55-250 IS STM lens hood - why the cylinder shape?

[FreshFromTheGrave]

So quick and somewhat pointless question:

The 55-250 STM lens has internal focusing and a non-rotating front element yet the lens hood is ET-63 http://media.the-digital-picture.co...-55-250mm-IS-STM-Lens-on-Camera-with-Hood.jpg which has a cylindrical shape as opposed to a petal shape.

Is there some reason Canon would have opted for cylindrical shape rather than a petal shape? I thought petal shapes were better because they gave more shading without vignetting the corners. Are they cheaping out or is there a proper reason?

 

[Derrel]

The lens is basically "all-telephoto" on APS-C...it's all pretty narrow in its angular view, so there's not a lot of benefit in going with a petal shade. A cylindrical shade works amply well on telephoto lenses, and was standard for many decades. Petal shapes work pretty well on wide- and ultra-wide zooms, where there is a LOT of angular view, and there actually does exist quite a bit of difference in the angular view between the horizontal and the vertical, and w the short and long focal length settings. On those types of lenses, the petal design really proves its worth. If the 55-250 really NEEDED a petal type lens hood, Canon would most definitely have supplied it with one! Really, they would have, but it's just not a needed thing on that focal length range in a zoom lens.

 

[FreshFromTheGrave]

The lens is basically "all-telephoto" on APS-C...it's all pretty narrow in its angular view, so there's not a lot of benefit in going with a petal shade. A cylindrical shade works amply well on telephoto lenses, and was standard for many decades. Petal shapes work pretty well on wide- and ultra-wide zooms, where there is a LOT of angular view, and there actually does exist quite a bit of difference in the angular view between the horizontal and the vertical, and w the short and long focal length settings. On those types of lenses, the petal design really proves its worth. If the 55-250 really NEEDED a petal type lens hood, Canon would most definitely have supplied it with one! Really, they would have, but it's just not a needed thing on that focal length range in a zoom lens.

Thanks! I didn't think about sensor size. Is that the reason why the ET-60 II for EF 75-300 is a petal shape even though it's a longer focal length?

*Edit: Hmm that might not be a real Canon lens hood nevermind...

 

[Derrel]

The lens is basically "all-telephoto" on APS-C...it's all pretty narrow in its angular view, so there's not a lot of benefit in going with a petal shade. A cylindrical shade works amply well on telephoto lenses, and was standard for many decades. Petal shapes work pretty well on wide- and ultra-wide zooms, where there is a LOT of angular view, and there actually does exist quite a bit of difference in the angular view between the horizontal and the vertical, and w the short and long focal length settings. On those types of lenses, the petal design really proves its worth. If the 55-250 really NEEDED a petal type lens hood, Canon would most definitely have supplied it with one! Really, they would have, but it's just not a needed thing on that focal length range in a zoom lens.

Thanks! I didn't think about sensor size. Is that the reason why the ET-60 II for EF 75-300 is a petal shape even though it's a longer focal length?

I think the reason is strictly marketing-related. Sales of 70-300mm lenses are VERY competitive between the camera makers, and the third-paerty lens makers, and 70-300mm lenses are exceptionally popular with enthusiasts and serious amateurs, exactly the kind of people who will do research, and will consider third-party alternatives like Sigma or Tamron. If the competition has it, so will the camera makers, generally, so it's a matter of keeping up with the competition, and serious amateurs/hobbyists today consider petal lens hoods "normal", and think of them as desirable. 50-200 and 55-250 lenses OTOH are more kit-lens offerings aimed at people who are not photo-nuts, and who will not really worry about petal vs cylindrical hoods. I'm not really aware of third party 50-200 and 55-250 lenses made by Sigma or Tamron on Tokina, but there could be such lenses, but at the $169 or lower price point, the buyers for those lenses are typically not going to always be "photo-nuts" like us, and always worried about nuance and details.

 

[FreshFromTheGrave]

The lens is basically "all-telephoto" on APS-C...it's all pretty narrow in its angular view, so there's not a lot of benefit in going with a petal shade. A cylindrical shade works amply well on telephoto lenses, and was standard for many decades. Petal shapes work pretty well on wide- and ultra-wide zooms, where there is a LOT of angular view, and there actually does exist quite a bit of difference in the angular view between the horizontal and the vertical, and w the short and long focal length settings. On those types of lenses, the petal design really proves its worth. If the 55-250 really NEEDED a petal type lens hood, Canon would most definitely have supplied it with one! Really, they would have, but it's just not a needed thing on that focal length range in a zoom lens.

Thanks! I didn't think about sensor size. Is that the reason why the ET-60 II for EF 75-300 is a petal shape even though it's a longer focal length?

I think the reason is strictly marketing-related. Sales of 70-300mm lenses are VERY competitive between the camera makers, and the third-paerty lens makers, and 70-300mm lenses are exceptionally popular with enthusiasts and serious amateurs, exactly the kind of people who will do research, and will consider third-party alternatives like Sigma or Tamron. If the competition has it, so will the camera makers, generally, so it's a matter of keeping up with the competition, and serious amateurs/hobbyists today consider petal lens hoods "normal", and think of them as desirable. 50-200 and 55-250 lenses OTOH are more kit-lens offerings aimed at people who are not photo-nuts, and who will not really worry about petal vs cylindrical hoods. I'm not really aware of third party 50-200 and 55-250 lenses made by Sigma or Tamron on Tokina, but there could be such lenses, but at the $169 or lower price point, the buyers for those lenses are typically not going to always be "photo-nuts" like us, and always worried about nuance and details.

Thanks for the insight Derrel As silly and unimportant as it is I do wish they made a petal hood for the 55-250 STM, it just looks nicer!