3D Printing Lens Hoods

A simple google on "3d print lens hood" gives lots of hits.

But why?

A few years ago, I've tried 3D printing such parts. But it was always disappointing.

The material quality/stability is never as good as an 'original' 1-piece plastic or metal devices you can get for a few dollars/euros from eBay.

As long as you're not searching for very specific giant lens hoods for e.g. enormous tele lenses, I can't see why you would 3D print them yourself. (?)

Heritage Cameras wrote:

I agree that for run-of-the-mill hoods the cheap ones from China are usually perfectly adequate. But 3D printing (either yourself, or using an online service) makes more interesting designs possible, like this:

https://www.thingiverse.com/thing:2225600

Or the designs I make, for example shown here;

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4180529?page=2

Sorry, long message follows.

My approach has been different, I try to keep my prime lens choices (vintage and new) within the 58mm filter size. The 3D printed hoods have either a 58mm filter or step up metal ring at their base, are between 10 to 20mm deep, have a metal 58mm filter ring at the front and a rectangular opening size specific for that lens. Inside is painted matte black, considering black flocking fibers though if that will not create loose fibers. Some of my 58mm filter fast lenses have only a rectangular mask at the front or use the manufacturer's hood when a 3D hood is not delivering more flare protection or convenience in handling. Every lens keeps its hood permanently on when used or in the bag.

The concept is a compromise between my good intentions and bad habits when using camera and lenses;

I do not like big hoods that need more storage size and/or a lot of handling when lenses are changed. Put on, taken off, reversed storage on the lens, attaching cap or filter within the hood, that all takes time and care. So then they are used less often.

The same for different lens caps.  I prefer a one size lens cap that fits all, easier when changing lenses and then really used. Sporadic use of a single 58mm polarizing, ND, filter in the bag can be done on my 3D lens hood, I put effort in keeping the rings at both sides of the hoods parallel.

My lenses are not that expensive and I take the risk of front element scratches etc by not using protective filters. There still are discussions on the image quality drop by using a protective filter and what the real protection of that filter is when the camera is dropped etc. At least you need an expensive high quality multi coated filter to keep image quality at the same level as without a filter.

I have my doubts about the actual flare cut off of several manufacturer's hoods. Often they are already a compromise between what is actually needed and a more convenient size. For example with the so often praised retractable integrated hoods of 135mm etc teles I see that they are too short. At least on the ones I have.

The shorter hood sizes I make need the rectangular masking to cut off the unneeded light, cut off at the right angle of incidence is not possible by their length alone. A square mask already has a 37% smaller opening than a round one of the same diagonal, rectangular sizes even smaller openings. The edges around the mask opening have 0.5 mm thickness to avoid reflection on them, a bit further the thickness increases. The chamber behind the mask is wider than both the mask and the lens opening. With low reflective black surfaces inside more light is absorbed by the hood itself when that hood is wide. It would be very nice to have access to the ultra light absorbing paints available to scientists for that purpose. Anish Kapoor seems to have access but he is more famous Frederik de Wilde was actually a bit earlier using similar stuff and did not claim a sole license.

The metal rings and the 3D printed PETG material will absorb a lot of the impact of a camera or lens drop if the lens hits the ground frontally. I have not tested that but I expect that even the lens filter ring will not be damaged when 10 to 20mm of that composite material hood is in front of it.

The filter or step up ring at the base falls within a round groove of the 3D printed hood and is glued there with epoxy. By that I can first turn the ring as tight as possible into the lens and then place the hood on it, mark where the rectangle is parallel to the sensor sides and glue the hood to the ring. This also allows me to test whether the mask is not vignetting too much before the parts are glued. I do not expect that filter threads on lenses start at the same spot, even not within the same manufacturing batch so that is solved too this way.

A proper method to find the right opening for a lens set at infinity and wide open is still in the works. Right now it is done with a not so proper method and trial and error work afterwards. I started with the WA lenses and worked to tele so could shift some hoods to smaller angle lenses when they cut too much. However on some rounded corners are needed where another lens could have a slight cushion shaped mask.

Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst
750+ inkjet paper white spectral plots: OBA content etc.
http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm

slickwillie wrote:

So I actually need one for my 400 f/2.8. I have an "original", but the set screw is cracked in glued together right now. That's why I'd like to print one... Even if I could buy one, I could probably get an inexpensive 3D printer and try 50 variations for the cost of buying a new hood for a 400 f/2.8...

Searching 3D designs is also possible with http://www.yeggi.com/

However do not expect that many lens types are covered and often the designs are not duplicating an OEM hood. Sometimes the hoods seem to be designed with style as the main ingredient, a local design shop sells these; http://gizmodo.com/3d-printed-lens-hoods-let-you-stand-out-in-a-sea-of-dsl-1453531090  BTW, Kapsones is best translated with Airs in English which is the right flag for the concept I think.  The thingiverse one earlier in this thread does not look as very effective either.

I have no idea what that 400mm hood would cost and whether it is cost effective to try to make it yourself. Time, money wise. On the other hand I archive or do not buy a lens hood with a "new" lens and make a 3D one right away. When I loose or destroy that one it is easy to make a new one as the drawings are already made. The OEM hood will be present in pristine condition when the lens goes for sale one day.

If you are in DIY and I suppose every forum member here is, then a 3D printer is a very nice addition to the tools. I bought one earlier this year + an extra reel of black PETG filament (1.75mm for this printer), total sum about 280 Euro, yes in Europe. Can build up to 10x10x10 cm, about 4 inch in each direction. The software can be free, in my case FreeCad, Cure. For the hoods I often start with the 2D vector drawing program Xara as I am used to it for a long time. SVG 2D design export from it and in FreeCad either extrude or revolve into 3D solids, then further with the FreeCad tools. Free 2D vector programs like Inkscape are an alternative. A good caliper has to be in house too, both before the design and to check the product. There is a learning curve but the rewards are there. Not just for lens hoods but mounting vintage lenses, old analog compact lenses, accessories etc. Considering a custom grip extension on my A7RII that fits the (semi) Arca tripod plate permanently fixed underneath the camera.  I still keep an eye open for cheaper Chinese made alternatives and buy parts there too to add to the designs. It is possible to "simulate" filter threads in 3D parts but a 1$ part that has a filter thread, is more precise and will stand wear longer is hard to equal in 3D printing. The same for lens mounts where the bayonet etc will be more rigid in metal than possible with my 3D printer.

Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst
750+ inkjet paper white spectral plots: OBA content etc.
http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm

I believe that 3-D printing (for us mortals) is in its infancy, and has lots of potential for spectacular growth. Glad you are making use of it. But if I were to tackle it, I would look at simple-to-make but expensive camera accessories. (A rotating leveling tripod head, comes to mind). I would not waste my time and effort on creating things such as lenshoods, which are inferior even to the cheaply available metal parts from overseas. Except for practicing the printing technique, of course.

RUcrAZ wrote:

I believe that 3-D printing (for us mortals) is in its infancy, and has lots of potential for spectacular growth. Glad you are making use of it. But if I were to tackle it, I would look at simple-to-make but expensive camera accessories. (A rotating leveling tripod head, comes to mind). I would not waste my time and effort on creating things such as lenshoods, which are inferior even to the cheaply available metal parts from overseas. Except for practicing the printing technique, of course.

My hoods with their metal front and backside (Chinese parts) are not inferior construction wise to the Chinese metal hoods.  And not inferior on the task of blocking unneeded light. I have sketched what my approach for their design was and I have not seen a solution available on Aliexpress etc or in the EU. It does not happen often that you see something at Aliexpress that goes beyond existing concepts, they aim at what sells in quantity and is known to sell in quantity. Quality is good enough, price near insane low. I have no urge to copy that in 3D printing and can wait two weeks for cheap delivery too.

If I needed a rotating leveling tripod head I would search Aliexpress and secondhand sites first. Look for laser auto leveling tools as well. What I have seen so far of the heads is that prosumer 3D printing equipment is not ready for that task and the design stage way too complex. I wish you luck when you decide to tackle it. To me what is available in that kind of heads looks quite affordable for the manufacturing involved.

Some low tech approaches to enhance my photography output is what I am after. Years ago that was in wet mounting scans of film, the first wet mounting film holders for the Nikon 8000 MF scanner were made by me. Before that I used that method on the Agfa Horizon,  the Epson 2870 and 3200. No rocket science but known principles combined with basic logic and simple manufacturing methods. Near 60 years now that I do stuff like that, tuning two stroke engines was  a nice start.

Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst
750+ inkjet paper white spectral plots: OBA content etc.
http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm

slickwillie wrote:

Anyone 3D print custom lens hoods? It would be great if there was a place to share 3D models for popular lens hoods that could then by customized. If anyone does this already, what filaments do you use? Any known drawbacks/issues?

3d printing is great for prototyping custom parts or creating concept models. It's not so great for creating pre-existing generic products for daily use. Depending upon the material, printer, and layer height used, 3d printed objects often require extra finishing work and/or may not be durable enough for hard usage.

If you wanted to CAD model a lens hood, have access to a high end 3d printer with proper filament, wait for it to print, and then spend time sanding/polishing and painting the product, then more power to you. It's just not very practical since you can already buy metal/rubber/plastic lens hoods for fairly cheap. It's just a lot more unnecessary time and energy spent when you could just get a generic hood off of ebay much faster.

The general public is enamored with 3d printing because of the glowing media coverage it receives. It's definitely a great tool in prototyping or making unique one-off products, but it's not an optimal production method for mass production or making mundane objects.

Can you do it? Yeah. Would you want to do it? Outside of novelty/hobby exploration, no reason. Hope this helps answer your question!

slickwillie wrote:

So I actually need one for my 400 f/2.8. I have an "original", but the set screw is cracked in glued together right now. That's why I'd like to print one... Even if I could buy one, I could probably get an inexpensive 3D printer and try 50 variations for the cost of buying a new hood for a 400 f/2.8...

Inexpensive 3d printers are generally pretty crappy. Their resolution and accuracy is much lower, the print heads may be less reliable or jam up, and their print beds will be much smaller (maybe too small for your object). The prints that you will get from a cheapo printer will require A LOT of clean up work and multiple passes sanding, puttying, and painting. Also, you need to know how to CAD (computer aided design, aka 3d modeling) first before you can start printing objects. I recommend solidworks or rhinoceros software (there is a free 3 month trial for the latter). If you must 3d print or want to explore it as a hobby, use a maker space, online service, or educational institute with quality machines.

An easier option would be to source a non-original or generic lens hood of the same diameter.

For your particular part, I would recommend either trying to repair the existing lens hood or fabricate a new one with help from a machine shop or wood-shop. If the set screw or mounting hole is cracked, you could drill and tap a hole on the other side of the hood and mount a new screw in that location. Either upload a picture here or take it to a shop and see what advice they give. Even if the hood is a total loss, you could probably source a metal or plastic tube of the same diameter and install mounting hardware for much less time, cost, and effort than designing and 3d printing one. Hope this helps!

So this is not the DIY forum? The design of 3D printed hoods is probably one of the simpler tasks in the 3D world and the quality of even the cheapest 3D printer models sufficient enough for efficient hoods. If you need the surface of Leica products then this forum is not the place to be I guess. At the inside of a hood you might like the 3D printed surface for a good reason. OEM and third party hoods often look slick but as often do not reach close to the viewing angle of a particular lens, especially those convenient hoods on telelenses that can be pulled out are bad on that aspect.

Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst
No photographer's gear list is complete without the printer mentioned !

I use glued in Chinese alu filter adapters at the front and back of the 3D printed hoods.  So far the only thread I printed in 3D was for an adapter on the Dremel drill, I estimate sewer PVC connectors category.

Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst
No photographer's gear list is complete without the printer mentioned !

HenrilensUK wrote:

I disagree. Finishing to that extent is entirely unnecessary for a working part as is the idea you have to have the best printer. Most people would be happy with a functioning part which most if not all (even the very cheapest) 3D printers can achieve. The problem is with threads. Although 3D printers can produce working threads (even very cheap ones using cheap filament) I doubt that the subtlety of filter threads would be possible even if you could design the thread or obtain a design. I have personally printed m42 dust caps which happily thread on to lenses but I wouldn’t trust a 3D printed part with the filter ring of my expensive lenses. You could get round the thread issue by using a cheap filter and removing the glass, then producing your part to fit the filter ring diameter and simply gluing it in place. You would need to check that the front element doesn’t retract into the lens barrel at any point in its travel as in the case of any filter mounted lens hood. It is true however that as lens hoods are very cheap from a China that you might not wish to waste your time on it. Other photography bits and pieces are also possible to print. You can find ready downloadable designs on Thingiverse and other sites. I’ve printed dust caps mostly. Some work well others not. To design your own stuff you’d have to get used to using cad software. Quite a steep learning curve but some are easier than others. I personally use Fusion 360 which is very intuitive. Certainly it is possible to custom make your own parts if you have enough interest to do it and they certainly don’t need sanding and prepping and you don’t need the best printer or the best filament. The finish is variable mostly with tiny ridges and sometimes little striations and unevenness but personally I’m entirely happy with the stock finish when you have something you designed and made yourself. I’m not sure That for photography alone it would be worth the time and trouble but if you are an inveterate tinkerer (such as myself), then yes. Also most come flat pack and need assembly. You will need quite a lot of spare space to store it/use it and a room where printing noises won’t be a problem. Very often printing can take hours or days to complete if you want the best quality. 3D printers are not consumer products because there are very often little problems that arise and have to be solved so you need to be able to do that. You need some background in practical things like diy, mechanicals and have a practical nature and quite a lot of patience, a willingness to investigate and try new things.

Going to a makerspace or shop of some sort doesn't just give you access to a better machine, but also gives you access to people that know what they are doing and can help teach you/answer questions.

If the OP just wants to 3d print this one project or is trying it out for the first time, I would not recommend buying your own cheapo machine just yet. If you use someone else's machine, they can deal with any filament feed issues and you just have to worry about the cost of filament, which isn't much. Buying a cheap printer becomes a "Why pay considerably more to have more issues and worse quality?" type of issue unless the OP plans to do a lot more printing.

I completely agree with the threads being a potential issue, which is part of why I suggested a higher resolution machine. Apparent resolution can vary wildly based off of draft angle, overhang, and curvature. You would certainly get an object from a cheap machine, but the surface will be bumpy with a shiny finish, probably a fair bit of stairstepping on curves, and not fit in visually with the rest of your kit. If OP is ok with this, more power too them, but I'm just trying to set realistic expectations.