JohnFrim Loc: Somewhere in the Great White North.

Yeah, maybe time to start a new thread on the topic "Lens Hood... or Not?" I suspect there would be less disagreement.

whitewolfowner

Funny... I not only have seen the lenses they use but was one myself (stole practically every award one year for the paper i worked for in a national competition). Have mentored several others, including my son who has blown a way his professors with his knowledge and skills as well as many Nascar drivers, Fox sports and ESPN who love him for his skills. Guess the article knows more about it.

whitewolfowner

I know all about debating. Won Virginia state meet in debate when in high school. There's a difference between two intelligent people debating an issue and trying to get some fact across to dead horse.

dfm

I live out West where you shoot in the wind or you miss a lot of pics. Filters are a must for lens protection 'year round. Of course, I use good filters to minimize problems with the final product.

Bugfan Loc: Toronto, Canada

"I see, a scratch is OK and will not affect the image, but a filter will. Where di you get your knowledge from; looney tune land?"

Actually ... the writer is correct. Where did you study physics, back in kindergarten?

Front lens elements often accumulate all kinds of stuff like dust particles, hair, other organic material particularly on a windy day and yet if you look through the view finder it looks like you have a completely clear lens. The same happens with a scratch, a mild one just disappears. It has to do with the optical nature of the lens. The front element is huge compared to one at the end of the lens and as a result an imperfection or even an air bubble isn't noticable because it's a tiny proportion of the entire image. By the time the light works it's way to the back it's been compressed ever more making the imperfection tiny.

On the other hand, at the back of the lens where all the light is now concentrated heading to the sensor, the smallest particle can become visible ruining the picture because, unlike at the front, a dust spec at the back actually blocks the fine detail that lens has just created for you.

As to a filter, that's raised from the lens element which means that an imperfection in the filter will have a different effect on the light stream as it gets focused. The filter is also more prone to flare because it is raised above the front lens element whereas some dust or even a scratch on the surface of the lens element is almost invisible in most cases.

But you don't have to believe us. Put a thumb print on the front of one of your lenses or maybe a few specs of dust, and then take a picture of something, you'll find you won't notice the imperfection at all.

whitewolfowner

That is simply not true. Everyone who runs this argument uses the concept of a hard blow to the front of the lens that shatters with a mighty force. Of course a filter will be useless as a protector in that situation. There's even video's on the internet where idiots are slamming lenses with bowling balls from 8 feet above and claiming: "see, the filter did not protect the lens, waste of time and money". Filters protect in hundreds of situations that save the front element; scratches, having the filter ring ruined on a small edge drop by bending it, finger marks (which contain body oils that are deadly to coatings), nothing to say about small objects that are sharp and scratch when attempting to clean; too small to see but large enough to scratch. Splashes from liquids that are not friendly to lens elements, especially those that have sugar in them. I could go on and on where a filter will protect and save a lens from damage. Anyone with common sense and doesn't have a budget that can replace a damaged lens instantly without financial hurt, in my book is a fool not to buy a quality filter and protect that front element. Those that can afford to replace them like that and still care less about the lens, are ungrateful, selfish snobs.

whitewolfowner

Only shows you where the person's head and knowledge is that told you that. And you wonder why you are holding onto a belief that can't hold water? There is the bull and there is the truth. Your boss was the bull.

whitewolfowner

You're probably right, but you'd be surprised how many would come in here and defend to the death that you are a fool to use a lens hood. Had one of them around shooting baseball. Had a nice expensive f2.8 zoom lens, sun setting behind the batters and this fool is out there shooting into the general area; had the lens hood on the lens, but had it turned in the stored position, so it was useless. I couldn't help myself but to ask him why he wasn't using the hood and he told me that he was. And the worst part about it was that he had already had children; so he had bred!

Bugfan Loc: Toronto, Canada

In my film days I had a wonderful protection for my lenses, a metal screw on lens cap. I dropped a lens with that on it one time and there was absolutely no damage at all.

I don't know if they still exist and they were of course a pain to screw on and off but they were realy the best protection.

Abo

A filter can improve an image more than it degrades it: http://www.picturecorrect.com/tips/should-you-use-a-uv-filter-on-your-lens/


Also there are examples where a filter will protect a lens when a "hood" won't.

whitewolfowner

I see, then explain to me Mr. Scientist (obviously you are not. By the way, I am) why you see a rain drop on a lens. Hate to inform you but the tiniest imperfection, finger print, or anything on the front of a lens will affect the image. Probably, you can't see it (either from a vision problem, attitude problem or brain problem). Don't fell hurt (I'm not trying to be mean to you, just honest) though; how many people still can't tell the difference between a snap shot from a $20 Kodak instamatic and a camera with top quality lens. We all don't see the same or as accurately as others do.

whitewolfowner

Yes, you are right. It's the same thing with lens cases; in the days of old, a good telephoto lens came with a quality hard case which protected it, even from a hard blow. Good example of this would be in a dug out during a baseball game. Those hard cases would protect the lens even from a batted or thrown baseball that hits the case. Today, you can only get a soft case and in the same situation, the lens would be damaged or destroyed. Guess manufacturers have figured this out too and find they sell more lenses when the first one gets destroyed and the photographer is forced to re-buy it to replace the broken one. Many items sold out there for "protection" are nothing more than a false security and an accident waiting to happen.

whitewolfowner

You are absolutely correct. I have lived in the west and in the east and easterners have no idea of the dirt that blows and gets everywhere. When I first moved out west, I was complaining about the dirt. Hell, I could dust a room, go to the rest room and come back and it needed cleaning again. A mother in the crowd (was at my son little league game) leaned over and told me that I had it all figured wrong. She said, you open the front door and the back door and let the wind blow out the old dirt and blow in the new. That way you get fresh clean dirt. When she told me that I thought she was being sarcastic, but anyone who lives west of Dallas, Tx. can immediately identify with her logic. It's that bad out west.

Bugfan Loc: Toronto, Canada

I forgot about the hard cases, that too was wonderful protection.

But I guess from a capitalistic point of view these are bad. Removing them saved the manufacturers some money which they kept and they made more later selling the same lenses again when they broke.

whitewolfowner

You are very correct. He is showing no improvement in the blueing in the shadows or cutting the haze in the distance with his UV. I use Tiffen Haze 2 filters and do see the difference in my photos; it does cut some of the blue haze in the distance; but I'm also shooting at 3500 feet above sea level and many times higher than that. Here is an example of the haze at higher elevations and shooting to a distance. Without the filter the little details that the mountain shows would have been much less or not there at all. The mountain is 50 - 60 miles away, even the land in the foreground is probably at least 20 miles away or more. Not a great shot, but a test shot done to see if the filter helped. Unfortunately, I had the photo taken the same photo with the filter off but did not keep it. The one with the filter off was much worse and I got what I did out of the one with the Haze 2 with some work. I didn't think at the time I took it that it would be helpful to keep the other one, since it was worse than this one.

(Download)