hood or clear filter?

[brickftl]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I'm getting a cv 35/1.5. Do I need a hood with it for optical reasons, or instead can I just put a quality clear filter on it for protection?

[kivis]

All my lenses have a hood and a B+W UV filter. Why? Because I am paranoid, pure and simpl.

[brickftl]

if I'm satisfied in terms of protecting the lens with a clear filter by itself, do I still need a hood for purposes of optics of the lens? I saw a review that said it had zero flare.

[kivis]

That's an ifie question. It really depends where the sun is pointing. If I had to choose a hood versus a filter, I would go with a hood.

[brickftl]

okay I'll probably just go with the hood and no clear filter. And I'll just keep the lens cap on when I'm not out and about with the lens attached to cam

[lct]

When clear filters can make some shade i will vote for them 😉

 

Edited March 10, 2024 by lct

[mmradman]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

As post 6 above, protective filter and hood do different things.  
As a minimum either protector or UV filter is a must but than I have to be careful to avoid stray light entering the lens.  Best policy for piece of mind and maximising image quality is to use both.

[Stephen.s1]

Both filter and shade.   This post had me taking a peek at my Q just to see what was hanging off the lens.. The clear filter had a smudge on the ...  INSIDE...   All gone now.

So thanks for this kick. 

A shade is always welcome.. filter or no.. 

Edited March 10, 2024 by Stephen.s1
x

[Danner]

I keep a lens hood in place when shooting all my lenses, and generally have a medium yellow filter in place on my 28 Elmarit and 35 KoB, and a skylight filter on my 50 'Cron and 90 Tele-Elmar.

[ianforber]

On 3/10/2024 at 7:19 PM, brickftl said:

I'm getting a cv 35/1.5. Do I need a hood with it for optical reasons, or instead can I just put a quality clear filter on it for protection?

I decided not to put a hood on my cv 35 f1.5 and dithered about whether or not put a filter on. Currently, I’m not using a filter because I’m just using it around town. If I was going somewhere more exciting such as hiking, I might stick a filter on. 

[pgk]

When not using either a hood or filter becomes a problem its too late. A bit like windscreen washer. If you haven't got any and its needed .....

[jgeenen]

If not using live view on a digital body, you cannot control lens reflections prior to shoot. Therefore I always use a hood (although optically the Nokton controls flare reasonably well, and in 80% of the shots or so you will not be able to notice any difference). A protective filter helps to avoid photographer‘s paranoia and probably encourages you to keep the camera ready to shoot more often than without. Therefore I use a protective filter on my more expensive always-on lenses together with the hood.

I really got used to it over the years. Nowadays, a lens without hood looks „naked“ to me and I clean my front filter with any kind of cloth nearby - usually my t-shirt….

[pippy]

Use both a filter and a hood. Why would you not?

As has been said above these things serve completely different purposes and there is a reason that they have each been invented.

Philip.

[MarkP]

Almost always hood and filter

[Siriusone59]

Both, the hood to help prevent flare and incase I bump the camera into something, I'd rather ding a hood than the lens.  Filter, because I don't mind wiping off a filter if needed but don't want to just wipe and possibly scratch the front element.  Maybe I'm overprotective...

[KFo]

It depends.  My typical lenses have deeply recessed front elements and I know how they respond to light in various places ( I use them alot).  No filter, no hood.

On my more modern lenses (all Leica) they get a hood (bump guard in my world) and a filter.  I already have them so why not.

When I'm out with the camera the lens cap is always off - even when I'm going someplace.  In a bag - cap on.

[pgk]

I am not sure whether the concept of a hood is as fully understood as it should be. In essence lenses (even modern multicoated ones) can suffer from flare under conditions which cause it. Obviously the things that either don't cause flare or no hood can stop are when any flare inducing light source is behind the recessed section of a lens without its hood, or if this light source is within the image itself. But between these two possibilities there is an area when none image forming light can hit the front of a lens and cause flare. A hood is intended to prevent this and a well designed hood will minimise it as much as is possible. So a hood is a preventative aceessory which when it works won't show. I ALWAYS use a hood with a rangefinder since flare cannot be seen through the taking lens.

Hoods have an additional benefit which is that they can act as a sacrificial 'crumple zone' in case the lens hits someting (as can a filter) but this is not their true intent.

[jdlaing]

Hood. Always.

[hydet]

Let’s be honest:  besides the rest, Leica M lenses with hoods look cool. 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Strmbrg]

I use both hood and filter. UV - or something like that - just to protect the lens.
I was concerned about if filters degrades the image before. Nowadays I am not very bothered by this anymore. The composition, and other aspects of that kind, is dominating my mind. The "technical-performance"-aspects are important of course, but I don't want those aspects to dominate my hobby.

An analogy is easily drawn to another hobby of mine, Hifi. Or rather music-listening nowadays:
I stop bother when the gear is good enough not to distract me when I want to focus on the music.
Even better - if it isn't possible to notice without "peeping" - is in practice of no real meaning. 

Sometimes I actually bother even now, but my intention is to NOT do that. 🙂

Edited March 17, 2024 by Strmbrg