Lens Hoods (and now filters)- How important are they?
 

I read elsewhere that someone had been using a Canon 400mm DO f4 lens without a hood for some time. I have to say I was a bit shocked.
What do you think about the value of hoods?

I think with small prime lenses you can often do without one, but something with a lot of glass (big zooms, fast primes) surely need some form of cover protecting stray light bouncing around.

Besides, they provide great protection for the glassware.

Small primes are simple in design and utilise few lens elements. Physically longer lenses contain more elements that are are more prone to flare, requiring a hood to shade from stray light. Personally I use a lens hood to shelter the front element from dust and other contaminants. A lens hood will also protect a lens from physical damage stopping a user from bumping it into things!

I have to agree that the best function of a lens hood is to protect the glass against the elements,dust and damage. I used a sigma 170-500mm lens without a hood for over 2 months and never noticed any difference where stray light was concerned.

Personally I would not consider using a lens without a lens hood. Probably the only time you could safely do that is when there is NO possibility of stray light striking the front element.

Don

I once read, the only time not use a lens hood is when using flash. Like a lemming I simply followed this without challenge or reason. I dare say the only time to definitely use a hood is with flash.

Light is light whatever its source. Stray light entering a lens degrades the image. Ultra Wides and zooms are worse due to the number of elements. My 80-200 f2.8 has a modest 16 elements in 11 groups ..... plenty for the stray light to bounce off in all directions. I cannot remember how many reviews I have read in the past where uncontrolled flare leading to poor image quality was put down to a poorly designed lens hood.

The best hood I had was for my Bronica. It was a bellows type and could be racked in or out to suit whatever lens with great precision.

Don

Never shoot without one except in extreme close-up.

nirofo.

Since it has been suggested that we all remove our filters,then using the lens hood is a must!!!

Why would we all want to remove our filters, I always have one of some description fitted on the lens, even if it's just a UV to protect the front element. The only time I don't use a front element filter is when using my Nikkor 500mm f4 (125mm front element), it has a built in protective glass front element. Also when using a macro lens with a deeply recessed front element, as in Tamron 90mm macro.

nirofo.

I wouldn't dream of not using some type of filter for the front of my lens. Between smoke, dust and unintentional scratches, it is much cheaper replacing a filter than it is a lens.

The metal hood on the front of my Nikkor 80-200 is great for taking the knocks it gets when out and about. I try to always remember a lens hood but can't say i noticed a difference when using my 135-400 Sigma - i was always forgetting the hood for that.

Now I am confused!!!.Today ,I removed my filters,now I should replace them!!!

Hi Christine

You don't have to use a filter if you don't want to, however, if you think anything about your lenses you'll use one to protect the front element. It's easier to clean fingerprints and dust from a filter, they're also cheaper to replace than a scratched front element. They're also very useful in cutting down the effects of haze, as in a UV or a 1B, a must in mountainous or hilly terrain. Don't even venture near the sea with your expensive lenses if you don't have a filter fitted, sea spray makes an awful sticky mess on a front element. An 81A or 81B can be useful to warm up a landscape and although not particularly necessary, gives a pleasant overall effect which is generally more acceptable to the eye than a plain without filter shot, (although not always). As I said earlier, I always have one on my lenses unless physical size and cost prohibit one. The glass from which modern filters are made is now probably as good if not better than the lenses they're fitted to, image degregation is no longer a problem providing the filter is kept clean, the same applies to camera lenses. Filters from the likes of Hoya, Sigma etc are very good, some of the multicoated ones are better corrected than the lenses. Remember, you can always take the filter off if you think it really necessary.

nirofo.

Christine,

It's all a matter of personal opinion. Having seen the results of John's tests with and without filters, (here http://www.worldphotographyforum.com...read.php?t=912 if you're interested), I'd recommend you do your own tests with and without a 'protection' filter. Look at the results and decide if there is enough of a difference to warrant having/not having a filter fitted. There are benefits and disadvantages to either school of thought, it all depends on the results you get, with your kind of photography.

Different people take pictures of different subjects where the inclusion of a filter is beneficial. John has found a filter is not right for him, I suggest you do some tests and see what difference it makes to you.

Duncan

Unless you need to have the camera ready instantly (which, I admit, I do when I've got my 400mm mounted) then you should already have a perfect device for protecting your lens which won't affect the performance in any way - unless you leave it in place, that is! The lens cap.

By keeping the lenshood extended on my 400mm at all times when I'm out, I've never had any problems with damage to the front element, though nirofo's comments on sea-spray need to be kept in mind.

Yes,I think I will replace them,they are only the basic Hoya ones,and I did purchase them specifically to protect the lenses.But i only have them on the 100-400 and the 400F5.6,not the macro or Tamron .I am not very good at cleaning the front when they are dusty,due to being unable to grip the cleaning cloth properly,at least I can rinse in warm water,then polish and replace.But it is interesting to read the different comments,will do a "test" when I have time.

Christine,

I understand where you are coming from in the comment on dust. I would suggest that is all the reason you need to have filters on. As you say you can remove the filter and soak the dust off if necessary, would not be advisable with the front element of the lens. I have the same problem on a rally field. If I was to scratch the filter in cleaning it I can at least replace relativly cheaply.

Don

I think this may be where Christine is coming from re not using a filter. Both shots taken on a tripod with remote release - same lens, same distance. It cost nothing to do a similar test - would you use this filter if you had results like this?

If I had results like that from my filters then they would go staight in the bin! The cheapo filters are nothing more than ordinary glass tarted up a bit to look like filters. Invest in quality filters from the likes of Hoya, B&W, Sigma etc., they'll serve you well for many years if you look after them. You can of course opt for your camera makers own filters, Nikon, Canon etc. They do tend to be more expensive and without the range of choice you get from the independant manufacturers, but then the independants probably supply the camera makers in the first place!

nirofo.

For Info this was a Hoya filter - but not the most expensive and it did go straight in the bin.

Having read the last couple of threads on this subject of filters and lens hoods, I have tried my lenses with and without filters, cheap one's as well as hoya and was totally surprised at the difference. I have removed the filters off the 5 lenses and they will be staying off while the lens is in use. I think I will put them back on for added protection when in my bag. I have a canon 75-300 which I have never been really happy with. Yesterday I took some photo's of a robin who obligingly sat for me with the 75-300 lens, the lens I thought was rubbish. I trashed all the one's with the filter they were just to soft and flat. I should have kept one to show for comparison. Then I took some without the Hoya filter, I was amazed.

What surprised me, John was using a Hoya HMC Super Pro 1 Filter and removing it improved the image. It begs the question are there a good filter out there ? I often shoot through window glass and when the conditions are right I can get a sharp image with little flare. So why and how do these filters degrade the image ?

Wel I can honestly say that none of my filters have impaired any of the photographs I have taken and I've taken thousands, in fact in a lot of cases they have definately improved the picture. I must emphasise that I keep them scrupulously clean and avoid reflecting highlights from the side wherever possible. It could be that this is a problem that is more apparent on digital images, we know that lenses for digital cameras need to be better corrected and the internal surfaces need to have a better matt finish to reduce reflections to a minimum. I see that Hoya and Sigma are now producing filters specially coated for digital imaging lenses, if that's the case then they obviously think it makes a difference!

nirofo.

Not necessarily. Go to any camera shop and you'll see almost all accessories are being advertised as 'digital'. I've even seen a 'digital' lens brush.

I think it's a bit like when compact discs came in during the 80's ... great for manufacturers, stick 'digital ready' on an old product and your sales go shooting up ;)

Yesterday I tested all my and Stevies lenses. With and without filters. Filters range from Nikon through Hoya HMC Pro1 to a Jessops. Camera was a Nikon D100.

Lenses tested,

2 x Nikkor 17-35ED AFD
1 x Nikkor 28-105 AFD
1x Nikkor 50mm AIS
1 x Nikkor 55mm AIS Macro
1 x Nikkor 105mm AIS
1 x Nikkor 80-200ED AFD
1 x Sigma 28-200 D

The camera was mounted on my big Slik tripod and a cable release was used. Additional to standard lens hoods the lens was additionally shielded from stray light by a black flag.

I could find no detectable difference filter on or off.

While I don't doubt that some members have found filters having an adverse affect I cannot find a logical reason for this.

Don

Must be quality variances within a filter type. I have a cheap Jessops filter which shows very little image deteration whereas a Hoya filter costing twice as much is utter rubbish. No doubt some people will have good copies of the Hoya filter.

Strange,Christine,I also used the 70-300 Canon lens,but was never impressed with the results.I eventually sent it off as a p/ex,then a few mths ago,I purchased the Tamrom 28-300.What a difference,clear and sharp,I do not use a filter with the Tamron lens,but I did use one with the Canon,maybe just a coincedence.I put it down to the fact that perhaps the Tamron was more suited to the smaller sensor size of the 300/350 series.

I usually use lens hoods unless I take extreme close-ups. The Flower and plastic lens hoods that are cylindrical in nature are much better than the soft conical rubber types. I used one of the conical rubber types and had a real bad experience, wouldn't recommend those.

I use filters only if I were to use them for effects which I don't get through using a normal lens. My concept is by adding a filter to your lens you are adding another layer between the subject and the lens.

Interesting thread starting out with hoods and migrating to filters. If the premise is protection then both the hood and filter should be used to protect the front element. Would you buy a used lens with a scratched front element even though the seller claims it doesn't affect image quality? I sure wouldn't. There are countless accounts of how both a hood and filter have saved front elements from scratches and cracks from impact damage. If the premise is image quality then again you should use your lens hood. Manufactures design the lens hood for each lens to combat flare. If a lens didn't need it probably the maker wouldn't supply one, offering one as an option for an additional cost:) Regarding filters and image quality: Why put a cheap or "less expensive" filter on an expensive optic..doesn't make sense to me. I only use Nikon filters. I figure that the manufacture is only going to use the best possible optical glass with multicoating so as not to degrade the image. I have read about the possibility of rub marks on front optics from over cleaning. If a filter becomes scratched or the coating rubbed off, its a cheap replacement. Bottom line for me is I always use the lens hood and filter.
Michael Rogers
www.imagesbymichaelrogers.com