Canon Nifty Fifty UV filter vs lens hood?

[Geedoed]

Hi, if I was to buy only one item, I am curious if a UV filter would negate the need to buy a lens hood............or would a lens hood negate the need for a UV filter.

Thanks in advance for your advice

[NathanFranke]

the hood would be the better purchase. Visually, the UV filter does next to nothing. Photographers are split as to its actual usefulness in protecting the lens--a cheap filter can actually degrade the image. A hood on the other hand will offer lens protection if you drop it, and does actively, visibly, unequivocally improve an image by eliminating most lens flare.

Go for the hood.

[andrewdt]

Well the simple answer is no as they do completely different things.

However, another simple answer to this simple question could be that if you are looking to protect your lens, a hood can offer protection to your glass in a similar way that a filter does by restricting access to the front element if you bump/drop it accidentally. BUT this is not the purpose of said devices. It just gives you something to think about if you really only have cash for one.

[Geedoed]

Hi Nathan, does the UV filter do nothing with glare or haze? I have heard that the Hoya SHMC UV Filter is quite good. I guess I am thinking that having the UV Filter (if a good one) will make the picture sharper and will not have the glare similarily to how the Hood would stop the unwanted light...........does this make any sense, or am I just running in circles?

Originally Posted by NathanFranke

the hood would be the better purchase. Visually, the UV filter does next to nothing. Photographers are split as to its actual usefulness in protecting the lens--a cheap filter can actually degrade the image. A hood on the other hand will offer lens protection if you drop it, and does actively, visibly, unequivocally improve an image by eliminating most lens flare.

Go for the hood.

[Biomech]

Personally, I'd get the UV filter, it's the first thing I buy for all of my lenses as a protection measure. But if you buy cheap it can degrade the image quality as nathan said,.

Although, to be fair, you can probably get a cheap hood from ebay for like $5, a decent filter, on the other hand, might cost you $100-$300

[Tzetsin]

I'm a very vocal supporter of uv filters on all lenses. I can go on for weeks and weeks on the stupidity of NOT having a uv filter on every one of your lenses but I'll just give you a couple of examples where one 60$ purse of crap saved my much mor expensive front element on my lenses.

I've been a DSLR owner for a little more than a year and in that time a uv filter has saved my lenses no less than three times.

The first time was my own stupidity. I put the tripod down and didn't make sure it was stable, reached back to grab my second cam, turned and heard a sickening crash. It was on a gravel road.

Uv filter 1 front element 0

Second time was almost exactly the same as the first, only it was a dog that barreled into the tripod knocking it over. On a gravel road...

Uv filter 2, front element 0

Third time was just last night. The wife was using it and she had it on her lap in the truck. I Hit the brakes kinda hard, camera was dumped on the floor. It's winter time here and we put sand on the roads for traction, sand and snow get on your boots, truck heater melts the snow and makes the floorboards wet and sandy. Front of the lens got really dirty with very abrasive sand and water. The wife starts to loose her mind thinking she just screwed my lens. So what did I say?

"don't worry about it dear, it's just the UV filter.

Uv filter 3 front element 0

I'm only ONE year into my photography career and I've spent an extra 240bucks replacing uv filters. It sucks, but the alternative would be much much worse.

When you buy a lens, you should always include the cost of a GOOD uv filter into the price.

Anyone that bitches about image degradation with a UV filter installed has either got himself the cheapest filter on the market, or doesn't know what he is talking about. 20$ filters WILL cause image degradation. A 60$ + filter won't.

So my advice is to get the UV filter ASAP. And anyone reading this thread that doesn't have one on ALL their lenses should stop what their doing and go get some. Can't afford them? Don't eat for a while, you'd be surprised what you can afford when you don't have to spend money on food .

But seriously. If you can't afford one, then you surely can't afford a new lens either. It's like saying you can't afford a condom... You'll get away with it for a while, but it WILL cost you more in the end.

[Rentham]

I own exactly zero UV filters.

[SwissJon]

I don't use UV filters. I keep the lens hood on when 'm not using my square filters.. Having dropped my camera with my 24-70 2.8, and it landed on the edge of the lens.. Just the worst possible place... It survived (after a bit of a heart sinking moment) with nothing broken because it bounced off the lens hood.. I don't believe that would have been the case if I'd had a UV filter on..

In addition, the lens hood helps control lens flare, whereas the filter adds an extra piece of glass, which can only degrade the quality of the photo.

If you're going somewhere such as the sea or in a dusty windy place, where there are particles in the air that might damage the delicate coatings on the lens, then I'd put a filter on to protect the front lens, otherwise, just use a hood.. It's not a "good enough"solution, it's a "better" solution for most situations.

[Bruce A]

My lenses will either have a decent UV or CP filter on at any given time. Also when the camera comes out of the bag a hood will be attached to the lens. No accidents yet except the odd little bump into something with the lens hood. After toting the camera around for a while it's amazing the crap you can find on the filter sometimes. I rather it there then on the front glass.

[Doug Sundseth]

Originally Posted by Geedoed

Hi Nathan, does the UV filter do nothing with glare or haze? I have heard that the Hoya SHMC UV Filter is quite good. I guess I am thinking that having the UV Filter (if a good one) will make the picture sharper and will not have the glare similarily to how the Hood would stop the unwanted light...........does this make any sense, or am I just running in circles?

A UV filter does nothing to reduce glare or haze. In certain light conditions, a UV filter can increase glare or haze.

For protection, it's not clear that the anecdotes about dropping a lens and breaking the UV filter would have resulted in damage to the front element in the absence of a UV filter. The front element of a lens is more resistant to damage than a UV filter. Note also that Tzetsin's anecdotes resulted in a cost of $240, which is more than the cost of replacing the front element even of a very expensive lens (though without the lost time involved in a front element replacement).

There may be some value to using a clear or UV filter if you're shooting in very dusty places where image degradation is going to happen anyway.