New Canon 10-22 Lens

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Don Dunlap wrote:
> "Frank ess" <frank@fshe2fs.com> wrote in message
> news:_IudnclKtMlNop3fRVn-qQ@giganews.com...
>> Scharf-DCA wrote:
>>>> Here's a good hood for about half the price of Mr Canon's version:
>>>> http/cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=30060&item=387...
>>>
>>>> It seems identical other than some Chinese (?) characters on the
>>>> rim. The vendor was quick to ship, seems reliable.
>>>
>>> This is not the same hood as the one for the 10-22. The one on eBay
>>> appears to be the Canon EW-83II (for the 20-35 USM). The one for the
>>> EF-S 10-22 is the EW-83E.
>>>

<snip-o-rama>

>>
>
> Frank,
>
> Thanks for the offer, but I am confident that the hood will be OK. As
> I posted to Scharf-DCA, I can see the difference in the two hoods,
> but the only drawback would be that the E-bay hood would provide a
> little less shielding than the Canon hood.
>
> I know that Canon probably adequately tested the 83E, but since I
> cannot find anyone who has this hood, I am wondering if they might
> have stopped production in order to re-design it due to some flaw. I
> have used several search engines and can find no one who has the
> Canon hood. .
> Don

OK, Don. I reckon the Jury will be out for a while yet.


--
Frank ess

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Frank ess wrote:
> Scharf-DCA wrote:
>>> Here's a good hood for about half the price of Mr Canon's version:
>>> http/cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=30060&item=387...
>>
>>> It seems identical other than some Chinese (?) characters on the
>>> rim. The vendor was quick to ship, seems reliable.
>>
>> This is not the same hood as the one for the 10-22. The one on eBay
>> appears to be the Canon EW-83II (for the 20-35 USM). The one for the
>> EF-S 10-22 is the EW-83E.
>>
>> Canon makes a load of different hoods with the EW-83 designation,
>> it's the suffix that indicates which lens it is for.
>>
>> EW-83II (20-35)
>> EW-83F (24-70)
>> EW-83BII (28-70)
>> EW-83DII (24)
>> EW-83CII (17-35)
>> EW-83E (10-22 and 16-35)
>>
>> Search for EW-83 on B&H and they all come up, with pictures. You can
>> see that the eBay hood is not the proper hood for the 10-22.
>
> It seems the eBay auction is ended, and the photo is gone.
>
> I'll put up pictures of the one I received, which has been on the lens
> since I received it. You'll be able to see it is inscribed "EW-83".
>

Here 'tis:
http/www.fototime.com/inv/1A13AFE3010879D


--
Frank ess

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On 1 Feb 2005 19:04:54 -0800, "Scharf-DCA" <scharf@hotmail.com> wrote:

>Frank ess wrote:
>
>> It seems the eBay auction is ended, and the photo is gone.
>
>It's still there. Search for EW-83.
>
>"http/cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=30060&item=3871373868&rd=1&ssPageName=WDVW#ebayphotohosting"
>
>The Canon one for the 10-22 is the EW-83E at:
>
>"http/www.bhphotovideo.com/images/items/239651.jpg"
>
>The Canon one for the 20-35 is the EW-83II at:
>
>http/www.bhphotovideo.com/images/items/162038.jpg
>
>You can see a distinct difference. I'm sure that it will be okay, but I
>think Canon must make the different shapes for a reason.
>
>> I'll put up pictures of the one I received, which has been on the
>lens
>> since I received it. You'll be able to see it is inscribed "EW-83".
>>
>> I have made numerous photos with the 10-22 lens at its widest FOV,
>and
>> there is no evidence of the hood encroaching on the view.
>
>>From the photos, it looks like the 20-35 hood would not encroach on the
>10-22 lens, but the reverse may not be true.
>
>> I think it takes a remarkable eye to distinguish between the 83II and
>
>> 83E on the basis of Web photos I've been able to find.
>
>The difference is very clear to me.
>
>Look at:
>"http/www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?ci=1&sb=ps&pn=1&sq=desc&InitialSearch=yes&O=SearchBar&A=search&Q=*&shs=ew-83&image.x=0&image.y=0"

You think Canon makes all their profit on the lens shades? <g>


--
Scott in Florida

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Frank ess" <frank@fshe2fs.com> wrote in message
news:gM2dnZCwPtJRn5zfRVn-uw@giganews.com...
> Don Dunlap wrote:
>> "Frank ess" <frank@fshe2fs.com> wrote in message
>> news:_IudnclKtMlNop3fRVn-qQ@giganews.com...
>>> Scharf-DCA wrote:
>>>>> Here's a good hood for about half the price of Mr Canon's version:
>>>>> http/cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=30060&item=387...
>>>>
>>>>> It seems identical other than some Chinese (?) characters on the
>>>>> rim. The vendor was quick to ship, seems reliable.
>>>>
>>>> This is not the same hood as the one for the 10-22. The one on eBay
>>>> appears to be the Canon EW-83II (for the 20-35 USM). The one for the
>>>> EF-S 10-22 is the EW-83E.
>>>>
>
> <snip-o-rama>
>
>>>
>>
>> Frank,
>>
>> Thanks for the offer, but I am confident that the hood will be OK. As I
>> posted to Scharf-DCA, I can see the difference in the two hoods,
>> but the only drawback would be that the E-bay hood would provide a
>> little less shielding than the Canon hood.
>>
>> I know that Canon probably adequately tested the 83E, but since I
>> cannot find anyone who has this hood, I am wondering if they might
>> have stopped production in order to re-design it due to some flaw. I
>> have used several search engines and can find no one who has the
>> Canon hood. .
>> Don
>
> OK, Don. I reckon the Jury will be out for a while yet.
>
>
> --
> Frank ess

Frank,

I got the lens hood in the mail today and it seems to work fine. At first,
when I installed it, I didn't get it on right and when I took a couple of
shots, it intruded into the photo. I re-attached it and it doesn't intrude.
It was a very tight fit - much tighter than my other two hoods.

I'll probably never know if it offers as much shielding as the Canon hood,
but the first tests seem to be ok. You never know if it is not working
until a problem arises, which could be tomorrow or never. So far, I can say
that it works and is a bargain. Thanks for telling me about it.

Don
>
>