UV Filter-VS-Hood

what do you suggest......?
I know If I go with the Filter it needs to be a good one
have a few L lens now and looking to protect my investment

Hood. Always. There's really no downside to using them. If you insist on getting a UV filter, get an expensive multicoated one from a top brand like B+W.

Everybody agrees on hoods. Tons of threads on filters, some favor them, some don't. As stated if you use one use a good one (can be just clear as UV doesn't affect digital). I personally use when splashes or grit more likely to be issues, not most of the time.

I have and use both, on every one of my lenses at all times.

Hoods are more beneficial than filters but I still use both.

A hood always improves a photo and protects the lens.

A UV/clear filter always damages the photo and can damage the lens if the lens is dropped on the filter. If it doesn't absorb energy by shattering and driving shards into the front element, then the hard mount transmits the energy into the internals of the lens where it can break solder joints, mess with mechanics, and knock lens elements out of alignment.

Always use a lenshood and only use a UV filter when photographing riots involving liquids (drunks) or similar dire circumstances.

Front elements cost about the same getting replaced as a top quality UV filter that still doesn't match the quality of the lens or the lens coating.

Thanks for the input

I use both. Conditions I'm going to be in tend toward the unpredictable and hoods aren't the be-all and end-all of protection.

A hood reduces flare.

• Sometimes a hood can be a bit of a 'bumper' to afford some mechanical barrier to the lens itself striking something damaging.
  
• But sometimes the hood can serve as a lever arm, to help break even L lenses into 2 pieces, as proven via POTN posts in the past.
  
• And, toddler goopey fingers and animal noses can manage to sneak past the hood to smear your lens front element, too.
  

• Sometimes a filter can prevent animal noses and toddlers' goopey fingers from touching the front element of the lens.
  
• A filter can provide an easier and cheaper replaceable front surface for blowing sand and salt water spray to land (better than the front surface of the lens)
  
• Sometimes a filter can be a bit of a barrier to damaging the cosmetics of the lens barrel.
  
• But, I personally suffered an incident in which the FILTER was what hit a stone wall, and the filter was totally undamaged, but the force was enough to damage the zoom mechanism of my lens nevertheless.
  

I use quality UV filters for protection and hoods to reduce flare when necessary. Unless I anticipate flare or other lighting concerns I seldom fit the hood.

I fell to the concrete with my 40d and 70-200mm f/4L IS lens around my neck. The lens was wearing a hood (in this case a round screw-in generic hood) which hit the concrete first. The hood was toast but the lens came through unhurt. I attribute the saving of the lens to the hood which broke and absorbed the kinetic energy of the impact; just like the body of a NASCAR vehicle absorbs the impact of a crash by breaking apart.

Jon wrote in post #12241636
I use both. Conditions I'm going to be in tend toward the unpredictable and hoods aren't the be-all and end-all of protection.

Same here and as said earlier, get a high quality clear/UV filter if you get one. I use the Hoya Pro 1 and HD and can't tell a bit of difference on images with and without them. If they degrade the image, I can't see it. I also use hoods for protection and other reasons.


Dan

I'm another in the both category. Filter because I just don't trust anyone and I'm always afraid that dirt or rocks are coming my way(kids will managed to do that to you). and hoods to keep things from getting close.

Unless I'm on a beach with the wind blasting or something that abusive, I'll find my hood to be just fine.

Both used, original canon hoods and b+w mrc slim filters. Just for extra peace of mind