To lens hood or not to lens hood

[jenclark]

Can anyone tell me if they use a lens hood and why?

What about filters? UV, Polarized, etc.....?????

I see all these sites that say to use a filter and lens hood but I don't really understand why both plus they are selling them so I need a users standpoint. What are advantages aside from the obvious protection?

My uses: Basketball, Football, Baseball and whatever else decided to cross my path.

[Rusty]

Jen,

Back in my film days (dark ages) I used a variety of filters shooting B&W. Now, with digital, I can use Elements to get just about anything a filter would do.

I know professionals will use filters for things such as "warming", "color boost", etc., but I'm not skilled enough to begin to know when I might want to do that. Again, we have Elements :)

A polarizing filter is a good thing. I will use one now if the lighting is such that the sky needs a boost -- you can get some really pretty blues and it's easier to do it when taking the picture than in Elements. It can also tame some bad reflections (or magnify if that's what you are after). I have used it often indoors if a picture on the wall, under glass, is causing a problem. That filter, however, is going to cost you at least one, and possibly two full exposure stops.

If you are shooting football or baseball outside you can't always choose where you point in relation to the sun. The hood will help avoid reflection or flare caused by the sun falling on the surface of the lens.

When my son was playing hockey I took pictures at almost every game. I wasn't worried about reflections but I was standing in the corner next to the boards swinging around a 200mm fixed lens. I used the hood only because I was concerned about clunking the bare end of my lens into the glass.

If you go to filter manufacturer websites, or talk to clerks in photography stores, they will all tell you to put a "Skylight" or "UV" filter on to "protect the lens". Remember, they want to sell you a filter.

Others, some on this Forum, will adamantly tell you not to do that; usually with the comment, "Why put a cheap piece of glass on the end of your expensive, precision lens?"

Hey, some of these filters sure ain't cheap glass. Look at some of the stuff B+W peddles... you can buy a new standard lens for what they want for some filters.

I'm sure others will be along with opinions - probably contrary :)
I always have a filter ("1A" or "Haze") mounted if there is any possibility of inclement weather when I go out.

Rusty

[LeeOtsubo]

This question comes up on a regular basis. I wish PSEU Forums would set up a sticky for things that everyone needs to know.

The only filters a digital photographer needs are circular polarizers and graduated neutral density filters for landscapes. All other filters can be simulated in PS or PSE. UV flters are simply a way for camera shops to relieve you of more money. They might protect your front lens element in rare cases but, unless you're willing to pay serious $$$ for top-of-the-line filters for each lens, you're simply adding a crappy piece of glass in front of a good lens. If you have a crappy lens, you're making things doubly crappy.:D

Lens hoods are good for preventing lens flare. They also offer a modicum of protection if you tend to be klutzy and bang your lens against things.

The only time I recommend UV or clear filters is when shooting in salt spray or in the Gobi Desert during a windstorm. HTH

[Codebreaker]

I always put a good quality UV filter on my lenses. Not only does it reduce haze but also acts as protection. Only a little while back, on one of those rare days we had sunshine, my daughter managed to squirt sun screen all over my camera. They've already paid for themselves.:)

As filters, well there are some things that you can do in Photoshop but there are others that a filter does easier.

The only filters I have are Neutral Density Grad Filters. Useful for landscapes and preventing blown skys.

Colin

[BOBGRUETTER]

I agree with Codebreaker. I have used a uv filter since my film days, and since I live in Florida, on the coast, and love sunrises, saly spray and air are a consideration. I also carry a circular polarizing filter for when conditions warrant.

bob
BOBGRUETTER

[RonH]

I am one of the klutzy people. My UV Haze filter has save my lenses a couple of time. I dented the ring on the lense twice and no damge to the lense.

[Chuck S.]

I'll throw in my vote for Lee's approach with respect to protective filters. I tend to use my DSLR only in ideal conditions and I protect it obsessively from bangs and bumps and foreign substances. In less than stellar conditions, the DSLR stays in its cocoon and a P&S takes its place. None of my P&S cameras have a filter in place, and none has any scratches or nicks on the lenses.

I know....I miss lots of photo ops with this approach. Something about old dogs and new tricks.....

[lowbone]

A filter is the worst enemy of photography. I bought into the UV filter protection baloney for years and couldn't believe the extra pop my photos had when I finally junked the UV. I use a lens hood all the time for protection and to avoid flare, something that seems to be more of a problem with digital photography. I do have some filters though, polarizer, graduated neutral density and plain neutral density. The filters I do have are of a very high quality. As Lee said earlier " why put a crappy piece of glass in front of a good lens"

[gez]

CPL, ND and GND are the only filters I use. I'm also a firm believer in hoods. I don't have one for EVERY lens but those that I do have I do use.

[Joe M]

Now I'm confused.

I have to admit I bought into the UV Filter talk and keep a Hoya UV Filter on my camera. I haven't taken enough pictures to know if I'm losing "pop" in my pictures or not. I'm not sure I would really know to blame it on the filter or the poor camera operator anyway.

I guess it's time to do more research and make a decision.

[bayhli]

Timely question and the word haze prompted me to post this picture to clarify what filters are needed.

I always have a UV filter on my lenses and use a circular polarizer for bright skies. Usually I slip the polarizer over the UV filter when needed but this day I decided to take the UV filter off first. The sun was to my left side but I think over the time of photographing, it may have slipped slightly in front of me as well. (What I noticed is that the c. polarizer is doing a better job of the skies than these later pictures making me think the sun moved further forward but that haze is still present in the early photos)

All the images have the haze you see on the left and some have the additional glare spots. I didn't see any of this thru the viewfinder nor the screen so I was not a very happy camper when I got home.

So what happened - should I have left the UV filter on in addition to the c. polarizer to prevent that haze. i.e. the UV filter would have filtered out that haze? Would the lens hood have prevented it?

(I was bracketing too so I've got about a hundred of these ruined images)
http://www.pixentral.com/hosted/1KtvD2LPfahPkzCWlSSDaT2WFn6Ljz_thumb.jpg (http://www.pixentral.com/show.php?picture=1KtvD2LPfahPkzCWlSSDaT2WFn6Ljz)

[Codebreaker]

Obviously there's a lot of personal preference about putting UV fiiters on but I wouldn't call it out right nonsense if you buy the right piece of glass.

Many good make UV filters are actually better quality than the glass in the kit lenses that you get with some cameras.

I've always used one and it's never detracted from the image quality.

Pays your money and you takes your choice. :)

Colin

[LeeOtsubo]

Pat,
It's hard to tell but I would guess you're seeing lens flare. Were you using a lens hood? Reducing flare is the main value of a hood. UV filters block ultraviolet, an invisible portion of the light spectrum. IOW, you'll never see it unless your camera has been modified to detect UV. There are UV/Haze filters but these are mostly useful at high altitudes where UV is stronger and intrudes into the visible spectrum.

Colin,
This is not meant to try to change your mind (or anyone else's) but, as you point out, good filters are expensive. I have 8 lenses with 5 different filter sizes. At ~US$100 per filter, that's US$500 to cover all the sizes. Then, there's the time & hassle to change filters from one lens to another when I change lenses. Of course, I could pay US$800 for a filter for each lens.

A primary advantage of a dSLR is the ability to change lenses to meet specific conditions. If you're just using 1 lens, a UV filter might make sense but defeats the advantage of a great camera.

Finally, with Canon EF-S lenses and other digital specific lenses, the smaller APS-C sensor size makes it more sensitive to vignetting unless very thin (read as expensive), low profile filters are used.

Just my US$0.02 worth based on 40+ years of photography plus 10 years as a professional.

[bayhli]

Thanks Lee,

Serves me right for not using the hood. I'm trying to do seasonal images there so will have to go back before the snow flies in a couple of days - with the hood!

I'm thinking I need a dioptric adjustment lens, I just seem to be "missing" too much through the vewfinder lately. I am that age... Any thoughts on those?

Sure glad to hear you and your wife are back home safe and sound.

[LeeOtsubo]

...I'm thinking I need a dioptric adjustment lens, I just seem to be "missing" too much through the vewfinder lately. I am that age... Any thoughts on those?

Sure glad to hear you and your wife are back home safe and sound.

Hi Pat,
Thanks, the fires exceeded our excitement quota for the year. We don't need no mo' stinkin' excitement!!!

re: dioptric adjustment, are you saying your dioptric adjustment on the 30D isn't enough and you need additional correction? I've heard of 3rd party lenses but don't know anything about them. I got Lasik surgery to take care of this problem.:D

I'm writing an MMT covering Depth of Field so that should take care of the questions you had earlier this week.

[jenclark]

Great deal of knowledge on this thread and I'm anxious to get going. I feel that I will start off with the hood and see how things progress and maybe work into a filter later. I'm not that klutsy.........so hopefully I can take Chuck's approach and be selective. Plus, I have insurance if anything fails or is damaged. Off to find the right hood for my main lens. Thanks for all the detailed info.

[Joe M]

Here is an interesting article that deals with UV Filters (http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/technical/filters.html).

Here is a forum thread on Flickr that also deals with UV Filters (http://www.flickr.com/groups/nikkor50mm18/discuss/72157600597033336/).

After doing some reading I'm probably going with the elders on this forum and take the filter off my camera. Though I have a good quality filter I just don't think it's needed with the kind of pictures I take and my location being close to sea level.

Of course it will always be in the bag if I ever do need it.

[gez]

If you are so inclined, you could buy a quality filter sized for your largest lens requirement then get step down rings to fit it to the smaller diameters. One filter and a few rings covers everything.

[Chuck S.]

.

After doing some reading I'm probably going with the elders on this forum and take the filter off my camera. Though I have a good quality filter I just don't think it's needed with the kind of pictures I take and my location being close to sea level.

Of course it will always be in the bag if I ever do need it.

Joe, good to carry it, because even the 'elders' (sounds like 'old".....:() indicated that the use is situational. If I had a kid squirting sunscreen in my direction I'd sure want a filter....:D

[Rusty]

I have a lens hood Q...

Back in the day..... the hoods that were routinely included with any long lens purchase were of the "can design".

Now, I always see what I think is called "petal". That's what came with my 200mm zoom.

Is this just an attempt to save a tiny fraction of a cent in material costs, or is it really what has been determined to be the latest, greatest and best?

My dumb old logic says the "wings" of the petal just might not be in the right place (depending on the position of the sun).

Curious,

Rusty

[JulieM]

I just bought a new lens hood today, Rusty, and I was wondering the same thing. Why the petal shape?

[LeeOtsubo]

Joe, good to carry it, because even the 'elders' (sounds like 'old".....:() indicated that the use is situational. If I had a kid squirting sunscreen in my direction I'd sure want a filter....:D

Just shoot the little critter!:D

The petal shape has two purposes:
1. It reduces chances of vignetting in the corners. Remember, the sensor is rectangular.
2. Increases the "cool" factor and induces people to buy more expensive hoods and/or lenses.

[Rusty]

I suspect the cool factor may be as good a reason as any.
(I think it looks silly)

The sensor is rectangular and the lens is round...
...so what, what's new about that? The frame of film is also rectangular.

I'm not in the market for a super dooper film camera, but if I was, and if I wanted a long lens, would that hood now be "petal" if I selected a lens specifically made for film?

Rusty :confused:

[LeeOtsubo]

I suspect the cool factor may be as good a reason as any.
(I think it looks silly)

The sensor is rectangular and the lens is round...
...so what, what's new about that? The frame of film is also rectangular.

I'm not in the market for a super dooper film camera, but if I was, and if I wanted a long lens, would that hood now be "petal" if I selected a lens specifically made for film?

Rusty :confused:

Actually, the petal has greater effect on shorter lenses. On a wide (short) lens, the FOV (field of view) is quite wide. A round hood shades equally at all points around the sensor (or film) but a petal allows more light at the corners. Consider a round hood that's the depth of the petal at the low point. That allows more light all around, resulting in flare. A round hood that is the depth of the petal at the high point would allow less light all around, resulting in vignetting. By cutting the petals, the long petals shade the sides, top and bottom while the dips allow more light into the corners. To test this, tape a petal shaped hood to make it a round hood and compare the photos to a regular petal hood. You'll see the corners are slightly darker with a round hood.

All my longer lenses (200mm+) have round hoods because the FOV is much narrower and vignetting is not a problem.

[Rusty]

OK, understood, thanks.

When I bought standard lenses that came with a can hood, they were all 200mm or greater. We all knew better than to use it on short lenses unless vignetting was desired. I guess the petal came in answer to how common zoom lenses are now.

Rusty