Lens hood: Necessary? Extendable ones? (1 Viewer)

kilianwasmer · Jan 5, 2008

Hi there,

the lens hood of my Tamron 200-500 is very long. Handling this long tube sometimes is quite annoying..

1) So I wonder if a hood of this length really is needed for the lens. Are there any rules of thumb to calculate the essential length of a hood for a given focal length?

2) Is there any alternative for the long (fixed-sized) hoods, for example extendable/pull-out hoods (comparable to the fix ones of some Canon- or old Sigma-Lenses)?

Kilian

PS: Concerning many threads on super-zoom lenses (Bigma vs. Canon vs. ...): I think the Tamron 200-500 is an often overlooked and/or underestimated alternative for the expensive 100-400 L and the heavy Bigma. Can't imagine why it is such an uncommon birding lens. The only downer is the lack of an IS.

rezMole · Jan 5, 2008

The hood may be long (it is almost twice the length of the one on my Sigma 500mm lens), but it weighs next to nothing, so doesn't affect the balance. I tend to remove the hood if I am in a hide and there is no risk of flare from the sun. However, it does offer plenty of protection when walking around.

Yes, the Tamron is underated (on this forum anyway).

a.dancy · Jan 5, 2008

Best to keep the hood on as a matter of habit. You can replace a hood easily enough but not the lens if you have an accident. It might be annoying, as are many things.

Claymore · Jan 6, 2008

kilianwasmer said:
Hi there,

the lens hood of my Tamron 200-500 is very long. Handling this long tube sometimes is quite annoying..

1) So I wonder if a hood of this length really is needed for the lens. Are there any rules of thumb to calculate the essential length of a hood for a given focal length?

2) Is there any alternative for the long (fixed-sized) hoods, for example extendable/pull-out hoods (comparable to the fix ones of some Canon- or old Sigma-Lenses)?

Kilian

PS: Concerning many threads on super-zoom lenses (Bigma vs. Canon vs. ...): I think the Tamron 200-500 is an often overlooked and/or underestimated alternative for the expensive 100-400 L and the heavy Bigma. Can't imagine why it is such an uncommon birding lens. The only downer is the lack of an IS.

I always keep the hood on my Bigma apart from the fact it does reduce flare like the others said i offers a bit more protection for your lens. I replaced my plastic hood with a metal one off Ebay (thinks its 86mm) i also fitted some camo neoprene to help disguise it and cusshion any knocks on branches etc.
You mention the Tamron being underated? there's lots on the forum use them and the guys over in the States rave about them! I would have bought one myself had i not wanted the closer focusing range of the Bigma 50-500mm is quite a bit different to 200-500mm and if you do lots of garden bird shots like myself then its important to have closer focussing.
Cheers
Brian

DOC · Jan 6, 2008

I never take the hood off my Tamron . It's a great protector and has no weight at all .
Once you get used to it - it's no bother at all .
Almost all My Gallery is shot with the Tamron + hood .
The Tamron lens has been discussed here many times - with many fans ( including me ) .
Run a search and you'll find lots of threads concerning this low-cost- super zoom - excellent lens .

Lens hood: Necessary? Extendable ones? (1 Viewer)

More options

kilianwasmer

Well-known member

rezMole

Well-known member

a.dancy

Registered User

Claymore

Well-known member

DOC

Well-known member

Similar threads

Users who are viewing this thread