"Icoz, Evrim" wrote:
> I am seriously considering getting the 70-200 4L right now, I was wondering
> if generic hoods work well with Canon lenses or do i have to pay for the
> expensive canon one?
The Canon hoods have several advantages:
1) They attach directly to the lens barrel rather than threading into the filter
threads. With generic hoods, using the hood and a filter at the same time is an
invitation to significant vignetting due to the combined thickness of the hood
ring and the filter ring.
2) Since they are designed for a single lens or a limited range of lenses (like
the ET-65 III), they can (at least in theory) offer optimal coverage without
intruding into the image. For example, a circular screw-on hood for the
28-70/2.8L would need to be far too shallow to give much shading, if it were not
to impinge on the image area with the lens set to 28mm, while the petal-shaped
Canon hood for that lens is surprisingly deep. I may be mistaken, but I believe
the hood for the 70-200/4L is also petal-shaped, and would very likely provide
better shading than an aftermarket hood.
3) They are rigid, and therefore offer greater protection for the front element
than would a collapsible hood should the lens be dropped or banged into
something.
Personally, I've never liked screw-on lens hoods, and I just assume the separate
hood is part of the price of the lens. While they may seem (or even be)
overpriced, the Canon hoods are IMO designed better than any generic
alternative, and some engineering has gone into most of them (at least) to
ensure maximum coverage without vignetting.
You get what you pay for.
fcc
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
