Do UV filters do anything really but protect your glass?

PetKal wrote in post #2271248
Ditto....however, change number to almost 60 years.

Add my almost 40 to Skip's 40 and our collective 80 has you beat. You mentioned earlier people going for the "big" look....take a look at a 17-40L with no filter and then one with a 77mm filter strapped on. Who is trying to impress whom? "Oh my, look at the size of that lens....he must be a pro!"

PetKal wrote in post #2271206
I fail to see a sound technical rationale for people chosing hoods over filters for mechanical and environmental protection of their lenses.

Therefore, what remains is perhaps the appeal of apparent lens enlargement by virtue of a hood mounted. Thereby some people may hope to gain that coveted public attention. Also, a hooded lens might impart that pro look they seek ?

I use hoods most of the time when outdoors, yet hate using them because they are a pain to pack in my small backpack and they make my 70-200 look like a bazooka. My preference for shooting outdoors is to use my circ pol since I can't use it effectively with a hood But without the circ pol my hood is on.

Indoors I don't often use a hood anymore and typically don't use a UV either. In 30 years I've never had a filter or lens element damaged so I figure that I'm careful enough and I'm willing to take my lumps for a one in thirty year type of oops.

It seems to me that both methods for protection, hood or filter, are "good enough" and it's simply a personal preference. Didn't we already do a poll on this and find that it was a 50/50 split?

OK, after countless threads on this "hood vs filter" dilemma, I think I have finally got a path forward in resolving the issue once and for all.
Why not add the photography experience in years of all "combatants" in each camp and then see which one prevails.
Like... the Hood Camp has 2876 years, the Filter Camp has 2877 years.

PetKal wrote in post #2271349
OK, after countless threads on this "hood vs filter" dilemma, I think I have finally got a path forward in resolving the issue once and for all.
Why not add the photography experience in years of all "combatants" in each camp and then see which one prevails.
Like... the Hood Camp has 2876 years, the Filter Camp has 2877 years.

Are you volunteering to count the tally?

Woolburr wrote in post #2271381
Are you volunteering to count the tally?

Good point......I'll ask my personal secretary and press attache Jagwired to execute.

Well as much as I enjoy these little filter fights can be try and keep them to once or twice a week...

Lester Wareham wrote in post #2271551
Well as much as I enjoy these little filter fights can be try and keep them to once or twice a week...

But they are so fun It is almost like Republicans and Democrats agreeing on the size of a joint conference table

39 years in (amatuer) photography...filters yes...bought my first one in Germany in 1967

He he....by now good ole Skippy should have had a custom rubberstamp GIF developed for himself......showing his stock position on the issue....one click on the mouse and it's injected in the thread.

PetKal wrote in post #2271206
I fail to see a sound technical rationale for people chosing hoods over filters for mechanical and environmental protection of their lenses.

Therefore, what remains is perhaps the appeal of apparent lens enlargement by virtue of a hood mounted. Thereby some people may hope to gain that coveted public attention. Also, a hooded lens might impart that pro look they seek ?

OK, to answer the first part. Hoods protect by stopping passing objects contacting the front element. Those of us who use two bodies at events will generally have one over the shoulder, so it sticks out to the side or behind. In a crowd, that lens (especially a longish one like the 100-400L) will be constantly getting knocked about by people squeezing past, hitting it with their bags etc. The hood acts as a 'spacer'. At a recent event another photographer swung his tripod around and it batted my 100-400 on the hood and swung it around, he apologised profusely and I just shrugged it off and said no worries. The hood took the impact with no problem, as it has done on many, many occasions. Without the hood the tripods feet (spiked) could quite possibly have reached the element. Of course, a UV would have also protected the lens from getting scratched, but the filter could have got scratched and that would cost money to replace anyway.

So both protect the lens, I accept that. But to say that there is no reason to choose a hood over a filter, other than pose value is to not understand the reason for fitting a hood. They are not there to protect the lens, that is a bonus, they are they to improve image quality, something which cannot be said for UV filters, which have no positive effect on IQ and can (occasionally) have negative effects. I shoot in light rain from time to time, droplets on the front element really bu**er up your image but a deep hood keeps the rain off the element. All a filter will do there is collect the rain itself, still ruining image quality. Also if the sun is at an angle where it can cause reflections or flare (with or without a UV filter) again, the hood keeps it off the element.

You don't even need the sun in front of you, it can be behind you, but reflections off the ground or surroundings can still affect your image. You might not even notice it as there will be no obvious flare, but image contrast will be reduced. Again a hood keeps up the quality of the image.

So, I'm sorry, but I don't use a hood because I am after attention. I use one because it benefits my image and gives me better results, something which cannot be said for UV filters which can only degrade the image (assuming a digital camera, there can be small benefits with film). The fact that it also protects my lens is just a bonus.

The OP asked a simple question "Do UV filters do anything really but protect your glass?" to which the answer is no (well, nothing good anyway). After that it is simply a matter of working out how much it will cost to buy filters for all your lenses and deciding if it is worth it for you.

tiktaalik wrote in post #2271135
From what I see some people tend to love them and even sound like they'll cure all the world's problems

Oh yeah, and if you don't use one you're an evil heretic who should be burned at the stake.(1)

At least that's what I see

(1) Or at least make vaguely insulting insinuations about your skills, as witnessed already on this thread. I've never seen anti-filter folks do that.

I think its because we get silly comments made by anti filter guys about that they will degrade image quality, its like its an automatic "NO THEY ARE CRAP"..

I could post plenty of before & after shots, but I think everyone knows they dont affect the images at all, unless your taking extreme shots, like shooting into the sun or near abouts.

Fact is, general shooting you wouldnt see the difference.

Nick

sandpiper wrote in post #2271843
OK, to answer the first part. Hoods protect by stopping passing objects contacting the front element. Those of us who use two bodies at events will generally have one over the shoulder, so it sticks out to the side or behind. In a crowd, that lens (especially a longish one like the 100-400L) will be constantly getting knocked about by people squeezing past, hitting it with their bags etc. The hood acts as a 'spacer'. At a recent event another photographer swung his tripod around and it batted my 100-400 on the hood and swung it around, he apologised profusely and I just shrugged it off and said no worries. The hood took the impact with no problem, as it has done on many, many occasions. Without the hood the tripods feet (spiked) could quite possibly have reached the element. Of course, a UV would have also protected the lens from getting scratched, but the filter could have got scratched and that would cost money to replace anyway.

So both protect the lens, I accept that. But to say that there is no reason to choose a hood over a filter, other than pose value is to not understand the reason for fitting a hood. They are not there to protect the lens, that is a bonus, they are they to improve image quality, something which cannot be said for UV filters, which have no positive effect on IQ and can (occasionally) have negative effects. I shoot in light rain from time to time, droplets on the front element really bu**er up your image but a deep hood keeps the rain off the element. All a filter will do there is collect the rain itself, still ruining image quality. Also if the sun is at an angle where it can cause reflections or flare (with or without a UV filter) again, the hood keeps it off the element.

You don't even need the sun in front of you, it can be behind you, but reflections off the ground or surroundings can still affect your image. You might not even notice it as there will be no obvious flare, but image contrast will be reduced. Again a hood keeps up the quality of the image.

So, I'm sorry, but I don't use a hood because I am after attention. I use one because it benefits my image and gives me better results, something which cannot be said for UV filters which can only degrade the image (assuming a digital camera, there can be small benefits with film). The fact that it also protects my lens is just a bonus.

The OP asked a simple question "Do UV filters do anything really but protect your glass?" to which the answer is no (well, nothing good anyway). After that it is simply a matter of working out how much it will cost to buy filters for all your lenses and deciding if it is worth it for you.

Skippy loves ya.
I am unable to escalate the technical debate now because my wife needs me to go shopping.
However, one detail re shootin in the rain and using the hood as a water deflector...that works to some extent to keep water off the front element, under a low flow rate of vertical precipitation, for lenses 50mm and longer.
However, why don't you try that "trick" in a real solid rainfall, without a front filter on lenses like 16-35, 17-40, or 10-22.....see what happens to your lens IQ aterwards. Then call Skippy, not me.

PetKal wrote in post #2271933
Skippy loves ya.
I am unable to escalate the technical debate now because my wife needs me to go shopping.
However, one detail re shootin in the rain and using the hood as a water deflector...that works to some extent to keep water off the front element, under a low flow rate of vertical precipitation, for lenses 50mm and longer.
However, why don't you try that "trick" in a real solid rainfall, without a front filter on lenses like 16-35, 17-40, or 10-22.....see what happens to your lens IQ aterwards. Then call Skippy, not me.

You think I'm taking my 5D (or even my 20D) out in a 'real solid rainfall', I'm not that stupid

sandpiper wrote in post #2272040
You think I'm taking my 5D (or even my 20D) out in a 'real solid rainfall', I'm not that stupid

Au contraire, my friend, if you were not very smart you would have never thought of covering the mount side of your lens with the camera in order to protect your precious glass from inclement weather, impact, dust etc..

sandpiper wrote in post #2272040
You think I'm taking my 5D (or even my 20D) out in a 'real solid rainfall', I'm not that stupid

So what do you do if it starts raining once you're on location? Me, I pull out a Kata rain jacket and keep shooting, since I've got a filter protecting the only exposed part of my camera and lens.

I go commando lol!!
Though i am sure if i owned a£1K lens i would be saying something different.