0

Which Canon lens hood will fit and is preferred for the Canon 55-250 mm lens? I need it to be reversible.

  • Is standard ET-60 hood not good for you? – Zenit Apr 21 '16 at 12:21
  • @Alex.S It's not if he needs the standard ET-63. – Caleb Apr 21 '16 at 12:46
4

That depends on which lens you have and whether you want the official Canon model or something cheaper. If you have the EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS STM, you want an ET-63 lens hood (or compatible replacement). If you have the EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS II, then you want an ET-60 hood (or compatible replacement). For other lens models, look up the lens on Canon's web site and click the tab for accessories. From there you can see which lens hood is the lens needs.

Canon hood usually cost around $30, and are very well made -- they fit just right, feel like they're made of high quality plastic, and usually have a nice felt-like flocking on the inside. Cheaper versions usually cost $5-10, don't have the flocking, may or may not fit perfectly, and often don't feel quite as sturdy. But they all block light from the side and reduce flare just fine.

Any lens hood that fits in the forward direction can be mounted in the reverse direction as well -- the bayonet mount works the same either way.

  • 1
    Neither the Canon ET-60 or ET-63 have flocking inside. It seems as though Canon is getting away from using the flocking in their hoods for the cheaper lenses, as the ES-68 (50mm STM) and EW-63C (18-55 STM) also don't have flocking. – Mike Sowsun Apr 21 '16 at 17:20
  • Very few of the Canon lens hoods for lenses not supplied with a hood when purchased new have the flocking. Most of the lenses supplied in the box with a hood when purchased new have the flocking. – Michael C Apr 21 '16 at 18:22
  • Interesting, guys. The Canon hoods I can recall, sold separately from the lenses they're intended for, have flocking: ES-71II, EW-63II, ET-74, etc. A quick check on Amazon verifies that the ET-60 and ET-63 don't, though. – Caleb Apr 21 '16 at 19:02
  • @Caleb They have in the past but not any more. – Michael C Apr 21 '16 at 19:10

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.