Lens Filters and Hoods

A

AboveFunction

Suspended / Banned
Messages
166
Name
Grant
Edit My Images
Yes
Hello guys,

I just want your advice on UV Filters for my Canon 600D.

Should I be using UV Lens for all out door work? Should I have a set of creative lens (Density, Polarizers etc..)

Also should I be using a lens hood, if so why?

I appreciate your advice

Grant
 
You don't need a UV filter on a digital camera - buy' creative' filters if you'll need them - use a lens hood - always! Lenshood offers all the protection you need - without adversly affecting the image quality.

Try a search - loads of threads on this already.
 
AboveFunction said:
Hello guys,

I just want your advice on UV Filters for my Canon 600D.

Should I be using UV Lens for all out door work? Should I have a set of creative lens (Density, Polarizers etc..)

Also should I be using a lens hood, if so why?

I appreciate your advice

Grant
Click to expand...

Realistically if you have to ask then the answer is no, if the question is how can I achieve this effect for a certain shot then maybe.

The filter debate is a long one with plenty of people on both sides of the fence but it largely is down to the type of photography you shoot, eg. Get a lot of peeps who shoot rallies who use uv for extra protection.

Density and polarisers, what do you shoot ?
 
I used UV lens' for protection at first but binned them soon after.

I suffered from a lot of light spots on the images, especially in low light.

I agree with above, use a hood and 'creative' filters when required.
 
I shoot a lot of portrait stuff, but I do venture out for some landscape stuff.

So a lens hood is a must and filters are only if I want them not a need?

Thanks for the advice guys :)
 
This us one if those ones that some people get worked up about. Personally I don't use uv filters for lens protection at all. But my gear is insured.

Lens hoods always unless I'm street shooting and flare isn't a problem, the lens is less imposing without one.
 
I always use kood filters, I own a uv but have never really used it but with landscapes the minimum of a circular polarizer in my bag
 
Always use a UV filter on all my lenses that will accept them apart from the ones that only get used in the studio - mostly.

If it goes outdoors it gets a filter put on it.
This I learned the hard way during forty years of taking photos...
 
In order of usefulness -

* CP - Can be used to enhance an image in a way that's totally impossible with software.
* GND - Has an effect that can be replicated in software, but never with equally good results.
* ND - Specialised uses where a very slow shutter speed is required in bright scenes.
* Special Effect Filters - things like Star filters - Can often be replicated in software (if you should ever be sad enough to want to).
* Coloured filters - Can normally be replicated easily in software.
* UV/so-called 'Protective' Filters - Can easily be replicated by using the 'Blur' and 'Lens Flare' tools in Photoshop.
 
I have found that UV filters really screw with my camera's AF. So I took them off. The only filters I use these days are CPL, ND and Grad. I have others, but find no real use for them.
 
awp said:
You don't need a UV filter on a digital camera - buy' creative' filters if you'll need them - use a lens hood - always! Lenshood offers all the protection you need - without adversly affecting the image quality.

Try a search - loads of threads on this already.
Click to expand...

OK i am listening on this filter v lens hood thing ,my first question is do lens hoods protect against smears and condensation ..
second what do youclass as a lens hood ..i have seen rubber lens hood you put out as and when you want ......then metal lens hoods that are fixed and that is that ........so what is the best lens hood rubber .....metal ???@
 
devilnev said:
OK i am listening on this filter v lens hood thing ,my first question is do lens hoods protect against smears and condensation ..
second what do youclass as a lens hood ..i have seen rubber lens hood you put out as and when you want ......then metal lens hoods that are fixed and that is that ........so what is the best lens hood rubber .....metal ???@
Click to expand...


I use a rubber colapsable mamiya one on my 70-200 in place of the supplied plastic one. Collapses for storage so its always on and provides a bit of bump protection.

I wish it would work on my 24-70 but vignettes at wide angle so I use the supplied plastic petal hood.

I use the metal or plastic ones supplied on all my other lenses and they work fine.
 
I've been using UV ones for protection as I thought it was more convenient than messing with a hood. However I'm getting a tad annoyed at decent (for me anyway) shots being ruined by light spots.

Is there any way at all to avoid these light spots or am i going to have to ditch the UV filters?

Also I'm now thinking of getting creative filters, which I assume won't have this problem?
 
Steelfish said:
I've been using UV ones for protection as I thought it was more convenient than messing with a hood. However I'm getting a tad annoyed at decent (for me anyway) shots being ruined by light spots.

Is there any way at all to avoid these light spots or am i going to have to ditch the UV filters?

Also I'm now thinking of getting creative filters, which I assume won't have this problem?
Click to expand...



I'm afraid that's one of the prolems uv filters can cause. And one of the reasons I personally don't use them. Not only is a hood better protection imo but essential for reducing unwanted flare.

You will need a hood or use something else like your hand to block the light hitting the lens regardless of any filters if its being a problem.
 
Last edited:
I'd love to see some of these 'decent' shots that have been 'ruined' by UV filters...

So many potential award-winning photographs just being binned because the photographer mistakenly used a UV filter...it's a National Disaster...we should start a campaign and shut these optical saboteurs down immediately.
 
I think a UV is a good idea for every day use for protection, but don't use it in situations where they could cause lens flare, into the sun or where there are points of light for example. Or in the studio where your lens should be relatively safe from flying possible debris and knocks.

You can always take a filter off when you need to, but you can't put one on if you haven't got one and you need it. I would rather have the protection, even if it is only piece of mind, than have to fix or replace a damaged lens.

Lens hoods should always be used imho, but of course a lens hood designed for the lens.
 
cobra_lite said:
I'd love to see some of these 'decent' shots that have been 'ruined' by UV filters...

So many potential award-winning photographs just being binned because the photographer mistakenly used a UV filter...it's a National Disaster...we should start a campaign and shut these optical saboteurs down immediately.
Click to expand...



Not sure anyone is saying a filter will ruin your shots. It's a personal choice but it will degrade lens performance no two ways about it. And the cheaper the filter the worse it gets, you can pay as much for a top quality filter as you would for a new front element in some lenses.

For me personally, I just don't like using them. I have used them, we had good reason to in the film days. But they cut some of the light entering the lens, fast lenses are expensive, then I gotta pay for a device to slow it down a bit? They can reduce the effectivness of autofocus especially in low light. They cause flare, sure you could take if off, but then I've missed the shot, easier to leave it off in the first place.

The thing us that front element is pretty tough and not as prone to damage as people might think. If you drop a lens and the element hits a big rock, chances are even with a filter on it will get a nick in the glass. People think that because the extremely thin uv filter breaks, it stopped the lens breaking. But the lens is much thicker.

I can easily see situations where the filter would CAUSE damage. Say you drop the lens and it hits a small tree stump, face first. filter shatters and the glass shards scratch the coating on the front element. Without the filter would the soft wood scratch the lens?

There are situations where I WOULD use a filter for protection. If I was going to shoot a factory scene with someone grinding and sparks are going to bounce off my lens, something like that.

We all have our own ideas about how carefully we should treat our gear, and mine are get the job done, try not to destroy anything too expensive in the process, but you can't make an omlette without breaking some eggs ;)
 
A good lens hood should provide the protection you need, with the bonus of preventing stray light causing flare. I had light spots on my photo's when using a UV filter, as well as focussing problems. Maybe it doesn't affect some camera's but it certainly affected mine...
 
i only really use filters for protection or for landscapes when using a square filter set.

i do try to use hoods most of the time, but half the time i just cant be botheres with the hassle of attaching them especially on my 11-18, which the hood is so big it doesnt fit comfortably in my bag really.
 
Well my take on it is that the UV Filter is there to filter out the UV light (obviously) and adding a bit protection at the same time. Since the DSLR Sensor has a UV filter built into it, this means that the UV filter you are attaching is not necessary.

What I use to "protect" the front element is a proper "lens protector" filter, if there is such a thing as it doesn't really filter anything out. The two that I use are Marumi DHG and Hoya Pro 1 Digital Protectors. They are not supposed to interfere with the light passing through the lens although that is somewhat debatable, especially on tog forums.

The way I see it is that my 70-200 or whatever lens is going to cost a lot more to be repaired than the original price of the "filter" if it should get scratched or chipped.
 
Scotty Pro said:
Well my take on it is that the UV Filter is there to filter out the UV light (obviously) and adding a bit protection at the same time. Since the DSLR Sensor has a UV filter built into it, this means that the UV filter you are attaching is not necessary.

What I use to "protect" the front element is a proper "lens protector" filter, if there is such a thing as it doesn't really filter anything out. The two that I use are Marumi DHG and Hoya Pro 1 Digital Protectors. They are not supposed to interfere with the light passing through the lens although that is somewhat debatable, especially on tog forums.

The way I see it is that my 70-200 or whatever lens is going to cost a lot more to be repaired than the original price of the "filter" if it should get scratched or chipped.
Click to expand...



What might be a good idea is for everyone who doesn't use uv filters for protection post images of their lenses that have been damaged because they didn't use one. NOT pictures of a broken 2mm thick piece of fragile uv filter but damage to a lens.

I would start but I have been a photographer for 20 years and don't have any yet.
 
Thats a fair comment Graham, I don't have any either, but, its a bit like insurance, you may never know when you might need it. Thats a "protector" and not a UV though.
 
Scotty Pro said:
..............
What I use to "protect" the front element is a proper "lens protector" filter, if there is such a thing as it doesn't really filter anything out. The two that I use are Marumi DHG and Hoya Pro 1 Digital Protectors. ..........
Click to expand...

ditto exactly
72mm Marumi DHG on Canon 35-105mm FD on Canon A-1
72mm Hoya Pro-1 D MC Protector on Sigma 17-70mm f2.8 on D5000
as the front element in both is somewhat exposed

just got the Canon - so too early to tell

BUT........took the D5000 to the park last week - I think EVERY shot is 'slightly' OOF
was using slowish shutter speeds ..:thinking:..plan to runs tests with/without Hoya
 
For me it depends on the weather, are you on the coast on a dry windy day with lots of sand being blown about? then the uv goes on, same place but no wind it comes off, are you at a car rally with lots of dust being thrown up in dry weather, or mud being thrown up on a wet day? uv goes on.

on calm days the uv stays off but the hood stays on always.
 
for a few quid get the hoods and consider the UV filters. for me, If I'm really bothered about the lens I get a filter too to protect it. It hardly makes any difference to the photo. But in low light I dont light the reflections the uv filters cause! :/

Hoods also look cool
 
I have an UV and circular polarizing filter as i thought these helped with the light when taking photos, is this incorrect then and am i better off removing these and purchasing a lens hood then
 
willow said:
I have an UV and circular polarizing filter as i thought these helped with the light when taking photos, is this incorrect then and am i better off removing these and purchasing a lens hood then
Click to expand...

A UV filter cannot improve image quality. Some people like to keep one on their lenses believing that it offers some sort of protection.:thinking:

A CPL can help a lot. If you have sunlight reflecting off water, or other surfaces, then the CPL can reduce the intensity of those reflections. It can also help darken blue skies, as long as you're pointed in the right direction.

With all filters you want to buy multi-coated, name-brand filters from a reliable supplier (i.e., not Ebay). These will be more expensive, but are worth it.
 
Some interesting stuff in this thread for sure :thumbs: I've recently upgraded to my first pair of L lenses and the "lens protection" aspect of filters has certainly been on my mind.

I've long been a fan of polarisers for my landscape shots and so have already purchased a Hoya CPL filter for my 24-105, but have been thinking about getting a UV filter for my 100-400 as well. Given the size of the hood that comes with the 100-400 am I wasting my money bothering with a filter for that lens?

Opinions welcome :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top