40 mm pancake lens hood?

[shutterdown]

I see that a lens hood for this lens is available. $30. Does a pancake lens need a hood?

[Dave Johnston]

I would say that it almost defeats the purpose of having a pancake lens, but some people are compulsive about lens hoods.

[Keith B]

I would say that it almost defeats the purpose of having a pancake lens, but some people are compulsive about lens hoods.

That would be me. I have lenses or lens/body combos I have dropped on 4-5 different occasions and the lenses (glass & shell) have always come away without a scratch all thanks to hoods.

With that said I probably wouldn't use a hood on a $200 pancake lens.

[neuroanatomist]

Have you seen the ES-52? Not a lot of physical protection there, it's incredibly shallow. Also, it's a thread-mounting hood, meaning any force applied to the hood won't be transmitted to the barrel as with a bayonet-mount, but rather to the front-focusing element with the STM motor connected to it.

Also, the thread mount means it cannot be reversed, although since the hood also has a front thread for the lens cap, that might not be a big deal.

I am compulsive about both hoods and UV filters, but I think I'll forego both for the 40/2.8.

[HDNitehawk]

My first thought when putting a lens hood on is to stop stray light and flare. Protection is only a second thought. On this lens I wouldn't worry about protection but I would use one to stop flare. Provided there is a hood that works.

[shutterdown]

Have you seen the ES-52?

I am compulsive about both hoods and UV filters, but I think I'll forego both for the 40/2.8.

Yes, I've seen it. I'm with you....I'm foregoing it. I seriously doubt it would provide much glare prevention, either.

I'll use my baseball cap for the flare. Much cheaper than the $30 lens hood, that's for sure.

[neuroanatomist]

The dedicated ES-52 hood is 52mm in diameter, and looks to be about 6mm deep. The front element of the 40/2.8 is about 17mm in diameter, meaning the hood is about about 17mm from the edges of the front element all around.

Ok, I guesstimated the 6mm depth. Let's be conservative and say its a full 1 cm deep. With 26mm radius and 10mm height, the acute angle at the top of the hood is 21 degrees. Double that and subtract that product from 180 degrees, and the hood with that geometry will optimally protect from flare on a lens with a 138 degree AoV. The 40mm lens has a 57 degree AoV on FF. The ES-52 hood, based on a conservative 1cm depth estimate, is too shallow to protect even a 14mm lens from flare.

FWIW, one user reported that the ES-62 hood with its 52mm threaded adapter, a much deeper hood, does not vignette on the 40mm pancake on a FF camera.

I must say - I really have to question the optical utility of the hood. It's utility as a profitable item for Canon - that, I don't question at all.