@@iamdantephotography5565 How would a lens hood protect my lens when I'm shooting airsoft pictures and BBs are coming straight on at me versus a lens filter?
When I shoot on different kinds of events, some dirt or even a small stone may hit my lens and the lens hood would not help. So I keep on using filters and I use them for more than two decades. I never had any problem removing a filter and I had already a situation when the filter got damaged instead of the lens.
Any recommendations? Got a 50mm 1.4 Gmaster looking to protect it from them harsher shoots ! Should I always kinda keep it on ? Or is it something to just decide if it’s a more dangerous setting
@@fabianj6008 You can keep the filter on the lens all the times. If You want the best, buy a protect filter made by B+W or HOYA. MARUMI or Kenko filters are also a solid option. Never buy the cheapest filters without coating, because they cause ghosting and ugly flaring artifacts. You can also buy UV filters instead of “protect” models without any worries.
@@fabianj6008if you want quick access, get magnetic version. Uv filter isn't really useful except for protection, stacking too many filters also not really advisable so magnetic is the answer for quick change
I don't think anyone using a filter for protection is expecting an extra pane of glass to cushion the impact. It does however protect against scratches and my own greasy, clumsy fingers.
@@mdmurray17 Lenses are FAR stronger than filters. The lens might not even gotten a scratch. You'll never know. Had it been a lens that got damaged, you would have learned to bend over like that again. Whereas now, well why not? It's just another lens filter if you drop your lens again. ;)
@@Warrior_Resisting_Colonialism it's called an accident . People wear seat belts not with the intention of driving wrecklessly but in case something goes wrong. Your logic wpuld be not to wear a crash helmet so that one serious head injury would teach you not to have another. Makes absolutely no sense at all Taking a preventative measure is common sense. Im sorry its difficult for you .
@@Warrior_Resisting_Colonialism and yes I do know . All it takes is a scratch to make a lens worthless or a bash to disrupt rhe autofocus mechanism both of which I have seen happen Or alternatively protect against the chance of damage with a cheap filter.again common sense because if ypu are wrong then replacing a thousand dollar lens is more than a few dollars for a filter
All my lenses are equipped with the best quality glass UV filters. I’m a (mostly) landscape photographer and I have done this since I tripped and fell on a trail in the Grand Tetons in the mid 80’s and the filter was shattered by a tree root and rock I bounced off of but the glass was intact afterwards. $100 filter VS a $1000 lens… simple math.
I use a clear, multi-coated, high-quality-glass B+W filter to protect all of my lenses. Also, when I sell a lens, I've never had a buyer complain about the pristine quality of my protected front element!
I use Clear master filters from B+W. My main concern is air pollution (smokers, car exhaust, etc) and small abrasions from cleaning it. Plus the filters are flat and easy to clean while some front elements have shapes that make them harder to clean.
Yup. Exactly. Do you buy the B+W 007 or 010. I never remember what is the difference. I don’t shoot film anymore. Just Fujifilm mirrorless. 35/1.4 56/1.2 55-200. Plus more.
@@Koji-888 I get 007. An update for that is one of my camera bags dropped and the filter shattered. Shards of glass from the filter somehow got inside of a weather sealed Canon L lens and getting it out opened it up to dust potentially getting inside. The far edge of the lens front element also appeared to get a gouge from it. The filter may have done more harm than good when it comes to impact. Something to consider.
There are photographers I know who will only buy B+W brass ring filters precisely because the brass filter ring will deform rather than mangle the thread on the lens. In many cases, the lenses they use are also on the order of magnitudes more expensive than a B+W filter with a matching repair fee. Even with the front 'element' on these lenses being an actual protective filter, the cost of replacing the front filter on the lens would cost more than a B+W filter.
Sometimes there’s salt water mist from the ocean, or you’re in a dust storm. It’s easier to wipe clean a flat filter. And less likely to scratch the lens also. But generally I think you make a great point. Thank you for sharing. 💁🏻♀️
I shoot on the water and deal with salt spray regularly, a uv is a must to keep the salt deposits from getting on the front element. It’s much easier to wipe off the flat filter rather than the curved front element.
I don't use them either, but your question has always, already been answered; the protect it against dirt, debris and SOME claim (though I think they're wrong) to protect it if it falls (a hood is more important here.)
I'm assuming you mean UV filters? 1, they're not plastic (unless you're getting REALLY cheap ones) and 2, you can just pay a little more. Great filters are a lot cheaper nowadays. In fact, we use a brand that provides free replacements for any breakages (insane!). Image quality has never been an issue, and we've had 2 instances of lens front elements being saved from a bad drop by the UV filter. Had to pry the filter off with a pair of pliers, but the lens filter thread survived.
The problem with just using a lens hood is that it won't protect the front lens element from splatters, droplets or just simple dust. This means you'll be cleaning your front lens element every now and then. Every cleaning adds slight damage to the coatings and over the years you'll see scratches on your front lens element. Get a high quality UV filter. Keep that on your lens. If it gets dirty clean it and after a couple of years just replace it with new one. High quality lenses are a long-term investment and you want to keep them in good condition for as long as possible. Lenses should not really be dropped and if they are will most likely go for repair anyway. So that argument is really a non-starter.
This may protect lens but Incase if water spilled on it and any dust may occur if u use hood instead filter but if picture is taken with raw format then no point of reducing quality of picture.
To protect your lens, use the LENS CAP that came with your lens. Lens hoods are used for blocking ambient loght froms sides. UV filters are used to cut the UV rays. But can also double up as a flat easy to wipe barrier against contaminants and minor damages to the glass.
Same here...lens hood only. I keep my glass clean anyways...so not a problem. The front of the lens can take a lot of abuse and never show up in the images. I just use common sense when out shooting.
I use B+W clear filters for all my expensive GM and Tamron 35-150 lenses. Piece of mind from sand at the beach or in-climate environments. Zero effect on image quality.
lately , planning to travel to a desert area in which sand dusty condition ,no lens hood can help . I get hold of an old filter & notice a lot of pits outside on the lens & I now i know where they had been .To tell if the filter is clean or clear , shine a flash light around on the surface & u will see
I photograph dogs, meaning I lay down on the floor and have dogs sprinting towards and besides me. The chances of sand and rocks hitting the front of the lens even with a hood on (which I always do) is just too big to not use a filter.
About 6 years ago I accidentally knocked my canon 24-70 lens. It got a tiny nick on the front element. Over the following year that mark grew as it naturally wore the protective cover off the front of the lens to the point the lens was unusable (both IQ and autofocus was borked). I sold the £2k lens for scrap at £400 Had I had a UV filter on, it may have bent the filter thread but would have saved the lens. If you care about protecting lenses, always put on a filter. Even if it costs you a tiny amount of IQ loss. Buy a decent filter with low transmission loss and just leave it on the front element. It’s worth it in the event you have an accident
I know UV filters degrade picture quality but i cant stop buying them for my lenses. Mainly because i either shoot on a boat at sea or in dry dusty places
I’ve used UV filters for years (quality ones) with no noticeable image degradation and always have a lens fitted. I once stupidly damaged a lens without a filter, so protect that expensive glass!
I used to work for a camera store and had so many people come in with a filter stuck on their lens. As someone who has had to do some serious surgery on lenses I can say to be careful if you get one stuck on your lens but do not stop using quality UV filters . Can’t tell you how many times I’ve had someone drop a $2-3k lens and only the filter ended up needing a replacement . Which I wouldn’t charge for labor as long as they promised to but a new UV filter that I would personally install on their lens .
I use high quality filters like zeiss or b+w on all my lenses for more than a decade. Easier to clean it than having dirt or smudge on the front element. Prevention is better than regret.
I’ve been using UV/Haze/skylight filters for 30 years and will attest to the image quality drop if using cheap ones when shooting. However, using high quality ones when shooting and then switching to cheap ones for lens storage or transportation has served me well and prevented glass damage countless times. Yes, it’s a bit of a hassle to switch them frequently, but once the process is part of the workflow, it becomes second nature. I usually put a piece of tape on the “protective” ones so I don’t accidentally shoot through them. In certain situations, a good UV filter will enhance the image.
They protect the expensive lens coating against salt and sand and I challenge you to tell the difference between images with one decent uvfilter vs none
Using filters to protect the lens does also ensure that the lens is protected against dust and water - in case the lens is weathersealed. Weathersealed lenses are never tight at the front element. Using filters close this gap of weathersealing.
I dont think even cheap filters would degrade image quality. It's a bit of glass that isn't even focused on. Its protecting the lens from scratches and damage.
Lens hood does protect from lens thread to be damaged but uv-filter has a number of usefulness to use it despite the fact that the extra glass degrades the quality of the picture! UV-filter goes a long way to drive the atmospheric haze away without giving any compensation for the exposure to be made and a good quality uv-filter protects the front element of the expensive lens from dirts floating in the air and static charges on the lens catches them to degrade your picture a lot and a filter gives you the freedom to wipe it whenever you think it's time to do so protecting your expensive lens to be wiped with dangers of lens coating to be damaged! Lens coating once damaged cannot be re-coated like the first coate made in the factory! Superfast lenses are highly expensive and always to be taken care of with close inspection on it because everyone isn't buying lenses costing $2000- $5000 every day even if they are highly professional photographers! Lens hood instead is required to protect light coming into the lens to scatter giving flares to the images but your idea is definitely an useful one in case of inadvertent falling of the lens damaging the thread of the lens!
I switched over to uv filters 24/7 (ones with hd glass and multi coating) just for dust and scratch protection reasons (i tend to use vintage collector lenses). I often dont use a lens hood. It makes me play around with flares and buff a weak composition (as long as the contrast stays acceptable). When i started photography i left the filters in my bag but then got mad as the coatings of my lens got damaged. Its often better to just put a 20-30$ filter on the front, than to loose 100$ in lens value due to scratches
Any change in image quality is negligible!but tiny little sketches on my canon UV lens is a lot better than scratches on my actual prime lens. I’ll just buy another canon UV lens and sleep well at night. Knowing that the coatings on my prime lens are well protected and my image quality is still excellent.
Would love to see a comparison between the Brightin Star 35mm f0.95 and the TTArtisans 35mm f0.95 lens (or a shootout among all the 35mm f0.95 lenses, TTArtisans, 7artisans, Meike, Brightin Star, etc)
If your lens lets you mount both then that's double the protection, for sure. But a lot of lenses don't allow you to mount the lens hood with a filter attached. At least, none of the lenses I own will.
Hoods and filters serve different purposes. Filter protects from small projectiles (sand, dirt, ice, etc) and hoods protect from bumps and drops, keeps rain off the lens, as well as obviously unwanted light flares. Both are good.
Lens hoods are the way to go - we had a accident once where a lad sat on the motorised slider remote which made it go completely off balance 😅😂 it ended up falling and smashing into a wall If we didn’t have the lens hood on we would’ve lost a £500+ lens and possibly more damage to the camera as well but instead the hood too the damage and we got a new one for £7 🎉
Using a lens hood doesn’t protect from flying debris. I’ve always used a lens hood and on a windy day on a safari, blowing sand scratched my last lens. This video is for clicks. If you buy a high quality UV filter like B+W, you won’t lose any image quality.
Having once worked in a camera shop for 5 years, these things have saved people a lot of money. Seen so many cracked ans broken uv filters but the glass on the lens left intact
everything is a trade-off. a lens Hood adds enough physical size to the camera that it makes it more difficult to carry and to fit into a bag. if that makes you less likely to take the camera along and to use it, then that is bad.
Fingers trying to touch the glass (not just kids), stray grit from cars, corners of objects, tree branches, etc etc - I’ll stick with my not too cheap filter
Ive always used UV filters. I don't always have a lens shade on, sometimes they are so big, especially indoors i hardly ever put them on. When I shoot film I put UV filters on since a lot of vintage lenses don't have multi coating. If I use a colored filter for my black-and-white, I usually take the UV off.
Lens hood doesn't protect from some damage types. After a helicopter on a shoot threw a handful of small rocks during takeoff with the air stream, hit my face and glasses and broke an expensive b+w protective filter but didn't damage the lens, I find any extra protective glass very very very useful. Especially on my face😂😂😂
ALWAYS lens hood on! my RF 28-70 f2 fell from almost 2 meters (arround 6 feet) and the lens hood blowed in few pieces, but the lens, was completely perfect, 0 problems and that happened one year ago. Didn't used UV filters in years and I won't in the future (but I did other kind of filters as ND/polarizer/promist)
I've cracked 2 Hoya Evo UV filters while shooting auto sports. Stray rocks, dirt, etc. can and does hit me all the time. Both times I had a lens hood on and both times the UV filter came off and other than some glass dust the from the UV filter the lens behind it was 100% perfect. Whether or not you use a UV filter depends on the environment and risk your shooting in. You'll never catch me out on the racetrack without a good multi coated uv filter
I have a lens with a crack in it that I Only see literally in the bokeh. I'm not scared of cleaning marks. Only filters I have at the moment are nd and cpl filters.
Strong disagree on this - if it works for you, great, but I've had a lot more practical results with UV filters. Image quality has never been an issue, and we've had 2 instances of lens front elements being saved from a bad drop by the UV filter. Had to pry the filter off with a pair of pliers, but the lens filter thread survived. Also if you shoot video, you're probably having to work with bulky and annoying camera setups already. Lens hoods have never been relevant for me in that case, and UV filters provide protection without having to account for them in rigging up the camera.
My choice is a B+W UV-Haze filters because of the fact they are manufactured from German Shott Glass. Bar none the best and clearest Nano glass available for filters by B+W and Hoya. They have the best light transmission factors of any brand on the market. We don't need to debate UV effectiveness, since I have said the choice is based on using the clearest glass available on the market in front of my lenses. So light transmissibility factor will be at its highest with filters manufactured from Shott Glass. You will see no degradation of images as you would with cheaper filters. In some cases you need to be sure you are using a Chinese counterfeit that has a glass element that is only plastic. Plus you seem to forget there are still some Purist out in the world that shoot film still. I recently (two days ago) had my Nikon 28-70 f:2.8 roll onto the floor when on packing it, and yes there was damage. The hood was was store on the lens in the backward position to conserve space. However, the filter's glass shattered from a two foot drop. If you own this lens you already know its front heavy as all hell. Needless to say there was no damage to my lens whatsoever. Also, if you are buy glass filters, or for the matter fake glass filters with no coatings you are presenting problems for yourself... Also, you have not even talked about the people that shoot on beaches and sandy areas having sand (glass particles) blown onto their filter's glass.
Хобби
Know what's cheaper than replacing a $2000 lens? Replacing a high quality UV filter
Know what’s cheaper than replacing an expensive UV filter? A lens hood 😂😂😂😂
@@iamdantephotography5565Yep! 😂
@@iamdantephotography5565 How would a lens hood protect my lens when I'm shooting airsoft pictures and BBs are coming straight on at me versus a lens filter?
@@phantomzero2413 In that case genius I guess you answered your own question. Don’t need a filter for weddings.
@@iamdantephotography5565 well I figured there’s something better since you seem to have all the answers.
When I shoot on different kinds of events, some dirt or even a small stone may hit my lens and the lens hood would not help. So I keep on using filters and I use them for more than two decades. I never had any problem removing a filter and I had already a situation when the filter got damaged instead of the lens.
Any recommendations? Got a 50mm 1.4 Gmaster looking to protect it from them harsher shoots ! Should I always kinda keep it on ? Or is it something to just decide if it’s a more dangerous setting
@@fabianj6008 You can keep the filter on the lens all the times. If You want the best, buy a protect filter made by B+W or HOYA. MARUMI or Kenko filters are also a solid option. Never buy the cheapest filters without coating, because they cause ghosting and ugly flaring artifacts. You can also buy UV filters instead of “protect” models without any worries.
@@fabianj6008if you want quick access, get magnetic version. Uv filter isn't really useful except for protection, stacking too many filters also not really advisable so magnetic is the answer for quick change
Or K&F
Something that has been completely flying over uploaders head
Just use both, the UV filter, is for protecting the lens from flying particles, and the lens hood will protect the filter and the threads.
witch particles
Exactlyyyy me too🥰
but then what will we use to protect the lens hood?
@@daktarioskarvannederhosen2568Ummm.... Keep the lens in the bag and don't use it? LOL. 😂
@@Vendetta725 but then we will need a bag protector for the bag(?)..
I don't think anyone using a filter for protection is expecting an extra pane of glass to cushion the impact. It does however protect against scratches and my own greasy, clumsy fingers.
I do - Ive bent over and a camera has slid off my shoulder. The lens impacted with a rock and only the filter was damaged.
@@mdmurray17😂😂😂
@@mdmurray17 Lenses are FAR stronger than filters. The lens might not even gotten a scratch. You'll never know. Had it been a lens that got damaged, you would have learned to bend over like that again. Whereas now, well why not? It's just another lens filter if you drop your lens again. ;)
@@Warrior_Resisting_Colonialism it's called an accident . People wear seat belts not with the intention of driving wrecklessly but in case something goes wrong. Your logic wpuld be not to wear a crash helmet so that one serious head injury would teach you not to have another. Makes absolutely no sense at all
Taking a preventative measure is common sense. Im sorry its difficult for you .
@@Warrior_Resisting_Colonialism and yes I do know . All it takes is a scratch to make a lens worthless or a bash to disrupt rhe autofocus mechanism both of which I have seen happen
Or alternatively protect against the chance of damage with a cheap filter.again common sense because if ypu are wrong then replacing a thousand dollar lens is more than a few dollars for a filter
I think its best if you use both. In my case I don´t see any difference on the picture with or without uv filter.
I think UV filters are more compact and protecting lens surfaces from degrading better.
Filters for dust and rocks. Hoods for drip and knock protection. I use both when not in the studio
Ok sure but use both?
All my lenses are equipped with the best quality glass UV filters. I’m a (mostly) landscape photographer and I have done this since I tripped and fell on a trail in the Grand Tetons in the mid 80’s and the filter was shattered by a tree root and rock I bounced off of but the glass was intact afterwards. $100 filter VS a $1000 lens… simple math.
What brand is it?
Your lens would've probably been fine without the filter. The outer lens in a camera lens is 100 times stronger than any UV filter.
@@schm147 The glass may have survived, but likely would have been chipped or scratched.
@@marcoshuayai3995 B&W filters on my Nikon Lenses.
@@chriskendell3065 you could also prevent that by just having the lens hood on
It’s not the lens shattering the main issue, it’s to protect from dirt and debris.
I use a clear, multi-coated, high-quality-glass B+W filter to protect all of my lenses. Also, when I sell a lens, I've never had a buyer complain about the pristine quality of my protected front element!
Given the choice between a cheap UV filter and a lens hood, i'd go with the cheap UV filter.
I prefer have both, filter and hood. Filter makes zero difference in image quality.
I use Clear master filters from B+W. My main concern is air pollution (smokers, car exhaust, etc) and small abrasions from cleaning it. Plus the filters are flat and easy to clean while some front elements have shapes that make them harder to clean.
Yup. Exactly. Do you buy the B+W 007 or 010. I never remember what is the difference.
I don’t shoot film anymore. Just Fujifilm mirrorless. 35/1.4 56/1.2 55-200. Plus more.
@@Koji-888 I get 007. An update for that is one of my camera bags dropped and the filter shattered. Shards of glass from the filter somehow got inside of a weather sealed Canon L lens and getting it out opened it up to dust potentially getting inside. The far edge of the lens front element also appeared to get a gouge from it. The filter may have done more harm than good when it comes to impact. Something to consider.
There are photographers I know who will only buy B+W brass ring filters precisely because the brass filter ring will deform rather than mangle the thread on the lens.
In many cases, the lenses they use are also on the order of magnitudes more expensive than a B+W filter with a matching repair fee. Even with the front 'element' on these lenses being an actual protective filter, the cost of replacing the front filter on the lens would cost more than a B+W filter.
Sometimes there’s salt water mist from the ocean, or you’re in a dust storm.
It’s easier to wipe clean a flat filter. And less likely to scratch the lens also.
But generally I think you make a great point. Thank you for sharing. 💁🏻♀️
I agree. The only reason why I would use a UV filter would be in harsh environments where the coatings could get damaged.
what are most people using to protect the lens (and sensor) from light damage?
Nothing. Extra UV protection is not required.
I shoot on the water and deal with salt spray regularly, a uv is a must to keep the salt deposits from getting on the front element. It’s much easier to wipe off the flat filter rather than the curved front element.
That debate ended years ago for me. Why buy cheap plastic to cover your expensive glass.
I don't use them either, but your question has always, already been answered; the protect it against dirt, debris and SOME claim (though I think they're wrong) to protect it if it falls (a hood is more important here.)
I'm assuming you mean UV filters? 1, they're not plastic (unless you're getting REALLY cheap ones) and 2, you can just pay a little more.
Great filters are a lot cheaper nowadays. In fact, we use a brand that provides free replacements for any breakages (insane!). Image quality has never been an issue, and we've had 2 instances of lens front elements being saved from a bad drop by the UV filter. Had to pry the filter off with a pair of pliers, but the lens filter thread survived.
The problem with just using a lens hood is that it won't protect the front lens element from splatters, droplets or just simple dust. This means you'll be cleaning your front lens element every now and then. Every cleaning adds slight damage to the coatings and over the years you'll see scratches on your front lens element.
Get a high quality UV filter. Keep that on your lens. If it gets dirty clean it and after a couple of years just replace it with new one.
High quality lenses are a long-term investment and you want to keep them in good condition for as long as possible.
Lenses should not really be dropped and if they are will most likely go for repair anyway. So that argument is really a non-starter.
The cheapest filter won't ruin the picture much, just a little less contrast and more glare
This may protect lens but Incase if water spilled on it and any dust may occur if u use hood instead filter but if picture is taken with raw format then no point of reducing quality of picture.
On the beach, UV filter its an option to consider . The sand and wind can damage the front glass element
To protect your lens, use the LENS CAP that came with your lens.
Lens hoods are used for blocking ambient loght froms sides.
UV filters are used to cut the UV rays. But can also double up as a flat easy to wipe barrier against contaminants and minor damages to the glass.
yup, make sure you miss the shot because you took your time getting that lens cap off!
I just did a wedding with misters. The water was hard, literally left a coat of calcium over the camera lens... And filter 😅
Always use lens hoods prevents scratches dust, helps pictures on subject
Still using UV filter despite using lens hood. They do different kind of protection.
What a UV does while lens hood doesn't is dust, scratches and moisture, so that's why sometimes I use both
I use a kenko filter with the lens hood no problems encountered.
I agree cheap ones are no good, but buying a good UV filter will reduce chromatic aberration.
Same here...lens hood only. I keep my glass clean anyways...so not a problem. The front of the lens can take a lot of abuse and never show up in the images. I just use common sense when out shooting.
I use B+W clear filters for all my expensive GM and Tamron 35-150 lenses. Piece of mind from sand at the beach or in-climate environments. Zero effect on image quality.
Do you use the B+W 007, or 010. Still not sure what is the difference. 🤷🏻♀️
For using with digital mirrorless cameras.
lately , planning to travel to a desert area in which sand dusty condition ,no lens hood can help . I get hold of an old filter & notice a lot of pits outside on the lens & I now i know where they had been .To tell if the filter is clean or clear , shine a flash light around on the surface & u will see
I photograph dogs, meaning I lay down on the floor and have dogs sprinting towards and besides me. The chances of sand and rocks hitting the front of the lens even with a hood on (which I always do) is just too big to not use a filter.
The lens hood is a good idea, but will not protect your lens from sea water droplets or sand flying in...
I’d rather a high quality UV than the lens hood. Especially since I’m so often using VNDs and other filters as well
Sooooo what about the UV of the sun shining on your sensor? It's called a UV filter for something
About 6 years ago I accidentally knocked my canon 24-70 lens. It got a tiny nick on the front element. Over the following year that mark grew as it naturally wore the protective cover off the front of the lens to the point the lens was unusable (both IQ and autofocus was borked). I sold the £2k lens for scrap at £400
Had I had a UV filter on, it may have bent the filter thread but would have saved the lens.
If you care about protecting lenses, always put on a filter. Even if it costs you a tiny amount of IQ loss. Buy a decent filter with low transmission loss and just leave it on the front element. It’s worth it in the event you have an accident
I use both a filter is important. And image quality loss is absolutely nonsense. I tested that out but no loss of image quality.
I've dropped a brand new (5 day old) A7M4 with the Gmaster 24-70 2.8 and the lens hood saved me a heartattack
I know UV filters degrade picture quality but i cant stop buying them for my lenses. Mainly because i either shoot on a boat at sea or in dry dusty places
Except, you use a Lens with a screw mounted hood. A drop will cold fuse the Lens with the hood for good.
I’ve used UV filters for years (quality ones) with no noticeable image degradation and always have a lens fitted. I once stupidly damaged a lens without a filter, so protect that expensive glass!
The lens hood isnt gonna stop sand, dust, moisture ext from spalshing itself onto your lens..
Yes, don't buy cheap glass. Use a hood as well for added protection and stray light. And most importantly don't bite click bait.
If you drop your lens from high enough to damage the filter threads I feel like you have a bigger problem than the damaged filter threads.
I used to work for a camera store and had so many people come in with a filter stuck on their lens. As someone who has had to do some serious surgery on lenses I can say to be careful if you get one stuck on your lens but do not stop using quality UV filters . Can’t tell you how many times I’ve had someone drop a $2-3k lens and only the filter ended up needing a replacement . Which I wouldn’t charge for labor as long as they promised to but a new UV filter that I would personally install on their lens .
I use high quality filters like zeiss or b+w on all my lenses for more than a decade. Easier to clean it than having dirt or smudge on the front element. Prevention is better than regret.
I’ve been using UV/Haze/skylight filters for 30 years and will attest to the image quality drop if using cheap ones when shooting. However, using high quality ones when shooting and then switching to cheap ones for lens storage or transportation has served me well and prevented glass damage countless times. Yes, it’s a bit of a hassle to switch them frequently, but once the process is part of the workflow, it becomes second nature. I usually put a piece of tape on the “protective” ones so I don’t accidentally shoot through them. In certain situations, a good UV filter will enhance the image.
They protect the expensive lens coating against salt and sand and I challenge you to tell the difference between images with one decent uvfilter vs none
In my case and that of many people... UV filter has no substitute, my lens does not have lens hood support
Never found them degrade quality to be honest, i use both. Better break the filter then the lens
Using filters to protect the lens does also ensure that the lens is protected against dust and water - in case the lens is weathersealed.
Weathersealed lenses are never tight at the front element. Using filters close this gap of weathersealing.
The filter also keeps my x100v weather sealed
I use only B+W F-Pro/XS UV+Haze MRC filters, never had any issues with them, lenses or image quality
It's quite hard to find replacement lens hoods for some of my lenses where you can get your hands on a decent filter pretty easily
I shoot a lot on the coast and on boats. Sand and salt spray is bad for everything. Get through quite a few lens filters.
I dont think even cheap filters would degrade image quality. It's a bit of glass that isn't even focused on. Its protecting the lens from scratches and damage.
Lens hood does protect from lens thread to be damaged but uv-filter has a number of usefulness to use it despite the fact that the extra glass degrades the quality of the picture! UV-filter goes a long way to drive the atmospheric haze away without giving any compensation for the exposure to be made and a good quality uv-filter protects the front element of the expensive lens from dirts floating in the air and static charges on the lens catches them to degrade your picture a lot and a filter gives you the freedom to wipe it whenever you think it's time to do so protecting your expensive lens to be wiped with dangers of lens coating to be damaged! Lens coating once damaged cannot be re-coated like the first coate made in the factory! Superfast lenses are highly expensive and always to be taken care of with close inspection on it because everyone isn't buying lenses costing $2000- $5000 every day even if they are highly professional photographers! Lens hood instead is required to protect light coming into the lens to scatter giving flares to the images but your idea is definitely an useful one in case of inadvertent falling of the lens damaging the thread of the lens!
I switched over to uv filters 24/7 (ones with hd glass and multi coating) just for dust and scratch protection reasons (i tend to use vintage collector lenses). I often dont use a lens hood. It makes me play around with flares and buff a weak composition (as long as the contrast stays acceptable). When i started photography i left the filters in my bag but then got mad as the coatings of my lens got damaged. Its often better to just put a 20-30$ filter on the front, than to loose 100$ in lens value due to scratches
I gasped when he dropped the lens 😭
if the filter lowers the quality of the photo then should we stop even considering taking photos through glass (i.e. windows of various sorts)?
Any change in image quality is negligible!but tiny little sketches on my canon UV lens is a lot better than scratches on my actual prime lens. I’ll just buy another canon UV lens and sleep well at night. Knowing that the coatings on my prime lens are well protected and my image quality is still excellent.
Unless I can find a lens hood protector to protect the lens hood. 😂
Seriously... You can put uv filter and lens hood together. Both has different purposes. Lenshood cuts lens glare.. uv protects from dust
If the lens is expensive enough I would use both.
Would love to see a comparison between the Brightin Star 35mm f0.95 and the TTArtisans 35mm f0.95 lens (or a shootout among all the 35mm f0.95 lenses, TTArtisans, 7artisans, Meike, Brightin Star, etc)
Thru time, you'll see how the Uv protected you front element
My UV folters will still protect my lenses even when I'm using hoods
If your lens lets you mount both then that's double the protection, for sure. But a lot of lenses don't allow you to mount the lens hood with a filter attached. At least, none of the lenses I own will.
@@TomCalton sorry thats BS, i never had a lensehood blocking filters
Hoods and filters serve different purposes. Filter protects from small projectiles (sand, dirt, ice, etc) and hoods protect from bumps and drops, keeps rain off the lens, as well as obviously unwanted light flares. Both are good.
Lens hoods are the way to go - we had a accident once where a lad sat on the motorised slider remote which made it go completely off balance 😅😂 it ended up falling and smashing into a wall
If we didn’t have the lens hood on we would’ve lost a £500+ lens and possibly more damage to the camera as well but instead the hood too the damage and we got a new one for £7 🎉
I had a metal hood save me falling tripod. and broke the adapter. but lens was fine
Using a lens hood doesn’t protect from flying debris. I’ve always used a lens hood and on a windy day on a safari, blowing sand scratched my last lens. This video is for clicks. If you buy a high quality UV filter like B+W, you won’t lose any image quality.
I have never seen a UV filter that dark.
Having once worked in a camera shop for 5 years, these things have saved people a lot of money. Seen so many cracked ans broken uv filters but the glass on the lens left intact
BUT you didn't ever see the lenses that survived without so much as a scratch, where they didn't have a UV filter on to break, either.
everything is a trade-off. a lens Hood adds enough physical size to the camera that it makes it more difficult to carry and to fit into a bag. if that makes you less likely to take the camera along and to use it, then that is bad.
Fingers trying to touch the glass (not just kids), stray grit from cars, corners of objects, tree branches, etc etc - I’ll stick with my not too cheap filter
Just use both.
Many lens hoods are also screw on ...lol
Ive always used UV filters. I don't always have a lens shade on, sometimes they are so big, especially indoors i hardly ever put them on. When I shoot film I put UV filters on since a lot of vintage lenses don't have multi coating. If I use a colored filter for my black-and-white, I usually take the UV off.
Lens hood doesn't protect from some damage types. After a helicopter on a shoot threw a handful of small rocks during takeoff with the air stream, hit my face and glasses and broke an expensive b+w protective filter but didn't damage the lens, I find any extra protective glass very very very useful. Especially on my face😂😂😂
A Lens Hood doesn't stop my 5yr niece from touching the glass😢
Lens hood is too bulky… I prefer the lens filtre much more discrete.
ALWAYS lens hood on! my RF 28-70 f2 fell from almost 2 meters (arround 6 feet) and the lens hood blowed in few pieces, but the lens, was completely perfect, 0 problems and that happened one year ago. Didn't used UV filters in years and I won't in the future (but I did other kind of filters as ND/polarizer/promist)
Use both- B+W
I've cracked 2 Hoya Evo UV filters while shooting auto sports. Stray rocks, dirt, etc. can and does hit me all the time. Both times I had a lens hood on and both times the UV filter came off and other than some glass dust the from the UV filter the lens behind it was 100% perfect. Whether or not you use a UV filter depends on the environment and risk your shooting in. You'll never catch me out on the racetrack without a good multi coated uv filter
I just use both worked fine
My wide angle i use alot a polarizer, there using lens hood is a pain to use 😉
A hood does nothing against dust, dirt, and liquid, I'll stick with my easily cleaned filter
I have a lens with a crack in it that I Only see literally in the bokeh. I'm not scared of cleaning marks. Only filters I have at the moment are nd and cpl filters.
Or… you could do both. And how about a high quality filter?
i shoot for 20 yrs never dropped i sometimes use clear UV filter so NOT to use Fugly huge hoods
Lens hood is not that useful if u wanna protect you lens from scratches, i'm using both
Where can I get one ?
This reel really seems to have attracted the amateur photographers who love their UV filters 😂
I use kitlens that have no lens hood screw…
Strong disagree on this - if it works for you, great, but I've had a lot more practical results with UV filters. Image quality has never been an issue, and we've had 2 instances of lens front elements being saved from a bad drop by the UV filter. Had to pry the filter off with a pair of pliers, but the lens filter thread survived.
Also if you shoot video, you're probably having to work with bulky and annoying camera setups already. Lens hoods have never been relevant for me in that case, and UV filters provide protection without having to account for them in rigging up the camera.
My choice is a B+W UV-Haze filters because of the fact they are manufactured from German Shott Glass.
Bar none the best and clearest Nano glass available for filters by B+W and Hoya. They have the best light transmission factors of any brand on the market. We don't need to debate UV effectiveness, since I have said the choice is based on using the clearest glass available on the market in front of my lenses.
So light transmissibility factor will be at its highest with filters manufactured from Shott Glass. You will see no degradation of images as you would with cheaper filters. In some cases you need to be sure you are using a Chinese counterfeit that has a glass element that is only plastic. Plus you seem to forget there are still some Purist out in the world that shoot film still.
I recently (two days ago) had my Nikon 28-70 f:2.8 roll onto the floor when on packing it, and yes there was damage. The hood was was store on the lens in the backward position to conserve space.
However, the filter's glass shattered from a two foot drop. If you own this lens you already know its front heavy as all hell. Needless to say there was no damage to my lens whatsoever.
Also, if you are buy glass filters, or for the matter fake glass filters with no coatings you are presenting problems for yourself...
Also, you have not even talked about the people that shoot on beaches and sandy areas having sand (glass particles) blown onto their filter's glass.
i always buy kodak UV filter and i usually use at outdoor shoots only