Yes, it has the special quality of costing three times as much.
I don't have both. I buy JJC hoods for all my lenses that don't come with a hood. All my L lenses come with hoods, so I don't buy extra hoods for those lenses. Some people have claimed that Canon hoods have better interior surfaces to combat reflections. I can't say that I've ever noticed a problem with JJC hoods, but I haven't gone out of my way to stress test them.I was thinking about possible ease of mounting. I have no reason to believe that Canon hoods would be easier to mount, but it's possible.Yes, it has the special quality of costing three times as much.
The Canon hoods that I have are internally threaded.Yes, it has the special quality of costing three times as much.
I'm sorry if my post gave a false impression. I guess that I didn't write clearly.Or in DXO, or LR, or ACR etc - just turn off corrections. Your post read as if you were seeing it with corrections applied. Alistair’s lens hood intrusion is with DXO’s corrections turned ON, because DXO provides a slightly wider FOV with the RF-S 10-18.
- BobKnDP wrote:
Yes.You mean uncorrected? I don’t see that with my 14-35 in either Adobe or DXO.Sorry, I meant (Adobe) Camera Raw. (Photo Raw is another product.)No. Lightroom (which uses the same ACR as Photoshop) gives a narrower field of view. Here's the same shot processed in Lightroom with the lens correction on:
And here's that shot with lens correction off, so you can see the full field of view:
As an experiment, I ran an R5 RAW taken with an RF 14-35L F/4 L through Photolab7 and PS (via ACR). The focal length was 14 mm.
The resulting images were both 8192 X 5464. (I guess both companies like to remap to the R5's nominal pixel count.) There were visible small differences in the distortion correction, though. (The images were of my cluttered living room, so I won't post them here.)
I believe that the differences were much less than with the R7 plus the RF-S 10-18.
The RF 14-35, at 14mm with a full-frame body, exhibits barrel distortion and vignetting at f/5.6.
Open a RAW with the Windows "Photos" app, if you wish to see an uncorrected view.
That EF-S lens, being made for DSLRs, shows all its distortion in the SLR optical viewfinder. Lenses with outrageous levels of distortion are difficult to sell for SLR cameras, though Samyang managed it with their 14mm lenses. Mirrorless lenses, starting with micro four-thirds in 2008, can be designed with much higher levels of optical distortion intended to be corrected in camera (for the viewfinder and SOOC jpegs) or in RAW processing and export. You won't have a problem with the lens hood for the EF-S lens, even corrected for distortion, unless you don't have it on completely square.
Lens hood is totally pointless with such a lens in 99.99% of cases. Take it off and enjoy the UWA field of view.I got the JJC version of the lens hood for my 10-18, which is, I think, the same size as the Canon version. This is what it does at 10mm, when processing with DXO:
Of course, you don't see this when you take the shot, because you're seeing the in-camera lens corrections. DXO gives you a wider field of view, so you only see this when you actually process the shot. I put a sanding head on my dremel tool, and sanded the hood down until it doesn't do this anymore. It took about seven tries to get it just about right. I didn't want to take off too much all at once, so I kept trying and taking test shots until I had it where I wanted it. Just something to be aware of, if you're using DXO to process your 10-18 shots, and you're using the lenshood. It wasn't difficult to sand it down, but the dremel tool is powered, so it makes it easy. If you're using something like a hand rasp, it might take longer. You could also just cut off bits of the hood, but that would probably leave sharper edges.
No need. As I said, I filed the hood down so it doesn't obstruct anymore. I use it more to protect the lens than to keep out light, as I also said.Lens hood is totally pointless with such a lens in 99.99% of cases. Take it off and enjoy the UWA field of view.I got the JJC version of the lens hood for my 10-18, which is, I think, the same size as the Canon version. This is what it does at 10mm, when processing with DXO:
Of course, you don't see this when you take the shot, because you're seeing the in-camera lens corrections. DXO gives you a wider field of view, so you only see this when you actually process the shot. I put a sanding head on my dremel tool, and sanded the hood down until it doesn't do this anymore. It took about seven tries to get it just about right. I didn't want to take off too much all at once, so I kept trying and taking test shots until I had it where I wanted it. Just something to be aware of, if you're using DXO to process your 10-18 shots, and you're using the lenshood. It wasn't difficult to sand it down, but the dremel tool is powered, so it makes it easy. If you're using something like a hand rasp, it might take longer. You could also just cut off bits of the hood, but that would probably leave sharper edges.
anorcross.smugmug.com
Same here. This doesn’t happen with the Canon hood. It’s odd because usually the JJC hoods are a very exact copy.
Yes, that is odd. Still, for the cost saving, it was worth it to just file down the JJC hood a bit.
I ordered the Canon hood for around US$20 . . . back-ordered by my local camera store.
