JDubsy

Hi all! Anybody have any thoughts on the best way to protect camera lenses? I’m traveling to Germany in the fall and getting some new lenses for the trip. One person at the local camera shop said I definitely need UV filters to protect the lenses. Another person said that hoods were the only way to go! Help!

Bill Munny Loc: Aurora, Colorado

Go look up on the search button above. Lots of discussion on this subject.

crazydaddio Loc: Toronto Ontario Canada

I use both.

mrpentaxk5ii

One does not replace the other, they do different jobs and different filters do different things, a lens hood will protect the edge of the lens from flare and if you bump into something, a good UV filter keeps sand and dust off of your lens and will cut down on UV rays.

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

I use both.
Here you will get both sides.
There are the filter haters who swear that a filter will do nothing to protect your lens.
From personal experience I have had a filter shattered and saved my lens from any damage and am so glad I had it on my lens. Another time I did not have a filter on and the lens front element was damaged. Add to this that I always use a hood that helps protect the lens and the filter attachment ring. But I had both on the two occasions mentioned.
I primarily use the hood for the purpose it was designed for and that is to shade the front element of the lens to the greatest extent possible depending on the relationship of the light source to the lens.
I still have and use the cracked hood I have for my 24-105 lens. I just gorilla glued it back together after it saved my lens.
You decide what is your lens worth and how much risk you want to take. I don't baby my stuff like many do here but don't abuse it either.

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

This is an old argument that has been revisited multiple times, and there are vociferous feelings on both sides of the issue. Personally I always use a hood, but use (clear) filters only in outdoor settings where the lens may be subject to dust, sand or moisture. A couple of data points: many Canon weather sealed lenses (and perhaps other manufacturer’s) require a front filter to complete the weather sealing. Also, many pros advise against using filters on certain lenses - specifically the Canon 100-400L for example.

rook2c4 Loc: Philadelphia, PA USA

[quote=JOne person at the local camera shop said I definitely need UV filters to protect the lenses.[/quote]
Of course the camera shop people will say that... they want you to spend more money. Using fear to sell customers overpriced, useless UV filters is what helps keep most of these shops in business.

Mac Loc: Pittsburgh, Philadelphia now Hernando Co. Fl.

If you use the "Search" function at the top of the page you will find a multitude of discussions on this subject.

rgrenaderphoto Loc: Hollywood, CA

At least you didn't ask about RAW vs JPEG :)

ricardo7 Loc: Washington, DC - Santiago, Chile

Done to death.

BHC Loc: Strawberry Valley, JF, USA

Ditto!

PixelStan77 Loc: Vermont/Chicago

I use both for different protection reasons.

Joe Blow

OK, here we go. Again.

Years ago, back in the film days, UV and Skylight filters were used to reduce ultra-violet light. UV light would make the photo look washed out. They served a second purpose in that they also kept dirt and oil off of the front element of the lens.

Now lets jump ahead a couple dozen years. Lens manufacturing has come a long way. Lenses today are coated with an oil and water repellent material. This also repels dust. The front element no longer needs to be covered to keep them clean. Filters aren't coated and will gather dust and fingerprints.

Sensors are not as susceptible to UV light as were film cameras. Digital cameras use internal filters to remove any UV light.

Now as for physical protection, that too is a small issue. Any drop or hit that will break the filter is probably enough to damage the inside of the camera. Remember, it isn't the fall that hurts, it's the sudden stop at the bottom. When a lens is dropped the outside will probably look good. BUT, inside, you have these heavy glass elements that may be displaced. The internal workings of the lens can be damaged by being bent or stripped. A filter that is screwed into the front of the lens is solid and will not protect the lens from the forces that would damage the insides.

To be technical, these forces are rated in G forces. The trick to stop something safely is to reduce the G forces by cushioning the impact. In an auto accident, hitting the dash is a sudden stop and hurts a lot more. Using a seatbelt slows and cushions that impact, reducing the G force. Any screw on filter can not cushion the impact.

A lens hood will deform as they are malleable (bendable). That absorbs the G forces and cushions the impact. They may break, but that is just absorbing the energy. Dropping a lens on its hood may not save the lens from internal damage, but it will help.

The last argument is why put a $25 piece of glass in front of a $2,000 finely tuned lens? I don't buy that argument, but will mention it. Many people just don't believe the glass in a filter is as good as what is in the lens. I don't think it makes much difference.

Summary
A filter does nothing for the lens. A lens hood will help protect the lens from accidental drops and will also block stray sun.

If someone feels that a UV filter gives them piece of mind, feel free to use one. It most likely won't hurt, but don't expect much benefit. This does not apply to circular polarizers which do have a benefit.

repleo Loc: Boston

Which is better? Canon or Nikon?

Joe Blow

Oh, definitely chunky peanut better.