Filter vs. Lens Hood

[PhotoDim]

I just purchased a Canon 40D with the 28-135mm lens. I want to protect this lens as best as possible (especially from dirt, scratches) but also want to preserve the quality of my photos. What is the best way of doing this?

Should I get a good UV filter? I have heard many complain of flare and such.
Should I just get a genuine Canon lens hood? Many recommend this option as it protects the lens, prevents knocking of the lens, prevents flare, etc.
Should I get a UV filter which allows me to connect the lens hood to the end?

I am a bit lost as to how to effectively protect my lens. I am worried that it will get scratched/affected by dust without a filter. Am I wrong? Please point me in the right direction. Thanks.

 

[mrvgson]

I have the same question and am interested in hearing what the experts have to say.

 

[Sw1tchFX]

Both. Think about it, hood protects from flare and boosts your ego, UV filter protects from direct contact.

 

[Helen B]

When I began I put a UV or Skylight filter on every lens, and bought the right lens hood for every lens. As I gained experience I felt happy to judge when I could leave the filter off. I always use a lens hood though.

If you are going to use a filter, get a good multi-coated one. Hoya HMC and B+W MRC are generally OK.

Best,
Helen

 

[RKW3]

UV filter is a good idea. I have no experiences with hoods.

 

[cameramike]

can never have TOO much protection (some people learn that the hard way perhaps). but make sure the filter is a good quality filter otherwise you are just hindering your photographs. Lens hoods can sometimes be bulky but still helps.

oh also, i bought a cheap (like 10$ with shipping) petal hood from ebay and it does its job, there is NO need to spend 30$ on a "genuine" hood. also yes a filter will prevent dust from getting on the lens but it'll just go onto the filter so you'll have to clean either the filter or the lens doesn't really matter which but think of it this way. you drop your lens and the filter cracks and the lens its self is fine OR you drop the lens (no filter) the glass cracks.

 

[Happy Hour]

Lens hoods can sometimes be bulky but still helps.

If your worried about the bulkiness of a hood the rubber hoods are my favorite! they just flip down like there not even there. I have one for every one of my lenses and there only like $4-5 pocket change for how much use I get out of them. I originally bought one for a lens that had no option for a hood, and these screw in where the filter does(so they work on every lens)now It's the first thing I buy when I get a new lens

 

[Mike_E]

Both. Think about it, hood protects from flare and boosts your ego, UV filter protects from direct contact.

:thumbup::thumbup:

 

[PhotoDim]

So it's good to get a Hoya DMC Pro1 UV Filter (for about $45) in addition to a lens hood? Will I still be able to attach the hood on top of the filter?

 

[cherylmuhr]

i have never used UV filters because i find they make my images soft. i'm surprised no one else has mentioned that. maybe it's only me. LOL

i use just a lens hood.

 

[PhotoDim]

I will probably end up getting a Hoya Pro1 Digital Multi-Coated filter.

Is it best to get the CLEAR or to pay a bit more for the UV? I want the best protection and want to affect the image as little as possible.

 

[Alex_B]

Both. Think about it, hood protects from flare and boosts your ego, UV filter protects from direct contact.

this is why i use both.

 

[jstuedle]

This was discussed recently in a thread at:
http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=105426

My response at the time:
It's often a matter of personal preference, filter or not, hood or not. I use both on everything I own. The hood for flair, the filter for protection. A quick story. At my grandsons 6th birthday party, I took my D1X and a non-VR 24-120 zoom and SB-800. We were at a local chain pizza joint a week after opening. I had the camera sitting on the table, resting on it's back with the lens pointing up. You can see it coming, I'm sure. The new server was bringing a pitcher of cola to refill our drinks, hit the table with the bottom of the pitcher and dumped the entire 3 quarts of cola on the camera. About 1 1/2" of cola was floating on the lens. I picked up the camera, shook the cola off the lens/body/flash and patted it dry. That's it! No damage, no slow AF, no nothing, all three came out unscathed. Try that without a filter on a lens. A close friend was shooting moto-cross and took a rock the size of a golf ball in the center of the lens. Replaced the filter and that's it, no other damage. To me, it's cheap insurance. Just get the better coated filters and everything will be cool.

 

[PhotoDim]

Regular CLEAR or UV?

 

[kundalini]

i have never used UV filters because i find they make my images soft.

^^That statement utterly confounds me. I'm surprised no one else has picked up on that. Maybe I'm just stupid today.

If you have never used a UV filter, how do you know that it makes your images soft? If you have soft images because of a UV filter, how can you say that you have never used one? Also, If you have used one, was it a Dixie cup or a Champagne flute?

As it is with many things in the consumer market, you get what you pay for.