Canon 35mm f/2.8 lens hood

[stratcat]

Which is the correct lens hood for the (non-serenar) 35 mm f/2.8 lens? I have one marked "CANON LENS 50mm f:1.8, 35mm f:2.8," but it vignettes badly.

 

[venchka]

I own that hood. It came with the lens. The hood is Series 6. I use it on the Canon 35mm and Nikkor 50/1.4 with the correct mm to Series 6 rings. The hood is fine on both lenses.
Ps: The ring is a Tiffen "633" 34 F 6 Adapter Ring Series 6

Wayne

 

[Bingley]

Do you have the chrome version of the lens, or the later black version. I had the chrome version and never used a hood with it.

 

[venchka]

Oops. I forgot to fully identify my lens. All chrome with 34mm filter ring. Sturdy and tiny.

Wayne

 

[Bingley]

Those hoods for the chrome version are hard to find. I looked long and hard for one. But the front element is recessed enough that I never really needed a hood.

 

[rogue_designer]

I didn't think the Chrome version had a hood designed for it.

 

[venchka]

Looks like I have an ebay "Rare! Mint! Extremely RARE!" 35mm/50mm Series 6 hood. I think I'll try it on the UC-Hexanon and leave the really rare Konica hood at home.

Wayne

 

[stratcat]

This is the hood I have, it also 'came with the lens' (bought from an e-bay seller)

and this is the lens

I don't have a scan from the combo at hand (I deleted them) but I'll post one later today where the vignetting is very evident.

 

[venchka]

I just found that hood on ebay. You have the newer/last version of the 35/2.8 lens. If the slip on collar is seating all the way back, I see no reason why it shouldn't work. Strange.
Have you used the lens without the hood? Does the problem go away? Do you have a filter on the lens & the hood slipping on the filter? That might move the hood far enough forward to cause problems.
The actual hood part does look very similar to my Series 6 version.

Wayne

 

[tennis-joe]

I have never used a filter with the chrome version of the lens as it is recessed quite a bit and mine never flares. Try it without a hood even if you can find one.
Joe

 

[Bingley]

Yes, you've got the later version of the 30/2.8 lens. Given how recessed the front element is, it's not surprising the lens would vignette w/ that hood. I tried an aftermarket hood on my 35/1.8, which also has a deeply recessed front element, and experienced vignetting. But I don't think a hood is necessary for these Canon 35s. The lens coatings are pretty good and with the recessed front element flare should not be a huge problem, unless your pointing the lens at a light source, but then a hood won't help you there.

 

[kermaier]

The later black/chrome 35/2.8 with 40mm filter threads is recessed enough to not need a hood.

The earlier chrome 35/2.8 with 34mm filter threads in not recessed very much at all (as opposed to the chrome 28/3.5, which is) -- not sure what you guys are talking about here.... 🙂 I do use a hood with this lens, but not the original Canon hood, which is bigger than the lens itself. Instead, I find that a Leitz FOOKH works perfectly.

::Ari

Addendum: The only reason I can think of to use a hood on the black version of this lens is if you're using a filter and are concerned about glare on the filter glass.

 

[stratcat]

Thanks everyone for your replies and comments. Indeed I've used the lens without a hood and it performs perfectly.

I guess I'll save that hood for when I get my Canon 50mm f/1.8 !