Lens Hood and UV Protection Filter?

[newbie06]

a good debate....lol...thanks for the info mates...

 

[itznfb]

I agree a UV filter is a necessity for front element protection. I've gone through several filters with no damage to the lens. Especially at rally races for example. I'll often leave a race with several scratches to the filter that are unrepairable and the lens itself is fine.

Obviously if you're shooting product photography in your home you shouldn't need additional protection. It all depends on what environment you're in. Also... there are several in-depth studies done to show that even the cheapest filters don't affect image quality. I know a lot of people will argue against this point but whatever. Some filters may increase flare a bit but I've never experienced this. If I can shoot through a screen door without it affecting image quality than a piece of glass shouldn't be any worse.

 

[GFreg]

By the sounds of it - we're the only two who think this way...LoL. Granted, I'm a photography newb and my opinion doesn't count. That makes you all alone ..... lol.

Cheers!
- Dan

Dan, it isn't that your opinion doesn't count, but other people are voicing their opinions too. A UV filter might seem like it will protect your lens from dirt and debris and essentially it will because there is another layer of separation. Like, KmH mentioned though, unless you are buying top of the line those filters will most likely be cheaply made and have poor optical quality. This means that there is another piece of glass that is degrading the image that you are trying to capture. If you had something strike the lens hard enough to break the filter then there is no guarantee that the actual lens wont be damaged either. I have seen numerous people that have complained that broken pieces of the filter actually caused damage to the lens. I would prefer to buy a useful filter, like a circular polarizing filter and take my chances that I can count on myself to resonably protect my camera and lens.

That said, I don't think there is really a right or wrong answer, it just comes down to what you are comfortable with and what you prefer. I am going to use a silly example here. I buy a really nice leather jacket and I am afraid it might get scratched while walking down the street. I decide to wrap it in plastic to keep it safe. Am I wrong to do this? Some people would argue that I ruined a beautiful leather jacket. It still does what a jacket is supposed to do. It keeps me warm and I have no problems with it being wrapped in plastic. Who is right and who is wrong?

Edit: Long reply is long. Sorry about that.

 

[itznfb]

I posted these examples before... I'm not saying this is the case every time it's just ONE example.

That being said; I took these shots one with a $100 B&W filter, and the other with a $3~5 grab bag filter. The grab bag filter had a bunch of scratches, and was even a little warped. The funny thing is, it's been a while since I looked at these and I'm not even sure which one is which lol. Can you tell?

Edit: I remember which one is which now... the little flag was waving in the background it's in one shot but not the other...

 

[newbie06]

I posted these examples before... I'm not saying this is the case every time it's just ONE example.

That being said; I took these shots one with a $100 B&W filter, and the other with a $3~5 grab bag filter. The grab bag filter had a bunch of scratches, and was even a little warped. The funny thing is, it's been a while since I looked at these and I'm not even sure which one is which lol. Can you tell?

Edit: I remember which one is which now... the little flag was waving in the background it's in one shot but not the other...

lets say you took good care of the B+W and left the ebay one outside..fair enough...

 

[usayit]

No caps and I don't baby my lenses... high quality filters for me.

If you are a person who likes to shoot with vintage glass... it helps as the old elements are rather soft.

For every person who post comparison photos of high versus low quality filters there is someone else who will post proving otherwise... (Last time recall it was Garbz.. i think).

 

[newbie06]

without uv filter


with uv filter



which one look better????

 

[robbie_vlad]

Top.
I personally don't put a $25-$100 filter on my $1200 piece of glass, it just seems counter-productive to me. I always have the hood on though, just to avoid accidental bumps. Even when shooting paintball, I have the hood, but no filter. If I did take a direct hit to the front element, the glass shards from a filter would be more likely to scratch the lens than just a paintball...

 

[Eco]

Even when shooting paintball, I have the hood, but no filter. If I did take a direct hit to the front element, the glass shards from a filter would be more likely to scratch the lens than just a paintball...

You bring a camera to a gun fight?


How do you clean mud or grit from your front element? With a filter you can just wash it off in a sink, I've always wondered how it's done with a lens that is not waterproof.

 

[chip]

I usually put skylight 1B filtesr on my lenses for protection. I also had a couple of lenses with no filters at all. I don't think it make any noticeable difference with or without the filter. I would say if you are like me who wants to put a filter on the lens get a multi-coated filter. To me it is just my habit to put a filter on a lens. Some wide angle lenses have no provision for filters so in those cases I don't.

 

[newbie06]

can someone do an experiment: shoot a paintball straight into a lens without a filter...n try cleaning it... :lmao:

 

[DerekSalem]

The hood is only necessary if you're planning on shooting a lot of scenery or portrait shots at an angle near that to the sun. If the sun is out of frame but it's still hitting the lens pretty hard you might want a hood to block out some of the extra light coming into the sensor.

As far as Filters: For a kit lens there's no point in getting a filter at all (unless it's some type of artistic filter). Once you get a good lens you'll probably want to make sure to get a good filter for it (on my sigma I use a Hoya Pro1 Digital -- my dad actually bought it for me for my birthday this year for around $50). I only say it's not worth it for the Kit lens because most people don't end up keeping the kit lens for long periods of time.

The filter *can* help in certain scenes for sure, but not always. In most scenes it does help to bring out certain colors slightly better and does a better job of blocking certain UV light from bouncing around inside the lens/glass parts (which degrades picture quality). I keep the Hoya on my Sigma at all times and I have a Canon UV filter for my 50mm as well. Just make sure it's multi-coated when you get it (the one for my 50mm was $12 on ebay brand new).

 

[itznfb]

without uv filter


with uv filter



which one look better????

You have a blue light (maybe a monitor on) in the first shot that is not on in the second shot. Try doing a real test. :er: The conditions of those two shots are completely different.

 

[flyin-lowe]

Once you wade through all this and if you decide to get hoods check on Ebay. I bought three "Chinese" hoods for my Canon Lens's and the total was around $20.00 for all. My FIL has the Canon brands and there is not really any difference at all except he paid over $20.00 a piece for his.