Customer Reviews

Canon ET-65B Lens Hood for EF 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 IS and DO IS USM Lenses

5 star:		(19)
4 star:		(11)
3 star:		(5)
2 star:		(2)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

4 stars because it's $40 for a piece of plastic that should have been included with both of its intended lenses.

Shame on your cheap ways, Canon!

Pros:
- Reduces flare and ghosting when shooting in bright light.
- Helps protect your lens from dirt and scratches.
- Somewhat protects the lens in case of a fall. Better to break the hood than the front element.
- Makes you look more like you know what you are doing and helps keep others from carelessly walking in front of you.

Cons:
- Will increase lens movement in windy situations, kind of like a sail on a boat.
- Takes up more room in your bag, even when reversed they still add to the diameter of the lens.
- People take more notice of you, will help to blow your cover if you are trying to keep a low profile.

I was deeply dissapointed in this lens hood. Given that the cost is about 10% of the cost of the lens for which it was intended (the 70-300 IS in this case) I expected it to be of stiff durable polycarbonate.

-Positives-
fulfills the basic function of a lens hood- prevents flare, etc.

The bayonet locking system is excellent, much easier to deal with than scew-on type lens hoods.

that's about it.

-Negatives-
The polycarbonate is so thin I half expect it to be translucent.

The hood must be gripped by the base to remove it, as grippng the thin end of the hood may break it; or at least it feels like it may break it.

Its very long. Especially on the 70-300 which is already a long lens, this makes a fully extended zoom about a foot long. That's pretty conspicuous.

It's very overpriced vs. generic lenses ($50 vs. $5-10 for rubber or metal).


I traded it in and went with a kalt rubber lens hood. 2 stars for the great bayonet design, but the rest of it is weak.

Overpriced? Sure.

Useful? Of course, and in several ways. On a recent vacanza a Italia, the hood proved its worth not only as an excellent flare mitigator, but protected the front elements from damage (and I generally consider my gear babied) made possible by careless other tourists. Of course, the hood was a necessity during lengthy evening/night exposures, as well, in heavily traveled areas (Spanish Steps) because of the large doses of light provided streetlamps.

A slotted hood might ultimately provide better flare oblation across the entire zoom range, but this hood does its job.

For those who wonder, the hood works with both the DO and non-DO 70-300mm lenses.

For the record, I won't drop the star rating because of an excessive price. Protect your kit - and your exposure plane: use a hood.

C'mon, Canon, it's a piece of plastic! Include the darn thing in the price of the lens!
That being said, it does its job well for a felt-lined piece of plastic, just a bit pricey, but what are the alternatives? It is better to shoot with the hood than without, for the reduction of unwanted glare, and it does give additional protection to your lens' front element. I didn't give it a 5 simply because it is way too expensive for what it is.

It's a lens hood, what can you say -- but I do like that you can put it on the lens backward, so when you don't want to use it you don't need a place in your bag for it, and it also fits in the bag with the hood on.

Hood is well manufactured and works excellent for its application. However, I am disappointed that it costs so much, while similar hoods for other lenses are reasonably priced.

You really need a lens hood for the EF 70-300mm lens if you are shooting in strong sunlight as the lens is prone to sunspots. Beside the fact that this hood makes it look like you are wielding a bazooka it does the job is is meant to well. I can not tell you this is good value, $40 for a cheap bit of plastic is an amazing rip off. If you can find one manufactured by another company go for it, otherwise suck it up -- there is nothing you can do.

Does what it's supposed to but way over priced. I was just cleaning out my old gear and looked at a Minolta lens hood, it's metal (aluminum?) and light, it's solid and probably costs less than 50% of what Canon's asking for. And why does it have to be so big? I guess Canon is trying to make you feel better that you are getting a big lens hood for your money.

This lens hood is a good product for which it is intended. It should cost half as much as it does, it was $40.00 and to me that is way over priced.