AGeoJO wrote:
I use lens hoods religiously. Filters, on the other hand, only if absolutely there is a need to. Why add another piece of glass in your wonderful optical instrument? Just my opinion and your mileage may vary.
+1
I always leave the hood on including when putting the lens on a shelf so that I don’t have to search for the hood when I want to use the lens.
When not in use my lenses are stored vertically resting on the hood.
Sometimes with a camera still connected on top. So far so good.
I tripped while out shooting a few weeks ago and hit the ground hard. Was terrified my A1 would be damaged...turned out the lens hood, which had completely absorbed the impact, was the only thing damaged. Always, always use a lens hood or you will someday regret it.
Lens hoods can make a tremendous difference. Go outside, try looking through the viewfinder without the lens hood, and then move your hand over the lens to block the light. In many conditions you see an immediate increase in contrast.
I have chosen camera bags that have deep enough pockets so the lenses can fit inside with their hoods on (not reversed). I also like to have a UV filter on them and leave the lens caps somewhere in my pocket when I'm out shooting so I can quickly change lenses and be ready to shoot without fiddling with hoods or caps.
I think many people worry about UV filter is myth from the past. With nano coatings these days sometimes 16 layers on each side of the filter, there is almost no difference in IQ. I’d say there is way more difference in IQ between lens copies on the same lens.
sandycrane wrote:
Yes, it's no longer the heated and ever present debate it used to be. Thank goodness.
We now have other ways to assert our preferences over other's.
Same can said about flare issues when shooting without lens hood.
I use hood most of the time on my lenses as it protects front element from branches in forest, rain and when pumping against other people in crowded city. However, if I want to travel light with a small bag, it is not an issue for me to live hood(s) at home.
UV-filter? No matter how small loss in IQ, I just do not like the idea. I happily use a helmet when cycling, though
TakenWild wrote:
I think many people worry about UV filter is myth from the past. With nano coatings these days sometimes 16 layers on each side of the filter, there is almost no difference in IQ. I’d say there is way more difference in IQ between lens copies on the same lens.
The only downside of (good) clear/UV filters I've noticed is that they can increase reflections, which is kinda obvious I guess, so when shooting into the sun it makes sense to take them off (on A1 specifically, the effect can be quite noticeable as PD-AF lines become clearly visible in some ghosts).
However, the protection against scratches/sand/dust/rain/... is imho a clear advantage of filters compared to hoods, let alone benefits of some filters (like Zeiss/Kenko UV) which can reduce fringing / color cast on some lenses.
My 24-105 is now 6 years old. My first and only lens for 2 years before I bought the 100-400 when I switched to Sony in 2018. The only filter I've ever used is a CPL and sparingly at that. My front element (on all my lenses) is pristine.
I've had my lens (s) out in all kinds of weather. Rain, snow, wind and blowing dirt and dust, heat, below freezing temps and over 100 degree heat. It's been in all kinds of environments from desert to the ocean. So I beg to question, what the heck fire do some do to their lenses? Swat insects?
Honestly I never lost or destroyed a lens in my 50 years as a Working Pro due to no filter. Lens hoods have saved my ass but filters never and I’ve been all over the globe shooting annual reports and marketing materials. When I shot medium format digital I used my hands as shades
Let's settle this question once and for all. It's Highlander....there can be only one.
There are pros and cons for every choice we make. We use our judgement based on our preferences and priorities. We make tons of these decisions every time we go out and shoot. This is just one of them.
Let's settle this question once and for all. It's Highlander....there can be only one.
There are pros and cons for every choice we make. We use our judgement based on our preferences and priorities. We make tons of these decisions every time we go out and shoot. This is just one of them.
Let's settle this question once and for all. It's Highlander....there can be only one.
There are pros and cons for every choice we make. We use our judgement based on our preferences and priorities. We make tons of these decisions every time we go out and shoot. This is just one of them.
You are right, Tim! We need to respect what the other group thinks what is right for them and what their preference is. It doesn't make much sense to convince the other group that only our thinking is the only option.
I don’t feel like anyone is trying to convince others that their way is the best. Everyone is just relaying their experiences which I find very informative. Everyone has their way of shooting which definitely affects their views on using hoods and filters.
People tend to be passionate about what they do and why they do it. Definitely a good discussion as to what the pros and cons are (perceived) to help inform people in making their own decision. I was starting to get the "well this is my experience, so I doubt your reasoning on why you don't follow my approach, so tell me why you don't agree with my approach based on my experience" vibe.
Frankly one of the main reasons I don't use hoods is that I shoot a lot of primes, and often like to take a lot of them with me. If I can leave them mounted normal and they fit in a slot, I'm more apt to use them. Otherwise, they end up being a hassle when switching lenses and take up space in may bag. I'm fine with this approach (and realize others may not, and that's ok.) I also use polarizers and dark polarizers a lot and often step lenses up to a common denominator size so I don't have to invest in so many filters. In those cases, I can't use hoods. Heck, when I was using Breakthrough Photography filters more, sometimes the knurling on the properly sized filter made it impossible to mount and dismount the hood.
And now that I've slipped and said that I like to carry a lot of primes...I'm worried this will turn into a primes vs zooms discussion and we'll be right back at the beginning of another preference/priority choice that's personal.
So to sum up
Hoods can't solve all flaring problems
Filters can't solve flaring/ghosting problems and can be the cause some flaring/ghosting problems
When using a filter only, it may be possible to mitigate flaring/ghosting issues in some cases
Some filters can have a positive effect on some lenses, granted probably a very small subset
Hoods provide some protection to the lens and front element
Filters provide some protection to the front element, probably less so in terms of lens protection
Filters take up less space than hoods
Sometimes we want to use filters that preclude the use of the hood (filter systems....step up rings to use a smaller number of filter sizes, etc.)
You could in theory use both, which not too many people mentioned
And I'm sure I've missed things...there might be things people disagree with. But if you take that list and asked everyone to weigh the impacts of the choice, different people may end up with different preferences on what to use.
Find what works for you, those who don't really know why you would use one, the other, or both...this thread is a good resource.
tsdevine wrote:
People tend to be passionate about what they do and why they do it. Definitely a good discussion as to what the pros and cons are (perceived) to help inform people in making their own decision. I was starting to get the "well this is my experience, so I doubt your reasoning on why you don't follow my approach, so tell me why you don't agree with my approach based on my experience" vibe.
Frankly one of the main reasons I don't use hoods is that I shoot a lot of primes, and often like to take a lot of them with me. If I can leave them mounted normal and they fit i a slot, I'm more apt to use them. Otherwise, they end up being a hassle when switching lenses and take up space in may bag. I'm fine with this approach (and realize others may not, and that's ok.) I also use polarizers and dark polarizers a lot and often step lenses up to a common denominator size so I don't have to invest in so many filters. In those cases, I can't use hoods. Heck, when I was using Breakthrough Photography filters more, sometimes the knurling on the properly sized filter make it impossible to mount and dismount the hood.
And now that I've slipped and said that I like to carry a lot of primes...I'm worried this will turn into a primes vs zooms discussion and we'll be right back at the beginning of another preference/priority choice that's personal.
So to sum up
Hoods can't solve all flaring problems
Filters can't solve flaring/ghosting problems and can be the cause some flaring/ghosting problems
When using a filter only, it may be possible to mitigate flaring/ghosting issues in some cases
Some filters can have a positive effect on some lenses, granted probably a very small subset
Hoods provide some protection to the lens and front element
Filters provide some protection to the front element, probably less so in terms of lens protection
Filters take up less space than hoods
Sometimes we want to use filters that preclude the use of the hood (filter systems....step up rings to use a smaller number of filter sizes, etc.)
You could in theory use both, which not too many people mentioned
And I'm sure I've missed things...there might be things people disagree with. But if you take that list and asked everyone to weigh the impacts of the choice, different people may end up with different preferences on what to use.
Find what works for you, those who don't really know why you would use one, the other, or both...this thread is a good resource. ...Show more →
I use filters on all my lenses. I used to buy UV, but more recently I've gone to clear glass protector filters. My view is filters reduce/eliminate any scratching of the lens. And cleaning is never 100%. I'd rather clean a filter over and over than the lens. And I've tested a few of my filters with MTF mapper to see how much they degrade the image. They don't. I have zero worries about that. As for non UV filters...I'd rather let some UV light in my lens. Might inhibit fungal growth.
I also use hoods if it's sunny...but after reading the comments here, I'll be using them all the time.
OK, but if you’re going to use a hood, you have to decide which hood to use.
I was interested to see that OP was considering using the hood from another zoom in an effort to save space and weight in his kit, despite the noted expected vignetting. Others may make similar sacrifices, knowingly or unknowingly.
Like Guy, I often use cheap screw-in hoods or sometimes just a couple of rings to fend off glancing side light, although I’ve never really compared the efficacy of such trade-offs. After reading this thread as well as the “hoods while traveling?” thread I attempted to do just that using my CV 35 APO as a test bed. You can get an idea of the results from a few sample shots that I’ve uploaded here:
In these tests, the OEM hood for the 35 APO doesn’t do much; it seems designed to avoid vignetting even if it’s attached to a couple of filters. The hood for the 50mm APO lens does much better, and without vignetting. Two empty filter rings didn’t provide any protection in the conditions I used, but a step-down ring combination did as well or better than the OEM hood. So—in these particular shots, with a bright light source just outside of the upper corner of the frame—the protection from flare was from best to worst CV 50 hood > step-down ring combination, which was as good or (usually better than the CV 35 hood, which was as good or better than two rings > no hood or filter rings. This seemed to track with the extent that the lens was occluded when viewed obliquely.
Since I’ve been content with the CV 35 hood until today I suppose that I could use the step-down combination when I really need to save space or use a generic “normal” lens hood that matches the lenses thread and is almost as long as the CV hood. I have no idea how this affects contrast from the great soft box in the sky, but I suppose other factors like reflections within the hood might matter, too.
