I just bought a couple of items from eBay:
The hood isn’t exactly compulsory, but it’s really annoying seeing how “naked” the lens look by itself, especially when I use the lens in most situations. I still don’t get why Nikon Corporation decides not to include the hood with the kit lens.
This is a “fake” version of Stofen’s Omnibounce, about 1/5th the price of the original Stofen. But what difference will it make? It’s still plastic and I’m sure the results will still be more pleasing on the eye than bare flash by the Speedlight, bounced or not.
I just had to say this – photography makes me feel broke! 
P.S. A friend’s cousin is looking for an assistant photographer. I’m seriously considering it although I may not be what he is looking for.
If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!
Why do they have to have different lens hoods for VR and non-VR?
Comment by cheahwey — July 29, 2008 @ 9:10 pm
@cheahwey – The HB-33 which is originally for the non-VR kit lens has been replaced with HB-45 which I bought. I don’t know why but I guess it doesn’t really make a difference
Comment by Raymond Chan — July 30, 2008 @ 3:45 pm
TBH, i too bought a hood lens for my newly purchased canon 10-22 for no apparent reason. :/ but i thought it looked good and the protection should be better etc, else im trying to comfort myself wtf.
Comment by clem — July 30, 2008 @ 11:14 pm
So if you have a lens hood on and you’re keeping the camera back in the bag, do you have to take it off or it doesn’t matter?
Comment by cheahwey — August 2, 2008 @ 5:31 pm
@cheahwey -
Doesn’t matter, I’d say. My 55-200mm’s hood is reversible, so it saves space. For my 50mm, I got a rubber hood, sorta like foldable, so I’d just pull the rubber out longer when needed and push it back to fold it back into place. Neat.
Comment by Raymond Chan — August 4, 2008 @ 2:15 am
@clem -
Well, good for you! Would love to get a super wide angle too, when I can afford it that is.
Comment by Raymond Chan — August 4, 2008 @ 2:16 am