32mm 1.4 poll...

Has anyone actually tried to buy a lens hood for their 32mm 1.4?

Another question, given that the 22mm f/2 uses the same filter thread on the 32mm 1.4, has anyone tried using the 22mm's EW-43 on their 32mm 1.4? Any vignetting issues?

M19 wrote:

Has anyone actually tried to buy a lens hood for their 32mm 1.4?

Another question, given that the 22mm f/2 uses the same filter thread on the 32mm 1.4, has anyone tried using the 22mm's EW-43 on their 32mm 1.4? Any vignetting issues?

Note that the 22mm's EW-43 lens hood would mount on the protruding outer ring (43mm) which would then obscure much of the region between the 43mm mount threads and the lens optics.

22mm's EW-43

Two problems with using the EW-43 lens hood...
The lens hood for the 22mm is pretty much a ring. It's barely a hood and it's a bit of an insult that Canon didn't include it with the 22mm lens. I don't think it's ideal for the 32mm because the 22mm lens has a very TINY outer lens element and the 32mm lens has a much LARGER outer lens element that this "filter ring" might (*and probably would) obscure. Additionally, it should also be noted that another member here was unable to fit this ring onto the 32mm lens firmly.  It would appear that the accessory (even though it has a 43mm filter thread) is not compatible with the 32mm lens. (More about this below...)
.

32mm's ES-60 lens hood... oversized and unnecessary (& unnecessarily expensive).

.
The Canon ES-60 Lens hood - made for the 32mm lens...
The lens ES-60 hood that was designed for the EF-M 32mm f/1.4 STM lens is quite large. In fact I'd say it's much larger than it needs to be. But if you want the perfect fit with the recommended accessory, the ES-60 is the hood to buy. I chose to forgo this hood because it was both expensive and unavailable when my lens was purchased. But I knew how important it was to protect my lens so I chose to use a UV filter until I could obtain an alternative lens hood.
.

32mm f/1.4 lens - recessed when powered down. Note how the front element is also recessed slightly within the optical tube assembly.

.
I have found that a lens hood isn't really essential with this lens except for protection against impact or bumping the optics. I've shot with the lens pointing straight iup at the night sky and no stray light appears to have entered from the side of the lens - possibly because the lens elements are slightly recessed. Usually, wide, bright lenses really do need a lens hood to prevent lens flare. But the slightly longer focal length of 32mm (51mm equiv) means lens flare is less likely to be an issue.
.

Here's my M6 with the 32mm lens on it (plus a CPL filter) and the Canon EW-60F lens hood in place. This lens hood was designed for the Canon EF-M 18-150mm f/3.5-6.3 IS STM Lens but with a little pressure will also fit the 32mm lens without harming it. It fits firmly and securely but will become looser to fit as time passes.

.
Canon EW-60F Lens Hood as an Alternative...
However, if you want something protective alternative, you can look at an existing lens hood for one of the other lenses. Initially, the fit is quite tight. But it does become looser ad the sprung-plastic components in the hood become compressed over time. It still stays put with a very slight "click" as the hood settles into place, even as the spring-clasps (which are situated in two locations on the rim-mount of the hood) become fatigued over time.

.

I would suggest fitting a quality UV filter with high light transmission and modern optical coatings for protection with this lens. Surprisingly, stacking two filters together has not caused vignetting with this lens. I tried 6 different filters on the 32mm lens without issue... but the Step Up rings from China appear not to firmly mount. The solution is to mount the Step Up ring directly to the UV filter.

.
Thread Problems with Step Up rings + EW-43 hood
The only tricky thing with the EF-M 32mm f/1.4 STM lens is that the threads on the filter mount ring on the outer lens barrel are slightly shorter.  For this reason, it only takes a couple of turns to mount a filter.  I've had no problem fitting three different brands of filter to this lens with 43mm threads. However, the die used to cut the threads on the Chinese made Step Up Rings has a slight difference in the gauge gap... meaning that these Step Rings don't quite screw in deeply to the lens but instead the rings turn freely. The same applies to the EW-43 "lens hood" (above) which I can only presume was used by the Chinese as a template at some point.  Because it too doesn't seat well on the 32mm lens and of course Canon will tell you the two parts are not meant to be compatible.
.

Using a Step Up ring set to mount a much larger 77mm NiSi filter to the lens. For a more secure mount - screw the Step Up ring directly to the 43mm UV filter rather than the 43mm threading on the outer lens. The issue appears to lie with the die used for cutting the threads of the Step Up rings.

EW-60F will fit.

It's half the size and price of the normal ES-60 hood.

I use the Vello EW60F on my 32mm f/1.4.

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1315733-REG/vello_lhc_ew60f_replacement_hood_for_canon.html

M19 wrote:

I can't seem to fit the EW-60F on my 32mm 1.4. Then again, maybe it was because it's a 3rd party. But shouldn't 3rd parties be designed to be physically same in dimensions with the original? Fits my 18-150mm no problem though.

I'm going to assume the 3rd Party hoods are designed almost the same way.  A real (Canon) one cost me about $29.  Line the lens hood up so it's evenly placed against the lens and ready to be mounted.  Then apply even pressure so the entire rim of the hood using your open hand on the hood petals until the hood rim comes in contact with the lens mount surface.  Then maintain pressure while rotating the hood to the locked (final) position.  There will be a "click" sensation when it reaches the locked position (which confirms that it is completely in place).
.
The first few times you do this, it's an extremely TIGHT fit.  This loosens over time due to constant pressure on the hood-mount clasps.  There is no risk to the lens itself since the pressure is only being applied to the lens barrel itself and not the lens elements or even the interior assembly.  The "click" sensation is still there many months later and though the mount process with the hood becomes looser and easier.
.
The first time i tried to mount the lens hood, I put it on crooked.  The next few times it was so stiff that I was worried I wouldn't be able to complete the task.

M19 wrote:

Question though, before I force my copy to the 32mm. Did your lens hood still fit snuggly on the 18-150mm after all the attaching and de-attaching on the 32mm.

.

Same shot from before...

The nature of my iPhone lens means the EW-60F lens hood looks oversized in this image... but it looks quite well proportioned on the 32mm lens.

A more accurate scale for the hood is visible here.  It's actually quite narrow.
.

I don't own the EF-M 18-150mm lens.  I bought the EW-60F especially to use on the EF-M 32mm lens.  I prefer lens hoods with petal designs over tubular hoods so this made sense for me.  I also wanted a much shorter lens hood for transport and day to day convenience.  The higher price for the custom hood that was made for this lens was around $60 here with a list price closer to $70... which is outrageous.
.
Another alternative is the Leica style "open lens hood" - which tends to be made from alloys (aluminum) , but this will thread onto the lens barrel assembly and may transfer impacts into the lens elements if dropped.  The lighter, plastic ones from Canon are designed to take the impact whilst protecting the lens.
.

M19 wrote:

Question though, before I force my copy to the 32mm. Did your lens hood still fit snuggly on the 18-150mm after all the attaching and de-attaching on the 32mm.

After starting the very first discussion here on this forum about using the EW-60F on the 32mm 1.4, I ordered a second one the same day (so I could keep the original with my 18-150mm). That second Canon EW-60F has been basically permanently attached in the outward position to my 32mm 1.4 ever since. The lens still easily but snugly fits in the pockets of my various camera bags with it on. The convenience has been well worth the nominal cost.

M19 wrote:

Question though, before I force my copy to the 32mm. Did your lens hood still fit snuggly on the 18-150mm after all the attaching and de-attaching on the 32mm.

I gently threaded the 22 hood onto my 32, and it promptly stuck on (almost like it over-threaded and fell off the back of the threads). I thought I would never get it off. Just don't

VisionLight wrote:

After starting the very first discussion here on this forum about using the EW-60F on the 32mm 1.4, I ordered a second one the same day (so I could keep the original with my 18-150mm). That second Canon EW-60F has been basically permanently attached in the outward position to my 32mm 1.4 ever since. The lens still easily but snugly fits in the pockets of my various camera bags with it on. The convenience has been well worth the nominal cost.

I reverse mine for storage in the bag. Simple and then it's also compact.

I have bought and use the JJC LH-ES60 alternative hood. It is available on ebay for a fair price, compared to the original from Canon. I can confidently say that the JJC knock off is actually pretty well made and fits very nicely and snugly on the Canon EF-M 32mm 1.4 lens. Pretty good deal if you can live with the large size (same as the original from Canon, though).

https://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_from=R40&_trksid=m570.l1313&_nkw=JJC+LH-ES60&_sacat=0

I Am just back from a trip to Southern Africa. I used the EF-M on my IR converted Eos M for 99% and at one moment the camera strap slipped of my shoulder and the lenshood saved the lens for being damaged. Before we left to Africa I made the decision to take the ES-60 hood instead of the EW-60f one. Using the ‘oversized’ ES-60 hood definitely helped to protect the wonderful EF-M 32-1.4 lens and I an not sure if the EW-60F would protected the lens in the same way....