Hello! I would like to ask whether I should spring for the Canon Lenshood which, incidently, costs way too much. Could it be replaced by a generic rubber/metal lenshood for wide-angle lens? One problem is that it might cause vignetting(thats why i'm even considering getting the original Canon hood!) If I can use the generic type, which should i get- metal or rubber?anyone out there who has tried this cheaper alternative? Someone suggested a product called 'flarebuster' but I feel that its too cumbersome(Its a circular shade with flexible neck attached to hotshoe. I wouldn't be able to use flash then.)thanks for any advice!-dAmien

-- Damien Mah (dam04@hotmail.com), August 16, 2000

Answers

My 20/2.8 goes on the verge of being unused and me selling for lack of use, but I have used it in some flare prone conditions. I have not found that it flares when faces with lights head on, and this with a UV fitler on it. Having said that, I do have the Canon hood for it. It is expensive beyond its means. I have never encountered a situation where I felt I needed the hood. Ergo, I would suggest you not get a hood at all. See what happens with some test shots and then decided on a generic hood for a wide lens, i.e. a 17 or so. That way you'll save money and get a hood to know out flare when needed but never run the risk of flare when you don't wnat it.

-- Chris Gillis (chris@photogenica.net), August 16, 2000.

IMO, properly fitting lens hoods are a necessity. Not only do they shade the front lens element, but they also provide added protection, as well as an intervening physical buffer if the lens is dropped front-first. Lens hoods are as fundamental to good technique as are stable tripods and heads.

-- kurt heintzelman (heintzelman.1@osu.edu), August 18, 2000.