Filter - Hood or Naked

[neil_r]

There have been a few threads recently that have sparked some debate about what is the best way to protect your front element lens. Personally, I have Hoya Super HMC PRO UV on all my lenses and to be honest whilst I know it can be scientifically proven that there is some image deterioration I can’t see it.

I am interested to see what the spread of feelings is here so hence the poll.

N

[tim]

Lens hoods for me, or buck naked. Once I get L lenses i'll probably get filters for them, right now my lenses aren't so expensive I worry about them too much.

[flyfisher]

I use both filters and hoods, so i will abstain from voting.

[primoz]

I wrote something about this last time in other part of forum. Personally I have UV filters on all of my lenses (those which can be fitted with it, 300/2.8 can't be but that doesn't count :) ). I agree it might degrade quality but I'm shooting mostly outside and since I'm shooting sport it means lot of bad weather. I can "clean" lens with anything I have around and if nothing else t-shirt does it job. I can do this because $50 filter is cheap to replace. If result of such "cleaning" would be few $100 for changed front lens element it would be quite hard to do my job. So for me uv or not uv is no brainer. But if you work in more controled enviroment and there's no hectic around, then I guess just lens hood or not even that will do fine.

[KennyG]

EOS magazine were planning to print a list of lenses where use of a filter caused issues with the AF. I hate using filters, other than a CPL from time-to-time, as they are very expensive for very little real protection and any additional glass, no matter how good, creates unwanted effects.

Hoods on the other hand keep the glass well back from the front edge and reduce flare without adding anything to deteriorate the image. As I commented on a much earlier thread on this subject, how to the filterholics cope with the big primes, they must never take them out in the real world. It gets really silly when someone puts a £25 filter on a £70 50 1.8

To add to my comments, and for Primoz's benefit, all my shooting is done outside, trackside at motor race circuits and, in 25 years without filters I have never had any lens damage that a filter would have prevented.

[ohenry]

Normal cleaning will NOT damage the front element of a lens. If you clean your glass with a dremel tool or brillo pad, you might have issues.

[pcasciola]

I use Hoya Super HMC (Not pro) UVs on all my lenses. I've done tests with and without, and I can't see any difference at all, so I consider it cheap insurance.

[Pekka]

No filters unless I need a polarizer, but I always use hoods, and they are on when lens is on bag, too.

[Tom W]

Always hood. Filter only when I'm using a polarizer or if I'm in a really messy situation where I know that I'll have to clean some serious gunk off the lens afterwards. Someplace like a steel mill or a power plant would be a good candidate for a filter and a hood (and a hardhat).

[boomer1959]

I too use both. But use the hood for a different reason.

[Jon]

Both. It's a lot harder to knock a filter off, and there's always that short interval when you're re-attaching the hood from its stowed position.

[JAZZ D.P.G.]

Both. HIgh end UV filters on all lens, which are replaced with CP if required.
Hoods for all lens, meant more for relflected lighting than protection. Protection is a secondary prize.
If I ever find a issue with the UV lens, I'll re-investigate this practice.

[thomascanty]

I use both filters and hoods, so i will abstain from voting.

Same here.

[Steve Parr]

I use both filters and hoods, so i will abstain from voting.

Ditto...

Steve

[fslshooter]

I'm so glad you asked this because I wanted to know what was best for my use. With only a very few exceptions I shoot everything outdoors and have always used both filters and hoods. I'll be shooting without filters starting now -- thanks for the info KennyG!

[DocFrankenstein]

I threw out 50 bucks on a UV filter.

Waste of money. My sigma AF doesn't work with it.

[primoz]

I didn't mean my post as "if you shoot outside you have to have it!". It was meant as "i feel better knowing I'm cleaning filter and not lens with my sweating t-shirt". I agree it might be just fine cleaning lens like this too, but I'm not going to try :)
And you can't really compare 300/2.8 with 70-200/2.8 in this case. 300/2.8 has real hood with which I'm comfortable even with no filters (like there would be anything to fit 300/2.8 anyway :) ) while 70-200/2.8 hood is more joke then something else when it comes to dust, rain and snow.
But all that is only my personal opinion nothing else :)

[jukas]

99% of the time if I'm using a filter it's either a CPL or a Grad ND filter. The rest of the time it's just hoods. Very rarely if I'm in the desert or at the beach and the wind is kicking up a dust/sand storm I'll slap on a UV filter or just put my camera away.

[lomond]

Always UV filter and almost always a hood.

Canon fit a protective element to the front of the 500mm and 600mm super-telephoto lenses. So if it's good enough for those lenses it's good enough for mine.

Quote from canon.com

"Adoption of meniscus lenses
Most super-telephoto lenses have a protective glass at the front. When this glass has a flat surface, the light that reflects off the image sensor reflects back from the protective glass, occasionally resulting in spot-shaped ghost.
To eliminate this phenomenon, all of Canon's large-aperture IS super-telephoto lenses adopt a meniscus lens shaped protective glass."

[Anteros]

On my cheaper lenses, I just use a hood. On the more expensive lenses, I use both uv and hood.

[RJSorensen]

Just hoods . . . and a CP as needed. I leave my hoods on 24/7, in this day and age you just should not go out without 'some' protection.

[JSolie]

I use filters and hoods if I have them.

[ohenry]

I use hoods to prevent lens flare, I use filters to alter the light entering the lens, and I use lens caps to protect the lens when I'm not shooting.

[DSMITH131]

I use both filters and hoods, so i will abstain from voting.
same here

[mbze430]

oops...I voted the wrong one...can I retake the vote??

[Panza]

I use hoods.
Filters depends on the lens:
I use UV on my EF 400mm as that seems to work ok (no noticable deteimental effects).
I don't use a filter on the EF 17-40 as the UV filter on that makes all kinds of unvanted refelctions appear.
I don't use it on the EF 50mm as that is a cheap lens and the front element is so deep.

[belmondo]

I use both filters and hoods, so i will abstain from voting.

Same here. I use both whenever possible

[Andy_T]

Another vote for 'both' ... this would most likely be the winning category.

Best regards,
Andy

[psk4363]

Lens hoods for me or if I'm happy with where I'm shooting stark b*****k naked! (the lens that is)

Barry

[jfrancho]

Mostly both, but sometimes no hood if I want some flare for the shot.

[S230]

I use both hood and filter. The hood would serve as an additional protection against branches hitting the filter. One of my filter already sustained bumps and scratches. An example was when I doing shots in the forest, I accidently hit a tree branch. Replacing a filter is surely cheaper than the lens. I haven't compared quality with or without but I heard that without filter, the quality is better.