[emalvick]

The lens hood for my 60-250 is broken right at the connection to the lens, so while it mostly works, it has a tendency to detach or spin on the lens. I'm going to see if I can't superglue the cracked portion back together, but I'm also looking for options in case that doesn't work.

I see where I can buy the hood from Pentax or B&H and others, but before I spend the money, I'm wondering if anyone has had any luck or used an other cheap alternatives successfully with this particular lens?

I see a lot of rubber hoods, but I'm not sure if they are sufficient for this particular lens, and I'm not terribly keen on attaching them to filter threads. I tend to use a polarizer with this lens a lot, and I'd hate to introduce vignetting by having too many items threaded on.

Are there any other options I don't see? The lens hood is so big, and I'm not sure if that is a necessity. It looks like (from internet images) that most 67mm lens hoods are tailored more for wider angled lenses.

Thanks.

[narual]

A rubber hood that expands might be an OK solution.
http://www.amazon.com/55-300mm-Autofocus-MicroFiber-Cleaning-Protectors/dp/B008KLU434
A metal hood like this is another option, but it'll vignette at the wide end:
http://www.amazon.com/Desmond-Metal-67mm-Shade-Telephoto/dp/B00AOVTRP4

[UncleVanya]

The A* 85mm f/1.4 original hood works but it's not any cheaper.

The irony of the first link in the post above is that it mentions the 55-300 which is 58mm not 67mm, but the product is 67mm per the details.

What I would do is measure the length from the shortest "valley" in the tulip, and the diameter. Then remove an additional amount equal to the thickness of the CPL filter you want to use and find a 67mm rubber or metal hood that is appropriate length or slightly shorter.

I have one single hood for both the 60-250 and the 50-135, so I use my A* 85 f/1.4 hood on the other a lot of the time.

---------- Post added 03-02-15 at 06:11 PM ----------

Here's one I have asked for more details on (length) to determine if it might work for me as a spare/alternate solution.

Amazon.com: Questions And Answers: What is the length of the hood front to back?

[bpjod]

A couple thoughts to ponder as you look for cheaper alternatives:

1. Rubber hoods collapse. As a consequence, they do not offer as much protection for the lens as a rigid lens hood. I've had 3 lens hoods sacrifice themselves to save my lenses over the years and numerous other times they've saved my front element, without breaking in the process.
2. You use a polarizer. That little cutout in the hood to rotate the polarizer sure is nice. I'd sure miss it if I went with a hood without one...

[UncleVanya]

A couple thoughts to ponder as you look for cheaper alternatives:

1. Rubber hoods collapse. As a consequence, they do not offer as much protection for the lens as a rigid lens hood. I've had 3 lens hoods sacrifice themselves to save my lenses over the years and numerous other times they've saved my front element, without breaking in the process.
2. You use a polarizer. That little cutout in the hood to rotate the polarizer sure is nice. I'd sure miss it if I went with a hood without one...

Rubber hoods come in weak and sturdy. Both are a lot more flimsy than plastic or metal.
If the CPL goes on first and then the hood, if it is a round hood you don't need a cut out.

[narual]

A polarizer with a hood that uses filter threads doesn't need a cutout - you can just rotate the hood. I do it all the time.

Rubber hoods are worth having if you ever need to take a photo against glass -- tight seal, no reflections. They're not the best at protecting the lens, but I'm not sure a metal hood is, either.