoods, and that hoods were mainly accessories for advanced photographers. It is still common to see people with decent lenses with no hood and a cheap Skylight filter on the front lens. My guess is that some people see them as useless, bulky and expensive.

They are actually expensive, because this is the kind of accessories where brands make a LOT of money (in Europe, Canon ET-73 for the 100mm macro is sold around 40 Euro, costing probably 1 or 2 Euro out of the factory), as you are likely to loose or break it, this is a good source of money.

IMO a hood and NO filter is the best option to preserve IQ and protect your lens, since the hood acts as a bumper and can save your filter thread and limit fingerprints in the same time.

Since you shoot cropped, the EW-83H could be the solution, but still I would advise to try it before you buy it.


----------



## mustafa (Oct 24, 2012)

I can't believe the number of people I see walking around with their hoods reversed. It's for storage, people!


----------



## symmar22 (Oct 24, 2012)

mustafa said:


> I can't believe the number of people I see walking around with their hoods reversed. It's for storage, people!



+1, add a good "no brand" pinkish skylight and you have a winning combination ;D


----------



## Synomis192 (Oct 24, 2012)

symmar22 said:


> My opinion about your questions :
> 
> 1- Universal lens hood do exist, but the are most of the time dedicated to standard or tele lenses, since wide angles, due to their angle of view require hoods calculated for each lens. These universal hoods are generally screw type, so you can use them easily with a 50mm or tele lens, but with wide angles, the risk of vignetting is much too important, adding a filter is just impossible without strong vignetting.
> 
> ...



1. Really? I didn't know that lens hoods are ment to properly shade the shortest focal length. I thought that they were ment to properly cover the correct focal length of the lens. That 24-70mkI hood is genius though. I was able to test drive one and boy I was having fun. Outdoors in San Diego, I literraly had to point the lens to the sky to actually see some lens flare. Why didn't canon make the same hood system for the 24-70mkii boggles my mind -_-

2. To be honest, I think it's a sign of both. But the hood does screw on quite tightly so I may be forcing my luck. But hey, if the glove fits, why fix it? (lol I think that statement is right, I could be combining two different statements)

3. That statement is very true and very sad at the same time. I have quite a lot of "photographer" buddies that I shoot with and they constant badger me for getting a lens hood for my kit lens when they're running around shooting their 15-85mm and 10-24mm with no hoods AND no filters. They're really asking for it. And once their glass cracks and theyre waiting in line at the emergency room (aka Canon Service Center in Irvine) I will constantly badger them for having to spend a lot of money to repair their lens  
Also interesting you say no filter though. Do you not believe that a good filter will help at all? I keep mine on because I don't think tamron can repair this lens if (knocking on wood) something bad were to happen.



symmar22 said:


> mustafa said:
> 
> 
> > I can't believe the number of people I see walking around with their hoods reversed. It's for storage, people!
> ...



... I have a no-brand skylight on my lens  in my defense though, it came with it. 

LOL I just realized my 3rd photo has both a reversed hood AND a no brand filter

It's the winning combo! What's my prize?


----------



## Hillsilly (Oct 24, 2012)

symmar22 said:


> They are actually expensive, because this is the kind of accessories where brands make a LOT of money (in Europe, Canon ET-73 for the 100mm macro is sold around 40 Euro, costing probably 1 or 2 Euro out of the factory), as you are likely to loose or break it, this is a good source of money.


Part of the reason why there is also a roaring eBay trade in third party replica Canon hoods.


----------



## symmar22 (Oct 24, 2012)

1- Well it's a kind of compromise, but if you take a zoom like the 24-105 the hood needs to be designed to avoid vignetting with shortest focal, but the trade off is, the shading will be poor with longer ones. Just have a look how the hood for the 135mm f2L looks like, it's the opposite of a wide angle hood.

2- If it fits snuggly, it's a kind of positive, since you won't lose the hood in action. Check if the hood leaves marks on the Tamron's bayonet, it's up to you to feel to what extend some damage could be made to the lens, but I wouldn't be too worried, as you say, if the glove fits....

3- No I never use protecting filters, but this is my personal choice. Of course for shooting in salt spray near the sea or with heavy rain you would add protection to the lens. IMO, a hood is enough for protection of the front lens, considering you are a bit careful. It all depends on your style of shooting, if you carry your camera all day long around your neck, and so on.

In any case, if you want to use a filter for protection, then you should use excellent ones, UV or neutral type. B&W is the only brand I can recommend without hesitation, though there are other.

Problem is when you buy high quality glass, it's a bit unfair to add an average filter. Most know problems are :

- improper surfacing of the filter, where the two sides are not perfectly parallel
- surface coating that will seldom match the quality of the coating of your lens
- possibility of colour shift with some filters (the common pink skylight), but even some UV filters are not so neutral, you should put the filter on a piece of white paper, to check for any colour shift.

I've had dozen of lenses for 25 years, never used a protective filter (but always a hood) and never had a problem. I am careful, but if you think the risk of damaging the front lens is too high, then a filter might add some peace of mind. Please just invest in a GOOD one.


----------



## Synomis192 (Oct 24, 2012)

Hillsilly said:


> symmar22 said:
> 
> 
> > They are actually expensive, because this is the kind of accessories where brands make a LOT of money (in Europe, Canon ET-73 for the 100mm macro is sold around 40 Euro, costing probably 1 or 2 Euro out of the factory), as you are likely to loose or break it, this is a good source of money.
> ...



Well sure there are third party brands but do they hold up against canon's build quality? I mean their hoods are pretty well made. Hell their hood for the nifty fifty has a metal mount. Canon hoods also have that felt like material on the inside of their hoods. It's good quality but that price doesnt really justify its true value.


----------



## sandymandy (Oct 25, 2012)

Synomis192 said:


> Well sure there are third party brands but do they hold up against canon's build quality? I mean their hoods are pretty well made. Hell their hood for the nifty fifty has a metal mount. Canon hoods also have that felt like material on the inside of their hoods. It's good quality but that price doesnt really justify its true value.



So if a cheap hood breaks just get another one. Several times breaking and probably still cheaper than getting the Canon one.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Oct 25, 2012)

Lens hood mountings are far from universal. There are different methods of attaching them to different lenses, so diameter is not the only factor.
As to threaded ones, its kind of difficult to put a lens cap on a lens with a hood threaded on it. I have a rubber hood which includes a filter which is permanently attached, so you can screw hood and filter on and still attach a cap.


----------



## Synomis192 (Oct 26, 2012)

symmar22 said:


> 1- Well it's a kind of compromise, but if you take a zoom like the 24-105 the hood needs to be designed to avoid vignetting with shortest focal, but the trade off is, the shading will be poor with longer ones. Just have a look how the hood for the 135mm f2L looks like, it's the opposite of a wide angle hood.
> 
> 2- If it fits snuggly, it's a kind of positive, since you won't lose the hood in action. Check if the hood leaves marks on the Tamron's bayonet, it's up to you to feel to what extend some damage could be made to the lens, but I wouldn't be too worried, as you say, if the glove fits....
> 
> ...



1. Now I'm getting this idea about the whole minimum focal length being the most important on lens hoods Haha

2. Yeaaaah, personally I love the fact that the ew-83w fits like a glove. It's so satisfying that I know for a fact that it would be hard for me to lose this hood without having the camera physically break haha. Ps. I tried out the ew-83h like you told me to and thanks so much for saving me a load of money  it fit, but it fot too well that i ended up forcing it and shaving part of the hood of hana. and it didn't look as cool as it did as the ew-83w

3. I'm looking into investing in a BW filter but it's just too out of my budget. Maybe when I do spend <$500 on a lens I'll jump to buy some extra protection for it. Haha for now, I think shooting without a lens filter is good. I compared with and without the filter and found that the shots with the filter were warmer. Maybe shooting without a uv filter will teach me to be more careful about how I handle expensive equipment.

Thanks a lot symmar you've been a great help.



Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Lens hood mountings are far from universal. There are different methods of attaching them to different lenses, so diameter is not the only factor.
> As to threaded ones, its kind of difficult to put a lens cap on a lens with a hood threaded on it. I have a rubber hood which includes a filter which is permanently attached, so you can screw hood and filter on and still attach a cap.



That's a bit disappointing. But hey it makes the companies happy. I just wish that third party manufacturing cared more about the function not the price


----------



## symmar22 (Oct 26, 2012)

Glad to be of service 

Note that I am not saying nobody should ever put a filter on his lens in any case. There is lots of cases you cases where you need filters for effects or protection (extreme weather, or simply by the sea against salt spray and sand abrasion). Plus it allows to clean the actual front lens less often. 
I'm just saying if you have a very expensive lens with exceptional IQ, and need / want a filter, IMO you should afford nothing but the best. It's just I prefer to get the most of my lens by not putting any filter unless it's really required. If you're careful when cleaning the front element, the coating will outlast the mechanics of the lens. 

In case you feel the need to filter your lens for protection, B+W is not the only brand. Spending 120$ on filter for a 350$ (don't know how exactly the price of your lens) doesn't make too much sense. 
Other brands are decent, maybe you could try the Hoya HD Digital Protector Filter (neutral), they have great glass and coating, plus the have the thin filter mount that is mandatory with wide angles; 77mm should be around 50$.

It's up to you whether you want/need filter protection, and depending on the value of your lens, and how much you are ready to spend for it...

If you are picky about colour, I would still advise that you make the white paper test to check for neutrality....

BTW are you happy with the Tamron 17-35mm? From what I've read, it's a very good performer.


----------



## bbasiaga (Oct 26, 2012)

Protection filters are a controversy. Some love, some hate. I tend not to use them unless in harsh circumstances. The hood does a pretty good job of protecting the lens as well. 

If you walk around outside a lot, a decent Circular Polarizer can act as both a protective, and functional filter. I got a 77mm Marumi for I think like $70 from amazon. Great reviews and a lot cheaper than B&W and Hoya. 

-Brian


----------

