UV Filters and Lenshoods

[nick heppinstall]

OK. Hot on the heals of my cam buying thread a couple of questions if anyone is still talking to me :-)

I've always tried to have UV filters on my cams to protect the lenses and have ordered a couple for my new 55 and 300. Are they a good idea ?

Neither lens came with a lens hood. I had a look on a Jessops and Jacobs sites and they cost a fortune. Between £20 and 30.

They also seem to be made to fit specific lenses ie 55 - 200 etc.

Are they worth having and would I be just as well buying a couple of these off ebay ?

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/52mm-Flower-Camera-Lens-Hood...

Cheers

[GetCarter]

There is split opinion on UV filters here.

Good points - they might stop some damage to lens.

Bad points - all modern lenses are UV coated, so the UV bit is a waste of money. They are expensive (good ones are £50+ each). Even the good ones shove an extra bit of nonsence in front of the lens. The bad ones shove a rubbish bit of nonsence in front of the lens. They cause flaring and all sorts of grief if the sun is at an oblique angle to the shot. A lens hood will do as much to protect the lens, and are cheaper and will not cause the above problems, plus they help stop lens flare.

Most of us therefore use lens hoods.

But a UV filter MIGHT stop a scratch, and lens hoods take space in the bag, so there is some benifit.

So in answer to your question... the lens hood will help stop the flaring that the UV filter will cause.

Edited by GetCarter on Sunday 28th March 14:37

[Eggman]

Well summed up, GetCarter!

Here is a thread from earlier in the year where the arguments for and against were rehearsed: Are UV filters necessary?

ETA: I would be tempted by the Ebay hoods too. As long as they're opaque and big enough to shade the front element but not so big that they cause vignetting, what could go wrong?

Edited by Eggman on Sunday 28th March 14:49