I purchased a new Canon 17-55mm f/2.8 IS lens last night. I ended up buying a UV filter to protect it and am now second guessing it. So here's the question should I keep the UV filter to protect the lens or should I trade it in for a lens hood instead?
I'm thinking the lens hood is going to help me get better photos and will somewhat protect the lens while the UV filter is going to help me get worse photos and protect the lens very well.
I keep a UV filter on my lenses. I think there is little to no difference in the photos that result. Not enough to make a difference. (Others will disagree with me, that's a sure bet!) I may have to do a test with and without it to see if there is any perceptible difference. I also have a lens hood, which I use when shooting in bright conditions. The only way to tell if it is really helping would be to do a number of identical shots, with and without the hood to see if there is any difference.
It seems that having more glass for the light to go through can only add problems. I don't use UV filters and have never scratched a lens. But, again, I have only been using SLRs for about 30 years, so it might be beginners luck...
Shoot into a light source (sunset, reflection, strobe, etc) with and without a UV filter.
I understand the pros and cons of filters, and use them myself when I'm in an environment that dictates frequent cleaning of my front element (rain, ocean spray, muddy, dusty, etc), but in general, my UV filters stay off my lenses.
The 17-55 is an EXCELLENT lens, but does tend to flare when shooting into or nearly into direct light. I would trade for the lens hood. I use my hood any time I'm outdoors and often in the studio and still get flare on occasion. I don't use UV filters at all, in my opinion careful treatment of your lens will do more good than a filter. I say go for the hood!! :)
I purchased a new Canon 17-55mm f/2.8 IS lens last night. I ended up buying a UV filter to protect it and am now second guessing it. So here's the question should I keep the UV filter to protect the lens or should I trade it in for a lens hood instead?
I'm thinking the lens hood is going to help me get better photos and will somewhat protect the lens while the UV filter is going to help me get worse photos and protect the lens very well.
I'd opt for both and invest in a quality filter (B+W or Heliopan). Protecting your lens glass against contact, spray, dust etc. is one thing, frequent cleaning, especially when hurried can scratch the lens as well. It's also easier to clean a filter than a lens.
I guess Nikon has a couple lenses too that they do not supply hoods for. My 50mm1.8 did not come with one ($150) but the store threw it in and a cheep (there brand) UV filter! Be a prick if you have to be. If one sales person wont give it to you go back in a couple hours when there shift is done and tell the next sales guy the other person was helping you (so the first one still gets the commission) and say this was the deal. The new person won’t care because they don’t get the commission anyway!!! DONE DEAL!
As for the hood or filter option I say BOTH. Without the hood it leaves you open for too much lens flare, and you defiantly want the protection of the filter. I tend to go with the circular polarizer.
ETA - And I have never paid more then 50% of reg price for $100+ filters, batteries,cables, and odds and ends. When buying a lens, body, bag, or other ++$ gear. I keep $200 in my budget for extras and just barter them to DEATH...MUAHH!HAAHAAHAA!
I would consider $900+ expensive. It's a damn shame a guy spends that much on a lens and has to buy the hood separate.
Yeah, and it's hard to try and figure out Canon's thinking assuming there is any beyond soaking the customer. Most L lenses come with the hood (but I seem to remember the 70-200 F4L did not), most L come with a bag but not all, etc, etc.
Sigma provides the best product as far as a complete package imo.
Moose: lens hood serve a different purpose other than protecting your lens, so its not really a question of either or.. i say use both.. a lens hood eliminates flar and the filter protects the lens...
i use a UV filter mainly for protection and the only noticable difference is flare in bright light conditions ( pictures look uncontrasty) where rays shoot at angle into the lens... i am planning on throwing that piece of crap Canon UV filter and get a B&W UV instead.. they are supposed to be better and multicoated...
until then i wouldnt wanna risk scratching my lens... and i did see that happen to a 70-200mm f/2.8 with a nasty blotchy scratch on the front element.. so yes you may never scratch your lens but 50 $ is a cheap price to buy your peace of mind...
i did some identical setup tests with and without a filter like someone here suggested and i could find almost no difference at all in sharpness and contrast .. again flare still is a problem .. but nothing that can't be fixed by the hood..
Depends... some/most maybe lenses the hood go on the outer edge of the lens so you could use a filter at the same time.....
Personally - I swap all my OEM hoods (if they come with them cause Canon is into the soaking, so non L's don't) with metal screw in hoods from flee-bay and whack a larger cap in the end of the hood.... never use filters now.
Some who never use UV filters will tell you they are bad all the time. Odd that those who don't use a thing have such strong opinions, sort of like asking a vegan about their favorite way to cook steak. Filters help save your lens from nicks and wear of the exposed coatings, and they create ghost highlights and flare under certain conditions. If you are shooting at the beach on a windy day, you really want that filter on. If you are shooting a night scene with strong street lights and lots of isolated hot spots, you want it off.
IMHO, keep your UV filter on, unless there is a reason to take it off.
Lens hoods, same advice. They aren't an either/ or method of protection.
