Printable View
And to be honest(not that it truly matters), the 70-200 looks a lot better than the 70-300 extended with hood [:P] I have seen some guys shooting with it while I was using my 70-200 at the time, but the 70-300 looks bigger and lumpier than the 70-200...or at least I always thought so [:D]
Everybody. thanks for the advice. Yesterday I bought the 70-200 f/4L. It is truly a great lens. Next week I am going on holiday.
It is indeed not heavy at all. And @ Sheiky, the lens looks elegant ... then the lumpier 70-300. Only the hood is big. Why is it so big?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Friso
It's 'so big' because it needs to be that big to adequately block stray light.
Even then, it's not really big enough!! First off, the lens hood designed for almost every zoom lens (except the 24-70mm f/2.8L, for example) is designed for the wide end of the zoom - if it were designed for the long end, it would vignette the image at the wide end. Also, you're using the lens on a 1.6x crop body, and the hood is designed to block stray light for the full-frame image circle - that means for a crop body, a hood for an EF lens should actually be larger than the one designed for the lens.
Quote:
Originally Posted by neuroanatomist
Hmm...I have never thought about that part, interesting [Y]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheiky
Yeah. It matters more for wide and UWA lenses, IMO. For example, Canon specifies the sameEW-83E hood for all their UWA zooms (EF 16-35mm, EF 17-40mm, and EF-S 10-22mm). But if that hoodis wide enough not to vignette at 10mm on 1.6x, it's too wide for much flare protection at 17mm on 1.6x.
Here are side-by-sides of the EF 17-40mm f/4L with the EW-83E (specified hood) and the EW-83J (the hood for the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS) - the latter hood is much deeper, and provides better flare protection for the 17-40mm on a 1.6x body (it doesn't vignette on the 1.6x body, but it would on FF).
http://johnsrolleionlypage.homestead...ize_resize.jpghttp://farm4.static.flickr.com/3003/...961fd2.jpg?v=0
Quote:
Originally Posted by neuroanatomist
I have read that part in the review I think(at the time I was debating the 17-55 vs the 17-40), but I never made the link between the image circle of a normal lens on a crop-body.
To be honest, I never tried to see the difference in a shot with and without hood on. I always put on the hood, except with my macro lens. It blocks the flash. I assume without a lenshood you get the chance of losing contrast and color due direct light falling in, but I must say I have no idea how big the differences will be.
A nice one to check out [;)]
You always put the hood on? (here comes a stupid question [:$]) You put it also on at night and in the evening?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Friso
I can't speak for Jan, but I do. True - at night and in the evening, the chances of flare affecting a shot are much less. But, in dim light the chances that I'll accidentally whack the lens against some solid object are no less than in bright light, and may even be greater. Keep in mind, the hood protects the image from stray light, but also serves a protective function for the lens. (I use UV filters on all my lenses, too - but B+W MRC UV filters aren't cheap, so the protection resulting from having the hood in place is still quite relevant.)
--John
Quote:
Originally Posted by neuroanatomist
All of that and...
Yes I do always put the lens hood on. Don't be fooled by the Dutch word for it. Zonnekap=Solarhood is good, however it's not just the sun that it blocks, so I prefer the English name: lens hood.
It has multiple uses:
As John mentioned it protects your lens in a way from bumping into items, flying debris etc etc
It protects your mages from light falling directly into it, mostly seen as flare. However such light(can also be streetlights at night, lamps in your room etc) will also have a negative effect in the entire photo. While not that obvious at all times it can decrease your contrast and colors for that matter. So yes, put the lens hood on whenever, wherever. It's not that much extra work and if you get used to it, it becomes automatic handling. At least I think so.
There can be circumstances where you don't attach the lens hood: using in-camera flash (or you must like the hard shadow which the hood provides) and in my case with macro-photography where there is little space in front of the lens and the chances that you overshadow or bump into your subject are pretty great. Also with a ring flash you are unable to use a lenshood in the normal way, but that's really specific.
Hope this helped,
Jan
hi Friso,
I''ve used the 55-250 IS for over a year on a rebel xs/1000D, and I'm pretty happy with it. Off course, especially at the long end it isn't really sharp and focus in dim light is a hell. I'm saving at the moment to buy a 70-200 f/4 IS, because that is clearly a better lens, but for the 1000€ that it will cost you can also buy: the 55-250+speedlite+tripod+ballhead+filters, or anything else. Also, for me the 55-250 is nice because it fits in the canon camerabag that came with the camera. And it fits tightly, so I guess the 70-300 might not fit, that's at least one thing tokeep in mind.