Ava'sPapa Loc: Cheshire, Ct.

Which do you prefer and why?

scubadoc Loc: Sarasota, FL

A filter does nothing except add flare and degrade an image, especially if you are using a prime lens. A lens hood should diminish flare and will still protect a lens from dings and bugs.

Manglesphoto Loc: 70 miles south of St.Louis

Filter!!+ hood
The filter will protect the lens from dust and smudges the hood from some dumps and dings But I don't aways keep a hood on my 200mm Macro lens and I have very little trouble with flare, the 24-120 always has the hood on.

billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont

Your question has been asked here about 100+ times.
It is a personal preference. I always just use a lens hood unless I am using a polarizing filter or a graduated filter, otherwise it's just the lens hood.
Reason 1 you should always have the hood turned the proper direction, their is nothing more distasteful than seeing a lens hood reversed on a lens, what's the point of even having one. But the reason is it prevents stray light from entering the lens.
Reason 2, it offers better protection for the lens than just a filter.
a. if you drop your lens with just a filter, yes, the filter may crack, but it may also dent the actual end threads of your lens causing permanent damage to the threads.
b. if you drop your lens with the lens hood attached the hood not only protects the end threads and front element glass, but is also acts as a shock absorber for the internal parts of a very complicated internal organs of the lens.
Bottom line, in my life time I have dropped camera and lens three times, the last time was a few days ago my D500 with the 70-200 lens came loose from it's spider holster and dropped three feet to a board walk, the lens hood shattered on impact. Result, no damage to the lens or body. If I had just a filter on the lens, who knows how much shock damage would have been done to both my electronic rich camera body or delicate parts on the inside of my lens.
I was a professional photographer for over 30 years, I stand behind my statements that a lens hood is superior to preventing damage than a mere filter ever could. And anyone here saying a filter is superior to a lens hood for protection is barking up the wrong equipment tree. IMHO and from personal experience.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

Life as a photographer is either a daring adventure or a life where a hood is good enough.

ELNikkor

A filter is far superior to a lens hood. It will not degrade your image, and it keeps the precious front glass of your lens in like-new condition. So much dust, spray, splatter, bugs, kid's fingerprints, sneeze particles, and foreign matter gets on my filter, (even with a lens hood!) that would otherwise be on my front element. Always put on a filter from the day you get your new lens. Use a lens shade only when glare becomes a problem. A lens without a front filter is like going out naked! The last thing you need is a clunky, long hood whacking into every doorway, tree, body, and building you pass by, getting blown by the wind and causing vibrations etc. etc.

Don, the 2nd son Loc: Crowded Florida

DirtFarmer Loc: Escaped from the NYC area, back to MA

You're assuming that your protection filter is ALWAYS on your lens. If you want to use a CPL, you either remove your protection filter and install the CPL or you stack the filters. There are good reasons NOT to stack filters, particularly on wide angle lenses, so if you don't there will be (short) periods of time when your lens is unprotected.

I do not believe a filter is superior to a lens hood in terms of protection. I have had a camera hit the ground nose first once. It was on a tripod and the wind blew it over. It had a hood, no filter. The hood protected the lens. If you look at Steve Perry's video he makes the point that the front element of your lens is probably several millimeters thick, while your filter is probably less than a millimeter thick. The thicker piece of glass is stronger, and he does some extreme experiments as examples of just how strong it is. If something hits your lens protected by a filter and the filter breaks, you then have pieces of broken glass on the front of your lens, and just cleaning them off could produce scratches.

I rarely use a filter on my lenses and have had no problems. There are, however, times when a protective filter is advised. That includes environmental hazards such as blowing sand, salt spray, flying mud, moving through dense brush and things like that. In general a lens hood will keep large objects away from your lens, but very small hazards such as listed above will not be kept away by a hood.

I believe that it is not necessary to leave a filter on your lens all the time, but response to changes in environmental conditions are justified.

For those who are concerned about IQ, I am studying the effect of filters on image sharpness. The study is not yet complete, and is limited in scope to one lens at the moment, but although differences are observed, they are within the uncertainty of the measurements. I conclude that a good filter will not significantly alter the sharpness of the image. The study does NOT include the generation of lens flare by added filters. UHH will see the study when it's completed, Real Soon Now.

ecobin Loc: Paoli, PA

I always use a hood for obvious reasons (extraneous light & protection). I use filters for various artistic purposes.

lamontcranston

I always wear a belt AND suspenders to keep my pants up. Likewise, I always keep a filter AND a hood on my lenses for maximum protection of my equipment.

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

I sometimes use a clear filter to protect the lens in wet or dirty situations - especially with strong wind. The lens hood is good for blocking side light and protecting the lens in case of drops or hitting against something.

StanMac Loc: Tennessee

They were designed to serve different purposes, and can be used together for their particular purposes. I almost always have a UV filter on my lens, primarily as dust and debris barrier for the lens’s front element, and to help with glare reduction and sky definition and a lens hood to control flare.

Stan

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

I use both.
A filter to protect the front element, and a hood to reduce side light.

And yes, use of either is a personal preference.

Quixdraw Loc: x

Both, except when using on camera flash. Each performs a different task so IMO, both are needed and useful.

Ava'sPapa Loc: Cheshire, Ct.

Thanks to all of you for your input. Back in the 70's when I started using decent cameras I used filters and continued using them for years. I'd say that I switched over to hoods after reading a convincing article a dozen or so years ago. I prefer hoods and have never had a problem. HOWEVER, I was researching a couple of Canon RF lenses (that I have backordered at B&H) on Ken Rockwell's website and he suggests getting filters for the 24-105 f4 and the 70-200 f2.8. His "best" recommendation is the 77mm (same size for both lenses) Hoya multicoated HD3 UV followed by the B&W 77mm 010. I ordered the HD3 but I'm not convinced it's the better option.