50mm 1.4... do anybody use a UV filter on this... what about a lens hood?

malla1962 wrote in post #2181821
Hoods and filters on all my lenses

ditto

I would definately get the hood (Is there an echo in here?). A UV filter, in my opinion, does have a purpose. When I am out shooting in adverse conditions I always use one. For example, I shoot outdoors all the time in the summer. The Great Plains states are famous for wind, dust devils, and worse. That can wreck havoc on a lens. If not in these conditions, shoot naked, it is much more satisfying. I use the B+W MRC F-Pro. I think they are 010's.

Luckie8 wrote in post #2181834

malla1962 wrote in post #2181821
Hoods and filters on all my lenses

ditto

tritto, except the 15-30, which won't take one.

If you own 5 lenses, and you put 5 GOOD filters on them (UV of course), won't that be like around $500? For that money, if something did go wrong and your front element got scratched or whatever, don't you think Canon could repair it cheaper probably?

I use the hood and no filter. I find that the hood is deep enough to absorb most knocks you get. And I have recently converted from being "always filters" to being "keep as little glass as possible between the shutter and the subject". I have a couple 1As in the bag just in case though. And the 50/1.4 is a 58mm screw, so if you have 1As for the cheap (kit, 75-300 III etc) lenses, you can slap them on this if needs be.

malla1962 wrote in post #2181821
Hoods and filters on all my lenses apart from my 300f2.8Lis.

You use filters at all times? Do you do this to protect the lens element or you see the need for the filter?

JaGWiRE wrote in post #2181976
If you own 5 lenses, and you put 5 GOOD filters on them (UV of course), won't that be like around $500? For that money, if something did go wrong and your front element got scratched or whatever, don't you think Canon could repair it cheaper probably?

Depends on the lens size. A good B+W in 58 mm is under $50. For 77, it's still under $80. And if a filter takes the hit, there's no down time while the lens is in for repair.

I just got my 50mm f/1.8 and although I know its a cheap lens I would imagine all the same things come into play. So even though I know I will get mixed response...do you think it is a worthwhile thing to get a hood for this lens? I did order a set of UV and CP filters for it.

And then the question that comes to mind is about Hoods themselves. Typically the manufacturer has a hood and it is a hard material. Many of the shops do not carry the manufacturers hoods and sell rubber generic hoods for a particular size thread on the lens. Do those of you that believe in using hoods recommend getting these smaller, lighter, fold-up-able ( I know, its not a word) hoods or is it best to stick with the hood that has been designed for that lens from the manufacturer?

I have the hood for my nifty. For the zooms I have the hard hoods that came with them as well as soft rubber ones - they're for different purposes. The rubber ones aren't long enough for the 70-200 or 100-400, but if I'm shooting through glass I use them to help keep from getting reflections off the glass. They also don't transmit vibrations if in a motor vehicle and pressed up against the window. I don't need them all that often, but if I do, they're there.

my senior friend is right. use hood.
on the lense as well as on your head.
use a tripo too!!
it is heavy to take it around but this helps too much!
enjoy

Jon wrote in post #2182066
I have the hood for my nifty. For the zooms I have the hard hoods that came with them as well as soft rubber ones - they're for different purposes. The rubber ones aren't long enough for the 70-200 or 100-400, but if I'm shooting through glass I use them to help keep from getting reflections off the glass. They also don't transmit vibrations if in a motor vehicle and pressed up against the window. I don't need them all that often, but if I do, they're there.

Thanks Jon, but I am unclear as to whether you use the Canon or a generic rubber one on the nifty.

When using the rubber ones are there differences? I see Hama, Dot Line (seems to be the cheapie), and B +W.

TMR Design wrote in post #2182043
You use filters at all times? Do you do this to protect the lens element or you see the need for the filter?

Protection.But I only use High quality filters tho.

TMR Design wrote in post #2182073
Thanks Jon, but I am unclear as to whether you use the Canon or a generic rubber one on the nifty.

When using the rubber ones are there differences? I see Hama, Dot Line (seems to be the cheapie), and B +W.

I use the Canon one on Nifty. I only use the rubber ones in special cases. And I don't think there are noticeable differences among the different brands of rubber hoods.

I use hoods and filters on all my lenses. Buy good quality filters like Heliopan or B+W and you won't have any issues.

Primes lend themselves to rubber lens hoods quite well, especially the 35/50mm. Cheaper than the Canon ones, fold up in an instant for storage... And if you put a CPL on and then the rubber hood - you can rotate the whole enchilada for easy/fast use!

The downside to rubber lens hoods is that they're made to generic standards. That is, there's no "35mm specific" lens hood. So you might not get the BEST protection from flare but often it'll be more than good enough and certainly better than no hood at all.