Would you shoot w/o a filter and a hood?

[agfa100]

Hood always, filter no except for my older lenses that already had a uva on them, I left it on...
wbill

 

[kbg32]

Shoes, socks, shirt, underwear, pants, hat .... all optional.

 

[Roger Hicks]

The M3 owner's manual recommends using a protective filter, esp. outdoors, on the beach etc.

Of course lens coatings in 1960 were less resilient than today's.

Also Leitz probably figured its owners would be using their own filters, made of Wetzlar glass.

Why not take a test roll of pairs of images with various subjects and lighting, one with & one without filter, then compare for yourself. If there's no apparent difference, why not use protection?

And there won't be, except sometimes when there's a powerful light source in shot. That's why I like the much maligned filter-holding hood on my 35/1.4: I just remove the hood & filter together when e.g. shooting into the setting sun.

Cheers,

R.

 

[BlackXList]

Stopped using filters (except for contrast etc) when I got reflections in live shots, I'm fond of hoods, but if I'm shooting on the street with them, and they add a lot to the size of the lens, I might skip the hood just to keep the size down.

 

[taemo]

I don't use hood all the time since most of my lenses doesn't have one, but even then I don't really care about it.
also if it makes my camera look big or bulky or I dont mind some flare, then I go without.
even if my lens has a built in hood, I don't use it either.

for filters, I only use them for yellow, orange, CPL or ND. I dont use UV.

 

[jsrockit]

Generally, I don't use either... However, now that I have the A7r and 35mm Sonnar, that are weatherproof, I may slap a filter and hood on the lens for heavy rain.

 

[Paul Jenkin]

I usually use a filter and, where I have one, a hood for the lens. Unless I'm deliberately looking for flare, a hood is really useful. Filters are very personal. I hate the thought of putting a crappy £10 UV filter on the front of a good optic as the filter glass probably isn't nearly as good as the lens which, I presume, was optimised to work without a filter. My main concern is dust and flying airborne debris and the accumulation of minute abrasions that will degrate the lens / coating over time. That said, for some reason, I do't use filters on my Rolleiflex or Hasselblad lenses.

 

[hendriphile]

I agree!... but just couldn't resist the great straight line.

I agree!... but just couldn't resist the great straight line.

I hate the thought of putting a crappy £10 UV filter on the front of a good optic.

Patient (bending his arm in the shape of a pretzel): Doc, it hurts when I go like this!

Doc: Then don't go like this!

Courtesy of Henny Youngman

 

[lxmike]

hoods yes, filter yes, it was drummed into me by every sales person in the late 1970s, if anything a uv filter at least saves your lens from scratches

 

[kshapero]

No filter, no hood - no matter the lens or camera.

and no problem? no flare? no damage?😕😱

 

[kshapero]

Mostly I use both filters and hoods, especially on lenses I use all the time (35/1.4, 50/1.5). But with more specialist lenses, with which I'm seldom wandering about, I'll often use a lens cap instead of a filter (75/2, 90/2.2) but still with a hood.And with a very few lenses I either can't or don't use filters or hoods, so I use the cap a lot.

A really brilliant cap, that you can use with the hood on, is the OpTech "Hood Hat": see http://www.rogerandfrances.com/subscription/review optech shower cap.html

Cheers,

R.

nice, just hope my cat doesn't get a hold of it for a real shower cap. (trying to be funny)