Why are tulip lens hoods more expensive than cup lens hoods?

Question

Why are tulip lens hoods costlier than cup lens hoods? Both types appear to be made of same material. Is it only the design, or something else?

Probably a duplicate of Why are some lens hoods petal shaped and others not?, although that doesn't address cost. — mattdm, May 18 '13 at 13:27
Cost is the main point of the question, so it is hardly a duplicate of one that doesn't address cost. — Michael C, May 18 '13 at 13:37
Seriously what is the point of this question? Next up "Why are red cameras more expensive than black?" — dpollitt, May 18 '13 at 16:33
@dpollitt Seriously, "Why are red cameras more expensive than black?" — Sourav, May 19 '13 at 15:52
@dpollitt have you looked at the cost of red paint lately? (and yes, that's not entirely tongue in cheek, one of the reasons airlines are dropping red from their colour schemes is that red aircraft paint is more expensive than other colours, especially white). — jwenting, Jul 10 '13 at 05:34

score 11 · Accepted Answer · edited Apr 13 '17 at 12:43

11

Most of the difference is explained at Why are some lens hoods petal shaped and others not?, with the remaining question being the cost.

And, I don't think the basic cost premise is correct. See cheap tulip hoods at B&H, where they start at $4 -- a dollar less than the cheapest circular hood. So the answer to "why are tulip hoods more expensive?" is... "they're not".

The Canon / Nikon branded hoods are more expensive, but even then, there's no real difference based on shape. If you take a look at Canon or Nikon lens hoods sorted by price, you can see both shapes mixed in at different price points. While it does happen that the very cheapest models for SLR lenses are small rings of plastic, as you go up, there is no general pattern where one type is cheaper.

In fact, the most expensive lens hoods (Canon, $700; Nikon, $1000) are just tubes with no petal shape. These hoods are for extreme telephoto lenses where the tulip shape provides no benefit (see the other question), and it's clearly supply and demand (particularly, rarity in this case) which determines the price. That's true at lower price levels too.

edited Apr 13 '17 at 12:43

Community

1

answered May 18 '13 at 13:29

mattdm

143,140
52
417
741

1

If you go for Nikon/Canon then the questions stands! (: – Sourav May 18 '13 at 13:33
1

Not really. I'll update my answer. – mattdm May 18 '13 at 14:22
1

Wow. I wonder if people ever actually buy those $1000 lens hoods. :O – NULLZ May 18 '13 at 16:27
1

@D3C4FF: When you spend $18,000 on the new Nikon 800mm lens, a grand for the hood sounds down right reasonable! It's only 1/18th the price of the lens! :P – jrista May 18 '13 at 16:49
1

@jrista mannn.. maybe i should start selling camera gear. Sounds like an easy way to part suckers with their money :P – NULLZ May 18 '13 at 17:12
how about a molded piece of plastic they call a flash reflector, or a pc trigger flash cable for 100$ that you can get off ebay for 99 cents. – Michael Nielsen May 18 '13 at 22:08
1

@D3C4FF: Keep in mind, the lens hoods for high end lenses like that are not simply injection molded plastic. They utilize the same materials as the lens barrel to maintain durability, are multi-layered with multiple materials for weight & balance, and are larger and use more material volume than most lenses in totality. – jrista May 19 '13 at 15:14
@jrista without fear of sounding too thick, why would the material of something whose sole purpose is to block out light matter? Certainly regular injection molded plastic can yield a highly rigid and dirt-cheap hood for even the most demanding lens. I'm just curious to know how you think the value breakdown of a $1000 is with regard to namesake, increase in quality/materials/production. – Evan Carroll Jun 10 '13 at 06:09
1

@Evan: Have you ever handled the lens hood of one of Canon's 300, 400, 500, or 600mm high end supertelephotos? They aren't cheap...and while there is certainly some "namesake" cost involved, they are VERY BIG, involving a lot of materials, and the materials aren't just injection molded plastic. I don't have exact specs, but even the lens hoods of those lenses are engineered to a precise specification for weight, balance, and to minimize reflections off the hood itself. They are enameled the same as the lens body. They also double as a cap when reversed and the sleeve is put on. – jrista Jun 11 '13 at 00:15
2

Plenty of photogs owe a significant debt of gratitude to a lens hood that has protected a very expensive lens, when said lens is dropped, dragged or just swung around without careful attention, smacking it into a rock wall (purely hypothetical of course). Having a lens hood made sturdy is very useful. – cmason Jul 09 '13 at 20:12
not just supply and demand, also manufacturing cost. Those very large hoods are more expensive to make, and often made of metal which is more expensive than polycarbonate. – jwenting Jul 10 '13 at 05:36
@cmason indeed. Had a front element saved by a hood taking the blow more than once when someone bumps into me for example, and once when I stumbled and fell, the hood cracking, saving the lens from that fate. – jwenting Jul 10 '13 at 05:39

score 3 · Answer 2 · answered May 18 '13 at 13:35

Why are most things the price they are? Two primary factors:

The cost of production. The more complex shape requires more production expense. The tulip also requires more materials for any given lens, since the cup version could only be as deep as the shortest parts of the tulip or vignetting in the corners would be an issue.
Supply and demand. Assuming a somewhat free market, items which are higher in demand can fetch a higher price, even if they cost no more to produce than another item that is seen as less desirable.

Both factors are probably in play in the case of tulip shaped lens hoods vs. cups. If properly designed, a tulip lens hood is functionally more effective than a cup.

Why are tulip lens hoods more expensive than cup lens hoods?

2 Answers2