lens filters or hoods?

Beesha

Beesha

Suspended / Banned
Messages
4
Name
Vanetia
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi everyone,

Finally decided on and bought my first DSLR!!:clap:
After MUCH deliberation I settled on a Canon 450D which I absolutely love and got a great deal on a beginners kit from Curry's!!
This may sound really dumb but being a newbie to the world of photography, I'm slightly confused... I have been given several theories on why to use filters, I understand the effect of polarizing filters (just :thinking:)
Is it correct to use a UV filter for protection of my lens as well as its UV filtering effects?
Or is it better to by a lens hood??
Am I right in assuming they do completely different things though! :shrug:

ANY help or clarity will be much appreciated! :)
 
Welcome Beesha :)

This topic is the subject of endless debate, but here are the arguments.

UV filters do nothing at all to enhance the image. They are only useful for film, not digital. A UV filter provides physical protection only.

All filters degrade the image. Some times this is invisible, sometimes it is severe, depending on the filter and the circumstances, less so with high quality multi coated filters.

A lens hood only enhances image quality, sometime it's invisible and sometimes it's dramatic. Lens hoods also give good physical protection.

I have hoods for all my lenses, and always use them. I have various filters, but I do not possess any UV filters.

Now you choose ;)
 
Whatever else you do always have a lens hood on.
 
A filter will protect the front element of the lens from scratches etc. but might degrade the image quality unless you buy a really expensive one.

A lens hood will also protect the lens as it extends over the front of the lens, but will not stop the lens been scratched from grit etc. A lens hoods primary use is to stop flare by shading the front element.

I always use a lens hood.
 
I use both as theres so many ocassions where some drunken fool or other hazard will try to poke my lens, the hoods nice but i havent found any problems on my pics when using a decent quality hoya uv filter
 
I always use a hood, and occasionally UV filters if I'm working in spray or dust heavy environments else I avoid them as useless and IQ degrading

Hoods are great - always try to get bayonet fitted hoods as they don't roll sideways (only really a big deal on standard/wide lenses), clip on hoods can fall off (ala 50 f1.8), and screw in hoods damage focusing motors on some lenses (50 f1.4)
 
Hoods are a MUST

Filters for protection are a matter of opinion... some lenses suck in dust if you don't use one...
The 17-55 f2.8 for one.

If you buy the best pro ones it is unlikely to degrade an image, a cheap one certainly will.
But probably not to the extent that is noticeable on an entry level lens.

My choice is to use one.
 
HoppyUK said:
Welcome Beesha :)

This topic is the subject of endless debate, but here are the arguments.

UV filters do nothing at all to enhance the image. They are only useful for film, not digital. A UV filter provides physical protection only.

All filters degrade the image. Some times this is invisible, sometimes it is severe, depending on the filter and the circumstances, less so with high quality multi coated filters.

A lens hood only enhances image quality, sometime it's invisible and sometimes it's dramatic. Lens hoods also give good physical protection.

I have hoods for all my lenses, and always use them. I have various filters, but I do not possess any UV filters.

Now you choose ;)
Click to expand...

:agree: 100%
 
john crossley said:
A filter will protect the front element of the lens from scratches etc.
Click to expand...

Not always so - I SAW A TOG WITH A LENS HE HAD DROPPED WITH A FILTER ON IT FOR 'PROTECTION' - The filter smashed and covered the front element of the lens with shards of glass - useful protection eh? I always use lens hoods.
(sorry about the caps!) :)
 
HoppyUK said:
UV filters do nothing at all to enhance the image. They are only useful for film, not digital. A UV filter provides physical protection only.
Click to expand...

Not sure about that. A UV filter should cut down some of the haze making things in the distance a bit clearer. I would have thought it would make no difference if film or digital.


HoppyUK said:
A lens hood only enhances image quality, sometime it's invisible and sometimes it's dramatic. Lens hoods also give good physical protection.
Click to expand...

Agreed. If you want to see what difference a lens hood makes, you don't even need to use a camera. Just go out and look at something on a bright day. Hold your hand flat and horizontal just above your eyes blocking light entering from above and you will see an instant increase in contrast.


Steve.
 
awp said:
Not always so - I SAW A TOG WITH A LENS HE HAD DROPPED WITH A FILTER ON IT FOR 'PROTECTION' - The filter smashed and covered the front element of the lens with shards of glass - useful protection eh? I always use lens hoods.
(sorry about the caps!) :)
Click to expand...

Not trying to be funny but if he dropped it and his filter smashed, if he hadnt had a filter on wouldnt his front element just have smashed instead? :shrug:
 
awp said:
Not always so - I SAW A TOG WITH A LENS HE HAD DROPPED WITH A FILTER ON IT FOR 'PROTECTION' - The filter smashed and covered the front element of the lens with shards of glass - useful protection eh? I always use lens hoods.
(sorry about the caps!) :)
Click to expand...

A filter will protect from dust, grit and fingers scratching the front element. It won't stop anything smashing if you drop it, but there again I doubt a hood would stop anything smashing if you dropped a lens. Obviously depending how far it falls, and what onto.
 
Frenzied Dwarf said:
Not trying to be funny but if he dropped it and his filter smashed, if he hadnt had a filter on wouldnt his front element just have smashed instead? :shrug:
Click to expand...

doubt it , but whatever , smashed front element of shards of non removable filter buried in the front element , it aint good either way , hood for me , and filter if bad conditions dictate :)
 
Steve Smith said:
Not sure about that. A UV filter should cut down some of the haze making things in the distance a bit clearer. I would have thought it would make no difference if film or digital.

Steve.
Click to expand...

Steve, film has UV sensitivity, and so does digital, but digital has sharp cut UV and IR filters over the sensor.

TBH, I don't think it was very much of a problem with film either, as modern multi-element lenses are pretty effective UV filters themselves. More likely to be a problem with a 4-element Tessar though ;)
 
Terrywoodenpic said:
Hoods are a MUST

Filters for protection are a matter of opinion... some lenses suck in dust if you don't use one...The 17-55 f2.8 for one.

If you buy the best pro ones it is unlikely to degrade an image, a cheap one certainly will.
But probably not to the extent that is noticeable on an entry level lens.

My choice is to use one.
Click to expand...

I've heard that before - a filter seals a zoom from sucking in dust etc - but I'm skeptical.

If this was a genuine problem, why don't manufacturers seal the front? It can't be hard. Air has got to come in from somewhere and if the entire lens and camera was sealed, you couldn't zoom the lens against a vacuum.

So is it maybe better to suck air in and out of the front, rather than through the other seals? It could be that in sealing the front, you're forcing the lens to pump dirty air in and out of the mirror box.

BTW, my 17-55 2.8 is perfectly clean :) But if it comes to it, I know it's very easy to do it yourself. Remove lens ID bezel, undo a couple of cross-head screws and the front element drops out. It could even have been made with easy cleaning in mind...
 
Hoods all the time,very occasionally filters if there is shot flying about.....:)
 
HoppyUK said:
I've heard that before - a filter seals a zoom from sucking in dust etc - but I'm skeptical.

If this was a genuine problem, why don't manufacturers seal the front? It can't be hard. Air has got to come in from somewhere and if the entire lens and camera was sealed, you couldn't zoom the lens against a vacuum.

So is it maybe better to suck air in and out of the front, rather than through the other seals? It could be that in sealing the front, you're forcing the lens to pump dirty air in and out of the mirror box.

BTW, my 17-55 2.8 is perfectly clean :) But if it comes to it, I know it's very easy to do it yourself. Remove lens ID bezel, undo a couple of cross-head screws and the front element drops out. It could even have been made with easy cleaning in mind...
Click to expand...

They do seal L glass against dust and rain, but not a 17-55 f2.8 nor any of their entry lenses.
I use my lens mostly on dusty building sites.. I have no dust in it at all yet. Nor have I had to clean My 40D sensor in two years.
 
Terrywoodenpic said:
They do seal L glass against dust and rain, but not a 17-55 f2.8 nor any of their entry lenses.
I use my lens mostly on dusty building sites.. I have no dust in it at all yet. Nor have I had to clean My 40D sensor in two years.
Click to expand...

Out of curiosity, I just put a plastic bag over the mount of my 17-55 2.8, and zoomed it with and without a filter on.

With the filter in place, the bag fills more than without, only slightly but noticeably. Which I guess confirms that the lens does indeed 'breathe' from the front, at least partially, and that with a filter on, more air is being push-pulled through the camera.

It also suggests that if this is happening, with a filter on the zoom ring will be a little bit stiffer. So I tried that too and you know, I think it is stiffer with the filter on. Could be my imagination, very hard to judge ;)

I'm not sure it's that much of issue either way though.
 
:thumbs:
Thank you sooooo much everyone!! All of your input is much appreciated.

HoppyUK
Welcome Beesha

This topic is the subject of endless debate, but here are the arguments.

UV filters do nothing at all to enhance the image. They are only useful for film, not digital. A UV filter provides physical protection only.

All filters degrade the image. Some times this is invisible, sometimes it is severe, depending on the filter and the circumstances, less so with high quality multi coated filters.

A lens hood only enhances image quality, sometime it's invisible and sometimes it's dramatic. Lens hoods also give good physical protection.

I have hoods for all my lenses, and always use them. I have various filters, but I do not possess any UV filters.

Now you choose
Click to expand...

Thanks Hoppy Uk,
I think the general consensus is to DEFINITELY use a lens hood at all times and a UV filter for protection if necessary and specific filters (polarizing) for photographic effects!
That's what I will go with for now and see how it plays out for me.

Terrywoodenpic

Hoods are a MUST

Filters for protection are a matter of opinion... some lenses suck in dust if you don't use one...
The 17-55 f2.8 for one.

If you buy the best pro ones it is unlikely to degrade an image, a cheap one certainly will.
But probably not to the extent that is noticeable on an entry level lens.

My choice is to use one.
Click to expand...

I have the basic 18-55 kit lens so I'm guessing it's a 'dust sucker', I will definitely be in need of both a filter and hood.

I have ALOT more clarity on the issue now, thanks again guys.
I have more stuff to add to the list of 'to-buy' it's getting longer by the day :lol:
:thankyou:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top