Collapsible Rubber Lens Hoods

[WAFKT]

Anyone have experience using theses? Is there a brand that you'd recommend (or not)? Pros & Cons of them? Things to consider when choosing one? Do they work better on some lenses than others? I was at a news conference the other week and saw a photog from a local paper with one mounted on his 70-200mm. In theory they seem like a great idea; you don't have hassle with putting it on and taking it off, the rubber is likely not to crack if knocked up against something, etc... The few that I have found on the internet appear to screw into the front filter treads rather than the lens hood element - I'm concerned that by being screwed into the filter treads, the thickness of the rubber may cause somevignetting.


I was looking to put one on a EF 24-70mm f/2.8L and EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS particularly.

[freelanceshots]

This is a good question as I remember our cities AP photographer having a rubber one mounted on his 16-35mm or 24-70 and his 70-200mm. At that time I was interged but I forgot about it until now. I will be interested to see what you trun up.

[freelanceshots]

Meant to type intrigued not interged, woops.

[Daniel Browning]

They're light, convenient, cheap. The only downside is they don't offer any protection from bumps.

[clemmb]

They give you the advantage of being able to screw them onto your polarizing filter and then you can adjust the filter by turning the lens hood. You do have to be careful in specifying the right one to avoid vignetting. The right one for your 70-200 will probably not work on your 24-70.


Mark

[freelanceshots]

The lens hoods that I saw this Associated Press photographer using where big and rubber and looked like they could take a lot of abuse. They were no screw on to the filter type as they looked sturdy. They would be helpful when carrying multiple cameras while walking around in tight quarters where a photographer makes quick turn in and around furnature and people or when I need to set my camera down in a hurry from my sholder by holding on to the strap where the front of the lens hits the ground/concrete first. Now that I don't work at the newspaper I don't see this guy or I'd ask him.

[freelanceshots]

<meta http-equiv="CONTENT-TYPE" content="text/html; charset=utf-8" />
<title></title>
<meta name="GENERATOR" content="OpenOffice.org 3.1 (Win32)" />
<style type="text/css"]
&lt;!--
@page { margin: 0.79in }
P { margin-bottom: 0.08in }
--&gt;
</style>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"]Now that I've looked this up on the web
and seen pictures maybe this was what he had. Very interesting...I be
leary of the of vignetting that might be caused especially on the
16-35. If someone get one write up a review on it.

[Cushty]

I bought one for one of my lenses for &pound;3 (4.88$) because a so called Canon compatable one didn't fit. The hood was not much different in shape from the genuine one and its was fine, But I would be careful on wide angle lenses where the hoods are usually cut to shape to prevent vignetting. Consider the EFS 10-22mm wont even stand a second screw on filter without chopping off the corners. Canon would have you believe that each lens needs its specific hood to give optimum results and they're probably right. So go cheap but see how much it resembles the OEM version.