# Lens Hood and UV Protection Filter?



## joesmithf1 (Dec 6, 2009)

Hello, 

Newbie here and i have a lot of questions, but i'll start with the basic. I just bought my Canon T1i Kit with the EF-S 18-55mm lens. Should I purchase a lens hood and an UV Protection Filter? Is it necessary? If so, here are my questions:

1. Lens Hood - is a round hood better or a 'flower' hood better? 
2. Lens Hood - plastic or rubber? 
3. Lens Hood - any specific brand that you would recommend?
4. UV Filter - Polarized or non-polarized?
5. UV Filter - what materials would you recommend? Glass, plastic, etc.?
6. UV Filter -What brand is best? I read a post that said some filter causes 'ghostly' picture, so wanted to know what you guys uses. 
7. Any other suggestions?

Thank you in advance!

Joe


----------



## Olympus E300 (Dec 6, 2009)

Regarding UV filters...I don't have a single lens that I don't have one on. I have four lenses right now in my gear box and each one is equipped with a UV filter. I don't take them off - they stay on. They provide your lens (glass) with protection from dirt and debris not to mention UV. Furthermore, you get what you pay for. Personally, I have been using Sigma multi-coated UV lenses and like them. I've been tempted to try Hoyas though. Just out of curiousity more than anything.

Get a quality UV lens, screw it in place and forget about it! Good luck!


----------



## Shockey (Dec 6, 2009)

No and no.
Unless you plan on doing a lot of shooting into the sun you don't need a lens hood and for a cheapo kit lens you sure don't need a protection filter.
Some people think they need a hood to protect the lens, I can't begin to count the photos I have taken or the time I have spent with a camera in my hand and never, not once have I wished I had a lens hood on my camera when I did not.
I do photograph weddings so once in a while I do have to shoot into the sun so I carry a hood with me just in case but I plan ahead for that, if I didn't do it for money I wouldn't bother with the hood.

UV filter is another lens protection device. Never used one, it will adversely affect your photos to some extent. I don't even want to think about how much money I have in lenses and not one of them has a scratch on it and I have never used a UV filter.

Just get out there and shoot and enjoy your camera.


----------



## TJ K (Dec 6, 2009)

Olympus E300 said:


> Regarding UV filters...I don't have a single lens that I don't have one on. I have four lenses right now in my gear box and each one is equipped with a UV filter. I don't take them off - they stay on. They provide your lens (glass) with *protection from* dirt and debris *not to mention UV*. Furthermore, you get what you pay for. Personally, I have been using Sigma multi-coated UV lenses and like them. I've been tempted to try Hoyas though. Just out of curiousity more than anything.
> 
> Get a quality UV lens, screw it in place and forget about it! Good luck!



Unless you shoot film that is completely untrue. People buy UV solely to protect the glass. Unless you get a good one it will just reduce the quality. 

I would use a lens hood petal or circle just because i tend to bump into things here and there and it's nice to have.
TJ


----------



## joesmithf1 (Dec 6, 2009)

i am loving this forum already! I appreciate the quick responses!


----------



## Olympus E300 (Dec 6, 2009)

TJ K said:


> Olympus E300 said:
> 
> 
> > Regarding UV filters...I don't have a single lens that I don't have one on. I have four lenses right now in my gear box and each one is equipped with a UV filter. I don't take them off - they stay on. They provide your lens (glass) with *protection from* dirt and debris *not to mention UV*. Furthermore, you get what you pay for. Personally, I have been using Sigma multi-coated UV lenses and like them. I've been tempted to try Hoyas though. Just out of curiousity more than anything.
> ...


 
How does a UV Filter *NOT* protector your lens from UV? Obviously my main intent was to imply that the filter offers the lens protection. I would have thought that dirt and debris would be nice to keep off an expensive lens (I shoot mostly outdoors) and that that UV protection was just an added bonus?!?


----------



## KmH (Dec 6, 2009)

Olympus E300 said:


> Regarding UV filters...I don't have a single lens that I don't have one on. I have four lenses right now in my gear box and each one is equipped with a UV filter. I don't take them off - they stay on. They provide your lens (glass) with protection from dirt and debris not to mention UV. Furthermore, you get what you pay for. Personally, I have been using Sigma multi-coated UV lenses and like them. I've been tempted to try Hoyas though. Just out of curiousity more than anything.
> 
> Get a quality UV lens, screw it in place and forget about it! Good luck!


UV filters used for 'protection' are a waste of money, IMO. They are thin and way more easily damaged/broken than a lenses objective glass.

The right kind of UV filter will only improve your images in some very specific circumstances, high altitudes as an example, or when imaging some materials that are caused to flouresce by your light source. At best they will usually not harm image quality, but they can hurt your image quality. If you point your camea near any bright light source they will promote lens flare and will also limit contrast.

I have seen instances, both in person and online, where the shards from an easily broken UV filter have gouged the front surface of a lens objective either at the time of impact or when removing the damaged filter from the lens.

A lens hood affords a measure of impact protection to your lenses objective glass by providing a buffer zone around it. Since a lens hood doesn't add glass and air gaps to your lens, a hood won't have a negative effect on image quality. Tests have shown that a lens hood improves image contrast which is why one is provided by major lens makers with nearly every lens they make.

Petal type lens hoods are only effective with the camera held in 2 positions: horizontal and vertical. A round hood is effective in any orientation. However, petal type hoods are 'sexier' than round hoods.


----------



## KmH (Dec 6, 2009)

Olympus E300 said:


> How does a UV Filter *NOT* protector your lens from UV? Obviously my main intent was to imply that the filter offers the lens protection. I would have thought that dirt and debris would be nice to keep off an expensive lens (I shoot mostly outdoors) and that that UV protection was just an added bonus?!?


Why would your lens objective glass need to be protected from UV radiation?

Specifically what negative effects would the lens need to be protected from and which of the 3 types of UV light, UVA, UVB, UVC would be of most concern?

If they need protection from UV light, you'd think the lens makers would provide that protection with a lens coating or they would design their lenses with a UV filter layer to eliminate having a flat piece of glass and an added air gap out in front of the lens objective.


----------



## Dao (Dec 6, 2009)

For the hood question.  If the front lens element rotate when focus, you need to use a round hood.


----------



## KmH (Dec 6, 2009)

Dao said:


> For the hood question. If the front lens element rotate when focus, you need to use a round hood.


Good point. It's been a while since I owned a lens that rotates when focused.


----------



## mtfd635 (Dec 6, 2009)

I have had many UV filters trashed, and no damage to the lens
I failed to replace one and now my 24-70L has dinged filter threads.
Granted, I shoot on fire academy, fire scenes and condtruction sites daily and am hard on my equipment.
But a decent quality uv filter, multicoated glass, is a worthy sacrificial component.


----------



## Olympus E300 (Dec 8, 2009)

mtfd635 said:


> I have had many UV filters trashed, and no damage to the lens
> I failed to replace one and now my 24-70L has dinged filter threads.
> Granted, I shoot on fire academy, fire scenes and condtruction sites daily and am hard on my equipment.
> But a decent quality uv filter, multicoated glass, is a worthy sacrificial component.


 

By the sounds of it - we're the only two who think this way...LoL.  Granted, I'm a photography newb and my opinion doesn't count.  That makes you all alone ..... lol.

Cheers!
- Dan


----------



## bhphotography (Dec 8, 2009)

I saw a comparison that looked at all of the UV filters, and found that HOYA's filters were the best. UV filters are great for protecting your lens.

If your shooting in low light, there is a chance of getting a ghosting effect, at night I normally take mine off.

As for hoods, if your shooting a crop sensor, it shouldn't matter, get whichver you like the best. If your shooting full frame a "flower" hood is the best as it will avoid the vignetting that a round rubber one would create.


----------



## Gaerek (Dec 8, 2009)

My thought has always been, why put a cheap piece of glass (or plastic, in some cases) in front of your expensive glass. At best, with a UV filter, it won't add or subtract anything from your image. At worst, it will increase lens flare, ghosting, and potentially simply degrade the image. The only time a UV filter will protect your glass is if you drop it straight down directly on the front element. If it's dropped in any other orientation, it does nothing. Some will say it will protect from scratches, but isn't that what the lens cap is for? I suppose if you walk around with the camera around your neck with the lens cap removed, it might be useful, but if you do that, then I say you deserve to have your lens scratched, lol.

I use lens hoods in conditions where I'm shooting in conditions with bright lights. It's useful, and certainly helps. The big thing is to make sure you have a hood designed specifically for your lens.


----------



## KmH (Dec 8, 2009)

bhphotography said:


> I saw a comparison that looked at all of the UV filters, and found that HOYA's filters were the best. UV filters are great for protecting your lens.
> 
> If your shooting in low light, there is a chance of getting a ghosting effect, at night I normally take mine off.
> 
> As for hoods, if your shooting a crop sensor, it shouldn't matter, get whichver you like the best. If your shooting full frame a "flower" hood is the best as it will avoid the vignetting that a round rubber one would create.


Hoya makes filters of several quality levels. Not all Hoya filters are worth purchasing.

It is very possible for a hood to cast a shadow when using on camera flash. I have only ever seen ghosting problems in low light from internal lens reflections caused by using a 'protective filter' added to the front of the lens, never by a hood that was designed for the lens in use.

Petal hoods are used on wide-angle lenses, they are not necessary on telephoto lenses of over 100mm. Notice, none of the full frame camera equipped pro sports shooters have pedal type hoods on their long lenses.


----------



## newbie06 (Dec 22, 2009)

a good debate....lol...thanks for the info mates...


----------



## itznfb (Dec 22, 2009)

I agree a UV filter is a necessity for front element protection. I've gone through several filters with no damage to the lens. Especially at rally races for example. I'll often leave a race with several scratches to the filter that are unrepairable and the lens itself is fine.

Obviously if you're shooting product photography in your home you shouldn't need additional protection. It all depends on what environment you're in. Also... there are several in-depth studies done to show that even the cheapest filters don't affect image quality. I know a lot of people will argue against this point but whatever. Some filters may increase flare a bit but I've never experienced this. If I can shoot through a screen door without it affecting image quality than a piece of glass shouldn't be any worse.


----------



## GFreg (Dec 22, 2009)

Olympus E300 said:


> By the sounds of it - we're the only two who think this way...LoL.  Granted, I'm a photography newb and my opinion doesn't count.  That makes you all alone ..... lol.
> 
> Cheers!
> - Dan



Dan, it isn't that your opinion doesn't count, but other people are voicing their opinions too.  A UV filter might seem like it will protect your lens from dirt and debris and essentially it will because there is another layer of separation.  Like, KmH mentioned though, unless you are buying top of the line those filters will most likely be cheaply made and have poor optical quality.  This means that there is another piece of glass that is degrading the image that you are trying to capture.  If you had something strike the lens hard enough to break the filter then there is no guarantee that the actual lens wont be damaged either.  I have seen numerous people that have complained that broken pieces of the filter actually caused damage to the lens.  I would prefer to buy a useful filter, like a circular polarizing filter and take my chances that I can count on myself to resonably protect my camera and lens.

That said, I don't think there is really a right or wrong answer, it just comes down to what you are comfortable with and what you prefer.  I am going to use a silly example here.  I buy a really nice leather jacket and I am afraid it might get scratched while walking down the street.  I decide to wrap it in plastic to keep it safe.  Am I wrong to do this?  Some people would argue that I ruined a beautiful leather jacket.  It still does what a jacket is supposed to do.  It keeps me warm and I have no problems with it being wrapped in plastic.  Who is right and who is wrong?

Edit:  Long reply is long.  Sorry about that.


----------



## itznfb (Dec 22, 2009)

I posted these examples before... I'm not saying this is the case every time it's just ONE example.

That being said; I took these shots one with a $100 B&W filter, and the other with a $3~5 grab bag filter. The grab bag filter had a bunch of scratches, and was even a little warped. The funny thing is, it's been a while since I looked at these and I'm not even sure which one is which lol. Can you tell?











Edit: I remember which one is which now... the little flag was waving in the background it's in one shot but not the other...


----------



## newbie06 (Dec 22, 2009)

itznfb said:


> I posted these examples before... I'm not saying this is the case every time it's just ONE example.
> 
> That being said; I took these shots one with a $100 B&W filter, and the other with a $3~5 grab bag filter. The grab bag filter had a bunch of scratches, and was even a little warped. The funny thing is, it's been a while since I looked at these and I'm not even sure which one is which lol. Can you tell?
> 
> ...




lets say you took good care of the B+W and left the ebay one outside..fair enough...


----------



## usayit (Dec 22, 2009)

No caps and I don't baby my lenses...  high quality filters for me.    

If you are a person who likes to shoot with vintage glass... it helps as the old elements are rather soft.  

For every person who post comparison photos of high versus low quality filters there is someone else who will post proving otherwise... (Last time recall it was Garbz.. i think).


----------



## newbie06 (Dec 22, 2009)

without uv filter




with uv filter





which one look better????


----------



## robbie_vlad (Dec 22, 2009)

Top. 
I personally don't put a $25-$100 filter on my $1200 piece of glass, it just seems counter-productive to me. I always have the hood on though, just to avoid accidental bumps. Even when shooting paintball, I have the hood, but no filter. If I did take a direct hit to the front element, the glass shards from a filter would be more likely to scratch the lens than just a paintball...


----------



## Eco (Dec 22, 2009)

robbie_vlad said:


> Even when shooting paintball, I have the hood, but no filter. If I did take a direct hit to the front element, the glass shards from a filter would be more likely to scratch the lens than just a paintball...




You bring a camera to a gun fight?  


How do you clean mud or grit from your front element?  With a filter you can just wash it off in a sink, I've always wondered how it's done with a lens that is not waterproof.


----------



## chip (Dec 22, 2009)

I usually put skylight 1B filtesr on my lenses for protection. I also had a couple of lenses with no filters at all. I don't think it make any noticeable difference with or without the filter. I would say if you are like me who wants to put a filter on the lens get a multi-coated filter. To me it is just my habit to put a filter on a lens. Some wide angle lenses have no provision for filters so in those cases I don't.


----------



## newbie06 (Dec 23, 2009)

can someone do an experiment: shoot a paintball straight into a lens without a filter...n try cleaning it... :lmao:


----------



## DerekSalem (Dec 23, 2009)

The hood is only necessary if you're planning on shooting a lot of scenery or portrait shots at an angle near that to the sun. If the sun is out of frame but it's still hitting the lens pretty hard you might want a hood to block out some of the extra light coming into the sensor.

As far as Filters: For a kit lens there's no point in getting a filter at all (unless it's some type of artistic filter). Once you get a good lens you'll probably want to make sure to get a good filter for it (on my sigma I use a Hoya Pro1 Digital -- my dad actually bought it for me for my birthday this year for around $50). I only say it's not worth it for the Kit lens because most people don't end up keeping the kit lens for long periods of time.

The filter *can* help in certain scenes for sure, but not always. In most scenes it does help to bring out certain colors slightly better and does a better job of blocking certain UV light from bouncing around inside the lens/glass parts (which degrades picture quality). I keep the Hoya on my Sigma at all times and I have a Canon UV filter for my 50mm as well. Just make sure it's multi-coated when you get it (the one for my 50mm was $12 on ebay brand new).


----------



## itznfb (Dec 23, 2009)

newbie06 said:


> without uv filter
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You have a blue light (maybe a monitor on) in the first shot that is not on in the second shot. Try doing a real test. :er: The conditions of those two shots are completely different.


----------



## flyin-lowe (Dec 23, 2009)

Once you wade through all this and if you decide to get hoods check on Ebay.  I bought three "Chinese" hoods for my Canon Lens's and the total was around $20.00 for all.  My FIL has the Canon brands and there is not really any difference at all except he paid over $20.00 a piece for his.


----------

