Jim-Pops Loc: Granbury, Texas

I have a question to you since you have been using the filters since the late 60's have you scratched any of your filters and if so about how many? Do you use a lens hood too?
When I first took up photography seriously I always had a filter in place. I never scratched a filter but I always shoot with a lens hood. I have high dollar lenses but have never scratched a lens or filter. Ken Rockwell says to ditch the lens hood and always use a high quality filter to protect the glass.

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

If that quote is correct, then Ken isn’t (correct) in this case. Not only does the hood protect the lens, but its primary purpose is to prevent flare. Except when shooting Macro, I always have a hood on my lenses - why would you not?

Jim-Pops Loc: Granbury, Texas

Guarantee it is a quote from Ken. He states get rid of the hood and get a good UV filter when reviewing the Nikon 28-300 mm lens. I agree with you TriX, it prevents flare and protects the lens.

wdross Loc: Castle Rock, Colorado

I don't about Stoshik, but I have filters from 1975. Except for a very cheap red filter, they are all in very good shape with no scratches. But then I use a lens hood all the time, so that is not a surprise to me. Except for the red filter (one of the first filters I bought), all of them were mid cost or better. My profesional photographer teacher told me not to skimp on quality. On the polarizer I didn't skimp but on the red filter I did. Even though that red filter was bought back in 1975, I still consider it as one of the worst decisions I have ever made in photography. It was a very cheap single coated filter. It never seemed to stay clean and then some of the coating started coming off. The polarizer that I bought at the same time, multi-coated and expensive at the time, is in excellent condition and is used on my 90 f2 macro today.

I know the testing may show marginal reasoning for buying an expensive filter, but my experience has taught me there is no real substitute for quality. And, unfortunately, in the camera market, quality usually means cost.

And as far as Ken Rockwell's suggestion, I guess he has money to burn. Or the lens and filter manufactures want him to promote such an action to sell more.

User ID

`



You are aware, are you not, that you're being waaaaaay
too reasonable, pragmatic, and realistic for this arena ?

AndyH Loc: Massachusetts and New Hampshire

In my fifty plus years of photography, I have replaced two UV filters. In both cases the filter was a lot cheaper than the lens would have been. I do generally remove them when shooting indoors or in very genial conditions, but it's a pretty cheap insurance policy obtained at the cost of some possible aberration and flare. I almost always shoot with a lens hood on every lens though.

Personal choice, but I got the UV habit early, and the first time I needed it, the lens saved was a fast 200 mm Super Takumar that I could not have afforded to replace. YMMV, as with anything. I do think Ken Rockwell is crazy to avoid lens hoods. Yes, they're overpriced, but there are so many times you need one. Seems a foolish savings to me.

Andy

User ID

I use that lens. Ken is quite correct. The rest of you
clearly know nothing about it.

The hood comes with the lens, and it is rather bulky.
And acoarst a lens hood for a 10X wide-to-tele must
always be 99% decorative, or a codpiece. So, hoping
to ditch the hood, I ran verrrry complete tests, and I
found it nearly impossible to create any ghosts, flare,
or veiling that the hood has any effect upon. The lens
is nearly immune to those problems anywho.

BTW, the my test results are WITH filter in place.


`

AndyH Loc: Massachusetts and New Hampshire

This is quite true, although I wouldn't go as far as 99%. However I don't generally use long zooms, and when the quote was initially presented, the lens was not mentioned.

But even a hood sized for the shortest setting on a high zoom ratio lens serves some purpose. I wouldn't throw it out, but just recognize that it's not of much use in many situations.

Andy

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

Assuming your statement as to its lack of usefulness in reducing potential flare is correct (which I doubt), how about the loss of potential protection? Maybe a little “bulky” (most hoods are), but you’ll appreciate it if you drop the lens or hit it on a sharp object. But hey, it’s your lenses, do as you please - I’ll keep using those bulky hoods.

Blenheim Orange Loc: Michigan

Mike

canon Lee

I do studio shoots for youth sports clubs where on occasion a team will be wearing "glow" shirts, which have a neon glow. I use mono lights and I use UV sheets attached to the umbrellas. I understand that the glow shirts have a chemical in them that glow when in contact to UV light. The UV filters work to some small degree, but I still get the blown out hot spots no matter what the light outputs are or the aperture settings! I have tried moving the lights further away from the subjects also. Any photographers have any suggestions.

Pablo8 Loc: Nottingham UK.

Perhaps polarizing sheets on your lights, and a Polarizing filter on camera. Maybe able to adjust one against the other to control the 'Glow'.

jeryh Loc: Oxfordshire UK

With digital, filters are not generally needed. I just use one to keep the lens clean

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

That's because the shirts that glow in response to UV light are glowing in visible light which a UV filter will not cut out. Phosphorescence converts a high energy photon (UV) to a lower energy (visible). Phosphorescence is not limited to UV wavelengths to excite the glow. Blue light will work in some cases also.

User ID

I think you missed that he's filtering at the light source to
reduce phosphoresence. He did not mention lens filtering.

Not sure what the actual light source is, but hopefully it's
not strobes. Filament lights, or perhaps tungsten balanced
LED, would put out far less UV in the first place than xenon
tubes !

.