Lens Hood bargain

[Mike G]

 

The lenshood you see in this photo is a replacement for the Fuji offering that I don’t like.

It is solid aluminium and a 52mm screw thread, the cost of this hood shipped from China including P&P ordered though Amazon was £2.63, hence my use of the word bargain. 

[Dallas]

Is it the JJH alternative? I bought one of their Olympus after-market jobs for the 75-300mm I used to have. It was fine. 

[Mike G]

No, just searched my Amazon orders. Dallas do you JJC?

 

[Dallas]

Sorry, yes, it's JJC. I think I paid $10 including shipping from China to SA and the Olympus version of that hood was around $40 or something. 

[Mike G]

£2.63 equates to $3.63. 

[Hugh_3170]

Yes, I have used a number of JJC lens hoods without any issue, including the fancy sliding hood for the excellent wee Olympus 60mm macro lens. 

 

I find both Olympus and Nikon to be "more than a little bit economical" in not providing lens hoods with their new lenses.

 

My gear is often not pure in the sense that I buy both cheap new and used lens hoods including hoods from a variety of manufacturers of other brands of lenses.  Shock horror - I even have a Canon lens hood on one of my Nikon lenses!

[Dallas]

Hugh, the Canon low end lenses also aren't coming with lens hoods these days. It wouldn't surprise me to find that somebody within the camera companies has an interest in producing after market lens hoods.  

 

I am considering buying the Canon 10-18mm STM lens for some upcoming real estate work*, which also doesn't come with a hood. The local price from Canon for the lens is around R2900 ($176 - a bargain!) and the hood is R450 ($27). I found a person on a local auction site selling the JJC imported hoods for R110. 

 

* according to reports I have read this lens is really good. While I use the Olympus 9-18mm for the interiors I do, it's just not quite wide enough. So, as I have a 200D and this 10-18mm lens costs so little, I see no point in spending globules of money on a m43 ultra wide angle when a cheaper option will suffice. You can tell I'm a professional - all about the bottom line! 

[Mike G]

8 hours ago, Dallas said:

I see no point in spending globules of money on a m43 ultra wide angle when a cheaper option will suffice. You can tell I'm a professional - all about the bottom line! 

 

Either that or you’re a tight arse! 

[Dallas]

2 hours ago, Mike G said:

 

Either that or you’re a tight arse! 

 

You have no idea. Where I live photographers are so tight it's a wonder there's enough light to go around! 🙄

[Alan7140]

Why don't lenses come with a hood? Obviously the Camera Company execs have seen the vast majority of their lenses being used with the lens hood in its reversed position by all the expert photographers infesting the streets these days, and thus figured that this is simply a waste of money producing something that most don't use, or leave docked in its reversed position where it hinders manual use of the lens settings.

 

This being the case, there is an added profit avenue for selling the hood as an extra that will only be bought by people who know what its for and who will use it, and as we are familiar with, camera manufacturers are only too eager to chase profit down any path that it is potentially available..

[Hugh_3170]

One of the things that irks me somewhat is that many of the lens hoods from the lens manufacturers can be too shallow depthwise and also some have a wider angle of view than the lenses that they are made for.  In both of these cases their ability to shade the lens from extraneous light is reduced.

 

On the other hand, some manufacturers such as Leitz, have tightly configured rectangular hoods that provide maximal shading.