lens hoods for use with APS-C cameras

[schill]

The review of the EF 24-105/4L IS mentions that the lens hood is less effective when used with cameras with APS-C sensors.  I've been thinking about that for a while.

I'd really like to see Canon come out with "-S" versions of the hoods (similar to the EF-S lenses) that are meant for use with APS-C cameras.  I expect they could be either longer versions or have reduced "petaling" since vignetting will not be as big an issue.

Of course, I don't really want to think about how much they would charge for them.

[KeithB]

I don't see it as much of an issue.  Lenses and cameras are so resistant to flare these days that lens hoods are often not required.  It might let you shoot a little closer to the sun, but that is why photographers wear hats. 8^)

Besides, they are pretty expensive as is, to split the volume between the Full-Frame and Small-Frame folks might make them cost even more!

[Bob Atkins]

There are cases in which you can use a different hood on a lens to at least partially compensate for the smaller sensor when using full frame lenses.

There's a little bit of info at http://www.lensplay.com/lenses/lens_hoods1.html

For example you can use the hood designed for the 24-105/4L on the 17-40/4L. I don't know of any really comprehensive list of such lens hood substitutions. It's complicated by the fact that different lenses with the same filter size have different hood mounting mechanisms and early hoods were "clip-on", while later hoods mostly have bayonet mounts.

I do know that the hood from the old 100-300 USM will it on the EF 50/1.8 (the early version), and it doesn't vignette on a 40D. If you use a hood on a lens mounted on an APS-C camera  which is designed for something 1.6x longer on a full frame camera, you shouldn't get vignetting and you should get efficient shading.

I've no idea why Canon charge the ridiculous prices for their hoods (other than they can get people to pay it I guess). $60 for a shaped piece of plastic is outragous. There are some hoods on eBay for much less. They're made in China (where else?) and they're often shipped from somewhere in the far east. The quality may not be so good, but since their olny function is to shade the lens, the fit and finish on them isn't really a big issue.

When I don't have a hood (which is quite often as they are bulky and awkward to carry) and I suspect a flare problem from the sun, I just use my hand to shade the lens.

[schill]

The hood prices really are kind of silly - but I do like the flocking they use on the inside.  I don't know if the ebay ones have that.

I tend to use hoods almost all the time.  It's mostly for protection and not to prevent flare.  I don't like to use protective filters on my lenses.

While I have used my hand (or a hat) to block the sunny many times, it's not always practical.  I can't really hold the camera and a 300 f/4 or 70-200 f/2.8 with one hand while I block the sun with the other (maybe one hand under the lens and a cable-remote between my teeth?).  And a tripod isn't always an option.  For the long lenses, the hoods are relatively narrow anyway so carrying them isn't much of an issue (and it's extremely convenient on the 300).  Carrying the hood for a 10-22 gets annoying and it probably doesn't do that much good anyway.

I have a situation now where I want to get an extra short hood - I'll probably end up getting an inexpensive flexible one that screws into the filter threads.  I need one that only extends about 1/2 to 1 inch from the lens - for protection and not flare - so I'll cut it down.  The situation requires that I pan the camera with the lens very close to a fence.  I need to get as close to the fence as I can to "hide" it but I need a "bumper" to keep me from hitting the fence with the lens itself.

{edit follows}

The attached picture shows what's on the other side of the fence.