I was a lens hood all time, anti UV filter guy for years. I still ended up with scratches on my front elements which cost me hundreds or even thousands in resale value. I'm now the opposite. I now rarely use lens hoods and nearly always use high quality UV filters. No regrets. To be honest the main motivation for me was the extra bulk and weight they add to my backpack when hiking and travelling.
dakel wrote:
I was a lens hood all time, anti UV filter guy for years. I still ended up with scratches on my front elements which cost me hundreds or even thousands in resale value. I'm now the opposite. I now rarely use lens hoods and nearly always use high quality UV filters. No regrets. To be honest the main motivation for me was the extra bulk and weight they add to my backpack when hiking and travelling.
I've used my hoods on all my lenses for almost 40 years, but recently have come to the conclusion that *for vacation only* I'm ditching the hoods and putting on clear filters and not worrying about the front element since hoods take up so much room in my small travel pack. Now I can easily fit my A7R5, Sony 35GM, Sony 20G, and Sigma 90/2.8 in my Thinktank Turnstyle 10 v2 bag with ease. I've never used clear or UV filters, but for travel, I'm putting them on those three lenses and not worrying about the hood.
I use the exact same filters, the Kenko ZXII L41 uv filters are best filters you can get in my opinion. I see no image deficiency with them on and I’m more of pixel peeper than 90% of the people on FM! Haha
tsdevine wrote:
I will be shunned, forever an outcast at FM.
I generally don't use hoods, but do often use Kenko ZXII L41 or Zeiss UV filters, as I like the results from some of my lenses when they are used. I do forego filters and use the hood on my Sigma 14-24.
They have been hard to get in the US. Ricoh started carrying them, but they don't do a great job restocking them.
Customer support suggested I look on eBay.....and the only seller selling them is in Australia (what a coincidence.). A little salty with shipping.
TakenWild wrote:
I use the exact same filters, the Kenko ZXII L41 uv filters are best filters you can get in my opinion. I see no image deficiency with them on and I’m more of pixel peeper than 90% of the people on FM! Haha
For a lot of landscape cases UV filters improve optical performance if you use high quality ones, due to the fact that you clean your filter more frequently than front elements. Water spray or dust on the lens is far more likely to lessen IQ than a clean UV filter. If you are shooting near the ocean you’d be nuts not to have a UV filter.
Generaly there are so many reasons to use a hood. There is only one reason not to. Convenience. So I do. I want all the contrast I paid for because it adds to IQ.
The exception is when shooting long lenses in very cold weather. This video from Steve Perry explains that issue.
UV filters are a different thing. Using them is situational.I use them when they add benefit. Shooting when there is moisture or dust in the air requiring frequent cleaning are examples of this. I carry a UV filter in my filter case and use it when appropriate. Filters are always on my very expensive Leica lenses. They have built in hoods full time also so no light/contrast issues from using them. No worries when cleaning them. Since Leica lenses are not weather sealed I do get some extra protection from some splashes.I use very high quality filters and have never noticed a degradation in IQ.
I am not saying any of this is objectively the correct way to do things. Just that it has worked well for me over the years. I have never experienced any issues with the front element of any of my lenses over the years.
I sometimes use lens hoods on my longer primes but hardly ever on the zooms as they are only really going to have any use at the wide settings (happy for someone to say otherwise). I always use high quality clear/UV filter and will only take off if I'm getting some ghosting.
I don’t understand the bulk argument. With at least the modern Sony lenses, they’re reversible. Yeah, adds a bit of width when reversed, but not _that_ much….
Exactly how much bulk does it add to the normal set of lenses I take with me?
goo0h wrote:
I don’t understand the bulk argument. With at least the modern Sony lenses, they’re reversible. Yeah, adds a bit of width when reversed, but not _that_ much….
Well for me I never use a UV filter as im not going to put a cheap 90 dollar filter on a 2 k lens. That's makes no sense and I never seen any difference with or without. Ive been shooting forever and medium format digital as well. Lens hoods I always hated the one that come with the lens, always too big for me and I buy and sell lenses a lot so always kept the OEMs in the box for resale. I buy cheap metal hoods off of eBay and they always served me quite well. Usually smaller and more compact plus I lose it its only 8 bucks. I maybe going against the grain here but I made a nice career like this not going to change now. The only filters I use are CPL and ND filters . If I ever need more in a lens hood than my hand comes up to the lens to help. Best shade yet.
I’ve found It makes a tangible difference in many CV lenses. Also on the Tamron 32/2.8. Generally those are the lenses where I find them beneficial, and it has to be a hard cut at 410nm. For most other lenses, I don’t see much of a tangible benefit from an image perspective. Sony’s sensor stack cuts UV at around 410nm as well, at least from what I remember from some Kolari references.
In any case I wouldn’t argue about what others do. I assume everyone has their reasons.
GMPhotography wrote:
Well for me I never use a UV filter as im not going to put a cheap 90 dollar filter on a 2 k lens. That's makes no sense and I never seen any difference with or without. Ive been shooting forever and medium format digital as well. Lens hoods I always hated the one that come with the lens, always too big for me and I buy and sell lenses a lot so always kept the OEMs in the box for resale. I buy cheap metal hoods off of eBay and they always served me quite well. Usually smaller and more compact plus I lose it its only 8 bucks. I maybe going against the grain here but I made a nice career like this not going to change now. The only filters I use are CPL and ND filters . If I ever need more in a lens hood than my hand comes up to the lens to help. Best shade yet. ...Show more →
Many news photogs don’t bother with a hood, or have them reversed. Makes the lens smaller and less likely to catch on things in a paparazzi crush. Their pics work out. I do always use a hood, but people often seem to describe magical properties to them at times. Try a few shots with and without, most of the time you probably won’t see a difference. Also you can see flare in the viewfinder, so if you see it you should try the hood, or use a hand to shade the sun. Shooting against the sun, a hood will not necessarily help.
CV lenses do have some different coatings in them that do not match Sony. But these things usually are more WB changes one makes. Maybe more but I don't analyze these type of things. Im a little lazy .
In this case the difference from my eye is somewhat make or break for me. And for whatever reason I’m very sensitive to magenta and I don’t like making the center green to make up for the edges and corners. But just trying to explain why I do what I do. More than happy to let others do what they find works for them and definitely not suggesting others have to do what I do.
GMPhotography wrote:
CV lenses do have some different coatings in them that do not match Sony. But these things usually are more WB changes one makes. Maybe more but I don't analyze these type of things. Im a little lazy .
goo0h wrote:
I don’t understand the bulk argument. With at least the modern Sony lenses, they’re reversible. Yeah, adds a bit of width when reversed, but not _that_ much….
Yes, reversing the hood is an option and many lenses will fit in a bag this way, but when on vacation, I don’t want to be futzing with my lens hood every time I pull it out of my sling bag. I’ve found over the years that I’ll just pull it out and leave it reversed so I can take the shot instantly. So for travel (where photography isn’t the main purpose) I’m leaving the hoods home since they won’t fit in my bag if they are all on (not reversed).
Protection from hitting the front element of the lens is my primary reason for using a hood. Also when it’s raining there is way less chance for rain getting onto the front element.
I use those metal hoods more as a protection device than anything else. I used my hand for all the years I did medium format digital so something I am used to doing but 35mm cams get tossed around more as im more freehand than tripod so the metal hoods are great as if I dent one up which I have done its a easy cheap replacement
1bwana1 wrote:
Generaly there are so many reasons to use a hood. There is only one reason not to. Convenience. So I do. I want all the contrast I paid for because it adds to IQ.
The exception is when shooting long lenses in very cold weather. This video from Steve Perry explains that issue.
UV filters are a different thing. Using them is situational.I use them when they add benefit. Shooting when there is moisture or dust in the air requiring frequent cleaning are examples of this. I carry a UV filter in my filter case and use it when appropriate. Filters are always on my very expensive Leica lenses. They have built in hoods full time also so no light/contrast issues from using them. No worries when cleaning them. Since Leica lenses are not weather sealed I do get some extra protection from some splashes.I use very high quality filters and have never noticed a degradation in IQ.
I am not saying any of this is objectively the correct way to do things. Just that it has worked well for me over the years. I have never experienced any issues with the front element of any of my lenses over the years....Show more →
