UV filter or lens hood.

[Shanghai Steve]

Hello all
I am extremely pleased to be the new owner of a brand-new Sony 55/1.8 Zeiss lens for my A6000, which will be getting upgraded to an A7 next month. I have not had a chance to spend more than a few minutes shooting uninteresting subjects, but I quickly encountered an unexpected problem.
I bought a Zeiss UV filter and put it on the lens within minutes of purchase, before I had even left the shop, but using the filter precludes the use of the lens hood!
So, which do the members believe is more important for image quality and front element protection, bearing in mind that China can very very dusty and/or polluted?

[Mike Buckley]

This topic has been discussed for years with no clear consensus. The only thing that I'll mention is that if you decide to forgo the lens hood, be sure to have reasonable alternatives for preventing flare.

[Rent]

It should be possible to buy a lens hood that screws into the front of the filter Whilst not ideal is better than none
Roy

[Black Pearl]

Popcorn, alcoholic beverage and feet up - carry on, I'm all ready.

[MrB]

Lens hood.

Keep the lens cap on when not shooting.

Cheers.
Philip

[ccphoto]

I only use clear glass filters...new discussion, eh.

[DanK]

Steve,

Just search in the box at the top left. I found 500 postings on this topic.

However, a few quick thoughts:

The two are not substitutes.

With most digital cameras, UV protection is irrelevant. So the filter will have no positive effect on image quality. A lens shade (or anything else you use to shade the lens) will make a big difference whenever there would be flare without it.

Re negative effects on image quality: I have never been able to see any discernable negative effects when lighting is behind me, provided I was using a good multicoated filter. I have even done A/B tests. With light sources in front of the camera, you can get more flare with some filters than without.

Re protection: a very complicated question. It depends on what you are protecting against--dust, liquids, impact, etc.

My own drill:

I always use a lens hood when I can. I can't for bug macros, and my little lumix LX-100 has none. For the Lumix, I use my hand, but that camera is so small that shooting one-handed is easy. I don't buy UV filters anymore because there is no need for UV protection per se; instead, I buy multicoated clear protective filters, which are cheaper. However, I still have a number of UV filters. I use one or the other when I have no reason not to or when I expect dirt. I take them off when I can be confident that there is not going to be a problem or under circumstances where the might be a problem, e.g., night photography, where the light is in front of the lens. I have had two or three occasions in decades of shooting where the filter has saved the front element of the lens.

Your mileage may vary.

Dan

[Manfred M]

You might find this somewhat longish video interesting.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P0CLPTd6Bds


His conclusions line up with mine quite nicely.

[Rent]

Original question was "filter or lens hood"

[Shanghai Steve]

Thanks for the replies. I suppose the best option is to keep it in my bag and use it when needed. One genuine consideration is the way the hood looks. This might seem petty or shallow but given that I am a keen Street Photographer, it is a real issue. Putting people at ease is crucial and the hood on this particular lens is thicker than the camera!
I might be a little paranoid about dust or dirt, but I remember shooting in winter in Beijing one year and my lens was visibly caked with rock hard dust and dirt at the end of it. I wouldn't even know how to safely get rid of it, but luckily I had used a filter on the advice of a friend, so I threw it in the bin and in minutes had a 'brand-new lens'. In somewhere like Scotland or Austria where the air is clean, this wouldn't be such an issue but when it gets bad in China, you don't even want to open a window! Coal dust is not pretty.

[DanK]

to each his or her own, but I think I would leave a filter on under those circumstances, except when it is likely to be a problem.

[purplehaze]

Due to my carelessness, my beloved Sony fell out of the camera case last week onto a hardwood floor. I do believe the lens hood saved it from serious harm. The hood is toast and I am going to have to wait for a new one, but I am very grateful I had it on.

[rpcrowe]

I ALWAYS shoot with a lens hood... But, will occasionally add a UV filter (for protection since the UV has no impact on image quality)...

I am not familiar with the Sony 55/1.8 Zeiss lens for your A6000. However Roy mentioned: "It should be possible to buy a lens hood that screws into the front of the filter"

I often use one like that for my 70-200mm f/4L IS lens - especially when I need or want to use a polarizing filter. The advantage of this setup is twofold: 1. I can rotate the polarizer by just rotating the lens hood and 2. This hood is significant smaller than the OEM Canon hood (I can fit the lens mounted on my 7D more easily into my holster case when using this type of lens shade...



However, since this is a full frame lens and I use it on a cropped camera, it shades front element quite decently and doesn't vignette. It also protects the lens quite well. I took a fall one day with the lens hood being slammed onto the concrete of a roadbed. And like Janis, above, the hood was toast but, the lens was totally O.K. That's pretty good protection in my book.

OTOH: I have attempted to use this type of a lens hood on EFS lenses such as the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS and that type lens hood causes vignetting.

All my canon lenses allow use of both the OEM lens hood and a filter (some more readily than others). However, IMO, if I had to make a choice between using a lens hood or a protection filter (UV or plain glass) I would choose the hood. OTOH, there are some lenses that are only "weatherproof" when a filter is mounted onto the lens. In this case, photography is a series of choices and compromises - you choose!

In my case, I always carry an OPTECH Rainsleeve in my camera case or photo vest, This weighs next to nothing, yet does a darn good job protecting camera and lens from precipitation.

[Manfred M]

Of course, there is always what happened to me where I had both a lens hood and filter.

The camera got clipped by a closing door and knocked out of my hands. The filter broke and put a small nick in the outer lens element. If I hadn't had the hood on, nothing would have happened.

When I first started shooting, hoods were fairly uncommon and I got used to shooting without one on and found alternative ways of shading the lens (something that was often not required) . Film generally got better results when a UV filter was used, so I got used to shooting without one, which was a good thing, as I tended to stick my fingers onto the filter from time to time and cleaning it is a lot easier than cleaning the front element of a lens...

In a perfect world, I would use neither a filter nor a lens hood.

[Shanghai Steve]

If I had the option of using both, I would but I think I'll leave it off until I need it and keep the filter on for now.

Thanks everyone.