UV filters vs. lens hoods...

[Sicily1918]

Check these two shots out... aside from resizing to 800x533, they are completely untouched.

These were shot with my 10-22mm at 10mm, ISO 100, same aperture and shutter speed. The first shot was with the 77mm UV filter, the second is without... nothing else changed and they were within a minute of each other.

It's better to open 'em locally and quickly cycle between the two. Aside from the obvious lens-flare the pic w/the filter is actually slightly darker, too.

[RichardtheSane]

One of the reasons I for one will prefer a lens hood over filters

[Joona]

what filter did you use?

[EricKonieczny]

I like # 2, it is brighter, and ven looks sharper

[Sicily1918]

One of the reasons I for one will prefer a lens hood over filtersYa... I'm sold now too.
what filter did you use?Tiffen UV.
I like # 2, it is brighter, and ven looks sharperYep... I've noticed that on most of my shots they're not quite as sharp or I get some annoying lens-flare-like effect.

[RJSorensen]

I think that with modern lens . . . the old song and dance over UV is a moot point. Hoods are needed and should be used anyway. The only filters most will need are a CP and perhaps a ND, I suppose UV for sand and or salt conditions.

[DaveG]

One of the reasons I for one will prefer a lens hood over filters
Now take your keys, drop them on the front element of your lens and check it again. That's the results after the lens is dinged. And a hood won't protect your front element, not even a little.

[SkipD]

Now take your keys, drop them on the front element of your lens and check it again. That's the results after the lens is dinged. And a hood won't protect your front element, not even a little.Who the heck is going to drop their keys onto their lens? That, in my opinion, is a rather silly analogy to real-world hazards that a camera may be subjected to.

I still have a camera (one of my Nikon F's) which I dropped onto a sidewalk while covering the Grand Prix of Monaco in 1968. The lens hood took all of the damage except for a cosmetic ding to a lower corner of the body. The body and lens are still fine to this day and never had to be repaired because of the crash.

I've used several SLR lenses over the past 40 years or so, none of which ever had a filter mounted for "protection". All of them have always worn lens hoods while in use. NONE of them have any damage to the front element of the lens. Most of my lenses have significant wear (worn paint, etc.) on the outer surfaces of the lens body due to using them a lot, but none have any damage whatsoever to the glass.

[pcasciola]

Tiffen UV.Tiffen makes a bunch of UV filters. Was it a cheaper one, or a nice multi-coated ultra thin one? Ultra thin is very important for wide angle. If it was not then those are exactly the results I would expect from a $20-30 filter. I've seen a lot of photos like these posted with the 10-22 with the cheaper UV filters on them, many that even get darker, especially on the edges.

[Sicily1918]

Tiffen makes a bunch of UV filters. Was it a cheaper one, or a nice multi-coated ultra thin one? Ultra thin is very important for wide angle. If it was not then those are exactly the results I would expect from a $20-30 filter. I've seen a lot of photos like these posted with the 10-22 with the cheaper UV filters on them, many that even get darker, especially on the edges.It's multi-coated, but not ultra-thin, so I'm sure that's a factor in the output of the pics.

[james12345]

Man... I just got taken to the cleaners on a Tiffen Haze-1 UV Filter from Samys... I know I should probably have done more research on it, so partially its my fault, but no reason for the salesperson to take advantage of the customer.

Well let me tell you the story:

Went to Samys in Santa Ana, California today to look for a filter for my Tamron 28-75 lens. I checked the prices online and they were reasonable all about $16-$17. So, I decide to go to Samy's after work. The salesperson was nice and didnt think much of it. He quotes me the price for the first time at $24.95, I then ask him if he can match the online price. So he checks and tells me its $29.95 online. I ask him if he is sure and he insists. Because I was cramped for time, I decide to pickup the filter at $24.95 thinking that I must have misread the website price of $16.95.

I get home thinking I got ripped off... Check the online price and behold there is the $16.95 price. So I call a couple other Samys Cameras in the area and they are quoting around $16-$19 with one place actually charging $25. But then I decide to call the store that I purchased the filter at and the lady quotes me $18.95 and then I simply stated, "Why did I get charged $24.95 for this then?" She puts me on hold for like a minute and comes back and tells me she quoted me the price for the incorrect product and that it was in actuality $29.20 and that I must have gotten a pricebreak on it from the sales rep.

Seems like Samy's Camera stores vary in pricing, but this time, I think Samy's did me wrong. Oh yeah and I called the store later and asked again for the pricing (think i got the same lady again, very rude this time and transfers me). I ask again for the pricing, this time, they say that they dont even carry this filter... So what gives???

This is getting long, so I will just keep you updated. Think I am gonna call later tonight and see whats up. Do you guys have any suggestions or opinions?

James

Please excuse the rant... I was mad, so no need to bother with this msg. Have a nice day.

[DaveG]

Who the heck is going to drop their keys onto their lens? That, in my opinion, is a rather silly analogy to real-world hazards that a camera may be subjected to.

I still have a camera (one of my Nikon F's) which I dropped onto a sidewalk while covering the Grand Prix of Monaco in 1968. The lens hood took all of the damage except for a cosmetic ding to a lower corner of the body. The body and lens are still fine to this day and never had to be repaired because of the crash.

I've used several SLR lenses over the past 40 years or so, none of which ever had a filter mounted for "protection". All of them have always worn lens hoods while in use. NONE of them have any damage to the front element of the lens. Most of my lenses have significant wear (worn paint, etc.) on the outer surfaces of the lens body due to using them a lot, but none have any damage whatsoever to the glass.


I bet that you don't wear seatbelts either. Why would you, nothing has ever happe ...

The two things that is going to scratch the front of your lens whether its a filter or the front element is trauma and wear. Just having to clean the lens rather than the filter is going to cause wear on the multicoating.

I sold a 25 year old Nikkor 85 f1.8 last year that had perfect glass, but it also had a UV (L37C) mounted on it for the whole time I owned it during that time. I know that with that lens I went though about six UV filters especially after I started working at a paper. I used a UV filter on every Nikkor lens that I owned (except the 55 macro) and every one shows sings of damage after a couple of years of use. Small delicate scratches on all and bigger dings on some, and I'd replace the filters.

Why would these filters be scratched and yet the front element would remain pristine? Take YOUR lenses and hold them up to the light and look through them from the back. THEN you'll see scratches on the front elements. And dropping your keys or dragging a buckle from a strap onto the front of a lens is not a remote possibility. Getting hit with a rock chip or sand is something else that can happen.

Like wearing not wearing seatbelts, the problem is that you never know when it's going to happen do you?

[Andy_T]

Whenever I see the remark 'no scratches or cleaning marks' in an eBay ad for a lens, I think that I rather clean a filter than the front element of a lens whenever it gets dirty again.

Best regards,
Andy