Hood for M.Zuiko ED 75-300mm f4.8-6.7 II

[PeteS]

I ordered a hood with my M.Zuiko ED 75-300mm f4.8-6.7 II. I clicked the suggested hood and they sent the LH-61D instead of the LH-61E that actually fits the lens. The one they shipped does not fit. It turns out I need one for my 40-150mm f/4-5.6 so I will keep it rather than bother to return it, but I need a hood for the 75-300.

According to one of the reviews, it can't be mounted on the lens backwards like the LH-61D can be on the 40-150mm. Can anyone verify if that is the case for the LH-61E on the M.Zuiko ED 75-300mm f4.8-6.7 II? If so that is a poor setup.

I find it annoying that a $500 lens doesn't come with a hood, that the hood isn't reversible (if that is the case), and that a flimsy piece of soft plastic molded in a simple shape is $25.

Are the Vello branded LH-61E hoods okay? How about all the no name stuff that I see for about $10 with free shipping on Amazon? Are they complete trash? I have to wonder if they are much less functional than the Olympus ones which didn't impress me much at all for the price. The engagement on the real Oly ones didn't seem great and they definitely don't seem particularly durable. Makes me wonder if the cheapies are really much worse.

 

[MichailK]

well, if it is of any use, the JJC I got needed some fiddling with a hand nail filer to not need too much force to put on and off the lens, however I found it makes the lens all too big in my daily bag if not taking the fuss to reverse store it each and every time so I got this instead and it lives all the time on the lens these days

 

[coffeecat]

Yes - my JJC hood for my M.Zuiko ED 75-300mm f4.8-6.7 II certainly reverses, and likewise was a bit tight at first but is OK now. I guess therefore the official Olympus hood should reverse too.

 

[ac12]

I have the JJC LH-J61E hood on my 75-300. And it reverses.
And as @MichailK said, I had to do some minor scraping to increase the clearance for it to go on easily.

As for free hoods.
As far as I can remember, NONE of the lenses that I bought back in my film days (1970s) came with a hood. We had to buy the hoods, either OEM or 3rd party. So not including a hood is nothing new. What is new is when companies DO include the hood with the lens.
Companies like Tamron and Sigma have to do something different to try to get the OEM customers to buy their lens. The included hood is just one of those things to diferencitate themselves from the OEM.

As for expensive. At least for the 75-300 there is the relatively inexpensive JJC hood that can be used.
My Nikon lens has no similar inexpensive alternative, so I have to PAY for a Nikon hood.
You are not paying for the plastic, you are paying for the injection mold that is used to make the hood. THAT is what is expensive.

 

[PeteS]

FWIW, I was pleasantly surprised when my 12-45mm F4.0 Pro came with a lens hood.

 

[MichailK]

FWIW, I was pleasantly surprised when my 12-45mm F4.0 Pro came with a lens hood.

be careful, it tends to disintegrate - it needs some strategically placed glue, I have not yet glue it after last months reassembly

 

[RAH]

According to one of the reviews, it can't be mounted on the lens backwards like the LH-61D can be on the 40-150mm. Can anyone verify if that is the case for the LH-61E on the M.Zuiko ED 75-300mm f4.8-6.7 II? If so that is a poor setup.

I have an Olympus LH-61E (which I'm pretty sure I got with my old 4/3 70-300 Oly lens back in the DSLR days). It reverses on the 75-300 fine. But be aware that it is ENORMOUS! We think of the 75-300 as being relatively small, but it is telling that the "official" hood for it is the same old one that used to be for the Oly DSLR 70-300. I seldom use it, using a Sensei 3-in-one rubber hood (model LHR2-T58) instead:

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1388614-REG/sensei_lhr2_t58_58mm_3_in_1_rubber_lens.html

The one I have seems to be an earlier model (LHR-T58) that came with a 55mm cap for the inside of the rubber hood. The new one seems to have the same 58mm attachment threads and lens cap size, which is better (i.e. you can use the cap that comes with the 75-300).

Edit: I bought a new LHR2-T58 and it does not come with a separate 55mm cap. The 58mm lens cap itself attaches to the hood, which is more convenient.

 

[PeteS]

I was tempted to go with a screw on 58mm rubber hood, but ordered a Vello LH-61E ($14.95 no tax no shipping).

 

[RAH]

It will be interesting to see if it is as large as the Olympus one. If it is smaller, that might be an advantage over the O one.

 

[PeteS]

It will be interesting to see if it is as large as the Olympus one. If it is smaller, that might be an advantage over the O one.

For someone reasonably handy with tools, it doesn't seem like it would be too hard to cut one down. It seems like a shame to have to butcher a $25 hood to make it more useful though. Cutting a $10-15 would be a little less painful.

 

[PeteS]

You are not paying for the plastic, you are paying for the injection mold that is used to make the hood. THAT is what is expensive.

By that logic, once they invest in that mold, the price per unit is high if they only make a few, but not so bad for a higher production run. That would seem to make the hood kind of prohibitively expensive as an add on accessory, but not so bad if they made enough to just include them with every lens. I have to wonder how much it really costs though for such a simple mold. A bunch of no name brands seem to manage to sell knock off for well under half the price of the Oly.

 

[exakta]

As for free hoods.
As far as I can remember, NONE of the lenses that I bought back in my film days (1970s) came with a hood. We had to buy the hoods, either OEM or 3rd party.

All my OM-1 lenses (Olympus, Soligor, Sigma) came with hoods, except the 50mm and 35-70mm lenses, for which there was an optional reversible screw-on hood. In those days built-in hoods were commonplace on teles and zooms, no longer possible I assume due to all the motirs and such inside lenses.

 

[ac12]

By that logic, once they invest in that mold, the price per unit is high if they only make a few, but not so bad for a higher production run. That would seem to make the hood kind of prohibitively expensive as an add on accessory, but not so bad if they made enough to just include them with every lens. I have to wonder how much it really costs though for such a simple mold. A bunch of no name brands seem to manage to sell knock off for well under half the price of the Oly.

Well that would be why you see what appears to be the same hood under different labels.
One factory making it for many distributors.

As for price, same as before, cheap labor in China.
And lower manufacturing and corporate overhead than Japan or the US.

The other factor in lower cost is less QC, or lack of it.
EVERY ONE of my several plastic JJC hoods had to be fixed to fit the lens. Hoods sold specifically for a lens did not fit properly. I've had some that were so TIGHT it could not be put onto the lens. Either their measurements are consistently off when they made the mold, or the plastic they use shrinks.

 

[ac12]

I was tempted to go with a screw on 58mm rubber hood, but ordered a Vello LH-61E ($14.95 no tax no shipping).

The LONG rubber hood actually has an advantage.
On a lens like the 12-100, the stock hood is useless beyond 50mm, because it is designed to not vignet at 12mm. But the angle of view at 100mm is significantly tighter.
A long rubber hood can be folded back for 12, and unfolded for 50+. A manual task, but IMHO better than having to hold your hand over the front of the lens to shade it.

 

[PeteS]

Well that would be why you see what appears to be the same hood under different labels.
One factory making it for many distributors.

Yep.

As for price, same as before, cheap labor in China.
And lower manufacturing and corporate overhead than Japan or the US.

True enough.

The other factor in lower cost is less QC, or lack of it.
EVERY ONE of my several plastic JJC hoods had to be fixed to fit the lens. Hoods sold specifically for a lens did not fit properly. I've had some that were so TIGHT it could not be put onto the lens. Either their measurements are consistently off when they made the mold, or the plastic they use shrinks.

Maybe, but I have not been all the impressed with the quality of the original Olympus hoods lately. They are pretty fiddly to mount and I am not optimistic that they will hold up well. I probably wouldn't have balked at the $24.99 price tag if my recent experience inspired more confidence. I might actually prefer to do a little filing if the fit winds up better. I guess I will find out when my clone gets here.

 

[fortwodriver]

Can anyone verify if that is the case for the LH-61E on the M.Zuiko ED 75-300mm f4.8-6.7 II? If so that is a poor setup.

It's actually designed to mount in reverse on the 75-300 II... I didn't have to make any modifications to it to work, although it does cover a lot of the lens when reversed.

I don't understand folks who are out and about taking photos with their hoods reversed and then complaining about camera ergonomics...

A few of the old Olympus OM lenses actually had built in sliding hoods. My OM 135 worked like that...

 

[ac12]

Yep.

True enough.

Maybe, but I have not been all the impressed with the quality of the original Olympus hoods lately. They are pretty fiddly to mount and I am not optimistic that they will hold up well. I probably wouldn't have balked at the $24.99 price tag if my recent experience inspired more confidence. I might actually prefer to do a little filing if the fit winds up better. I guess I will find out when my clone gets here.

$40 for the hood for the Nikon 70-200/4
$55 for the hood for the Nikon 70-200/2.8
I just saw on B&H a Vello hood for the 70-200/2.8 for $15. Vello is probably a distributor label for a JJC hood.

Unlike the Olympus hoods for the 12-40/2.8, 40-150/2.8 and 12-100/4, which have a button lock, the Nikon hoods are simple turn and click. There is no mechanical lock to add to the complexity and cost.

My PoV on the JJC hoods are, "they are expendable.
If it breaks, I am not out singificant $$, and can replace them inexpensively.
Whereas I am extra careful with my more expensive to replace Nikon hood on the 70-200/4. Because there is no inexpensive alternative.

About the filing/scraping to get the JJC hoods to fit.
For a single or few lenses, for me, it is OK.
But to do it at school, for SEVERAL lenses, and repeatedly, because the kids constantly lose the hoods, that gets old quick. I would rather pay for a properly fitting hoods that do not require "fitting and fixing." And many teachers can't be trusted with file or scraper.

 

[PeteS]

I don't understand folks who are out and about taking photos with their hoods reversed and then complaining about camera ergonomics...

Yeah I don't get that either. I figure reversing is just for compact storage in limited bag space. I guess flipping it around if walking around with the camera on a neck strap and not taking pictures long enough to want it out of the way for a while, but while taking pictures I don;t see any point in having it reversed..

 

[ac12]

Yeah I don't get that either. I figure reversing is just for compact storage in limited bag space. I guess flipping it around if walking around with the camera on a neck strap and not taking pictures long enough to want it out of the way for a while, but while taking pictures I don;t see any point in having it reversed..

I've seen that many times also.
People are sometimes just lazy. How much effort does it take to reverse the lens hood, to use it so that it functions?
Especially when a reversed hood blocks most of the zoom ring, making it hard to use. They rather struggle with the zoom ring than reverse the hood, to get it out of the way.

 

[RAH]

Now wait, are you guys saying that it's supposed to face out, sticking out like a sore thumb from the front of the lens?? I always thought THAT was the "reversed" position, and having it the other way, where it covers most of the lens, was the deployed position (as people keep saying, "to protect the lens")!!