I use a lens hood on all my lenses at all times. Lens hoods have saved me from damaging lenses on more than a few occasions. They offer great impact protection that a UV filter does not. Smack a corner of your lens on something hard with just a filter in place - good luck unscrewing that filter/magnetic adapter. I don't shoot helicopters, most of my work is studio and some urban. Horses for courses.
Same! Done this for nearly 2 decades, never used a UV filter... too much added cost and too many potential downsides. Lens hoods are "free" (ie they come with most lenses).
I live in Miami FL where the sun is bright all year around and yes the Lens hood DOES make a noticeable difference in Image quality! I have photos with and without the hood and u can clearly see the difference in contrast!
That “back reflection” of the headlight is actually caused by the filter you’re using over the lens, it would absolutely not be there if you took the same shot with no filter.
lens hoods are my default just for protection. I was at a recent event, with lots of people moving about. It would have been easy for someone have accidentally hit the front of my lens in theory. with a lens hood, that is impossible. I also find that it looks more "professional" I was one of the official photographers for this event and with the lens hood, I feel people treat you differently and are more willing to be photographed/interacted with. You aren't a stranger with a camera, you are photographer for the event. Now the added benefits of lens flare and stuff is just handy
Thank you! I am packing for a trip to the desert and was just going to use lens hoods but after you showed the helicopter and mentioned wind driven damage, I'm about to pack my UV filter as well.
this is awesome im going to everthing u just said on video about step up fiilter not fitting and lens cap etc thank you as you help me with what i need
I don’t use UV filters just because of possible focusing issues. However, I use them when I’m at places such as a shooting range. All kinds of debris are flying around, such as bullet casings. The UV filter has saved my lens a time or two.
I've ALWAYS used lens hoods for all my shoots over 18 years - I've NEVER used a UV filter for protection. None of my lenses ever had a scratch and I don't have to deal with image degradation from a UV filter. Even at 5:04 I can see a loss in sharpness with the Polar Pro filter... and it will get worse when you have lens flare situations and in lower light. Lens hoods come with the lens and can give better image quality by potentially reducing flares (better contrast in side lit situations). UV filters cost extra $$$ and they degrade IQ potentially, potentially increasing flares (lowering sharpness) , especially in low light.
Not every lens comes with a lens hood. On wide angle lenses they protect nearly nothing. And I have several protection filter which did there duty and took the scratches which luckily didn't hit the lens. I even have one completele destroyed. The lens threading only as a very small dent. If you are worried about flares you still can put the filter down for that situations. If you shoot in not so controlled situations (festivals, hikes, photos inside of something narrow) especially with wider lenses you can't be sure to protect your lens. And a hood will only help marginally.
I tend to use mine for more protection of the lens, far too many people aren't aware of whats going on around them so tend to just bump into me or the lens, I may see if I can get a UV one that will fit my lens and fit the hood on to because I don't trust people
Lens hood for 18 years... no uv filters ever. All my lenses are crispy clean with no scratches and they DO help with lens flare in realistic situations (ie, not backlit directly into the sun).
lens hood; just like flipping down the sun visor while driving or putting on a baseball cap - I'll be able to see clearly what's in front of me (cause I won't be squinting through a strong beam of light) + I will NOT have to do substantial post-processing to get contrast. Otherwise, remove the hood if you want lens flare and less contrast in your shot.
I saw in your lens filter that you can't attach a len cap and I kind of suprised. I have never stumbled that before, I always could connect the lens cap without even notice
Nd and polariser from different brand don’t fit the hood and anyway with the hood you cannot turn them which is the point of these filters. In photo i don’t use filter except a protector which is compatible with my lens hoods of my wide angle and telephoto lens.
UV filter - yes. But ND or pola not necessarily. I don't use them that often and they are not cheap. And I have a bunch of different sizes on the lenses.
3x the hood literally saved my Sony G Fe 24-105 f4, well it still dented a bit but no way it would've survived without the hood - best $30 protection you can get. Not to mention it's niceto be able to set the cam down w/o putting the lens cap on or worry about much touching the lens directly.
Attributing glare/flare to light reflected off the sensor is extremely naive. And you need to distinguish glare from flare. Glare is when your image becomes hazy all over and this reduces contrast as well as reduces colour or saturation. This simply happens at transitions or lens element surfaces. Note that a simple single lens element, like a magnifying glass, has four surface transitions (if we ignore the side walls of the cylinder it was conceptually cut from). When glass elements aren't coated, this places an upper limit to the number of elements usable in a lens. When Dr. Paul Rudolph designed the Planar lens (a "double Gaussian") of 6 elements just before 1900, that was a great design. But with 6 elements, it became only usable properly in the 1950s when lens coatings reduced the glare. Glare is exacerbated by backlight, but always present and the quality of lens coatings determines how much we suffer from it. Glare also contributes to light losses that happen in any lens and this is expressed in the T-value that gives light transmission. The number in f/number only gives the geometric relation between focal length and diameter of entry pupil. Look for a Canon 1.2L lens in DxOMark and you'll see a T-value of 1.5. Then look for a Nikon 1.4G and you'll also see a T-value of 1.5. This means both are equally "fast" and one of these has better coatings. Flare is when you have recognisable shapes in your image, like sun trails, aperture shape trails, etc. In the 1970s, with the coatings of the time, 7 elements would be about the maximum usable. Some zoomlenses had more, but these were "soft". Not a problem with low-res small movie formats, or low-res print publications, but an issue everywhere else. Today, Nikon's Z 58/0.95 S Noct lens has 17 elements in 10 groups with excellent contrast and sharpness. A source of optical glare issue can be between the sensor and the OLPF, in backlight, if the angle of incidence is unfortunate. Light can get stuck in resonation between the back of the OLPF and front of the sensor and depending on the distance between the two, you'll have a colour cast all over your image that is hard to remove. Lens hoods got introduced to prevent glare from light sources that came in from the side of the lens as such light could give a lot of glare. Today's coatings will suppress that a lot, but you could experiment taking test shots with a strong focused torch feathering over the lens at different angles, to see what the effect is and if/when you need the lens hood. If the hood does nothing optically, then it still is a protection against mechanical damage.
As a full-time professional commercial photographer, I never use lens hood for work. They are just extra baggage. When I’m shooting personally or for fun, I never not use a Lens hood. And that’s just for the extra protection they offer the lens
Will they help against a frontal impact of a hard object - probably not. But something sharp just touching the front or a weaker impact can be taken by the filter and save the lens. Then you need to change a 10-100$ filter (or continue shooting without filter) instead of haveing a 1000$ repair if even economically viable. There might be special occasions where the filter gets a scratch but the lens wouldn't. I don't try to find them.
I use a lens hood on all my lenses at all times. Lens hoods have saved me from damaging lenses on more than a few occasions. They offer great impact protection that a UV filter does not. Smack a corner of your lens on something hard with just a filter in place - good luck unscrewing that filter/magnetic adapter. I don't shoot helicopters, most of my work is studio and some urban. Horses for courses.
Same! Done this for nearly 2 decades, never used a UV filter... too much added cost and too many potential downsides. Lens hoods are "free" (ie they come with most lenses).
Same here, night or day. Inside or outside. If the Lens cap is off, the lens hood is on.
@@77dris Lens hoods are often only free with expensive lenses. For cheaper ones you can buy the original for the same price of a decent UV filter.
I live in Miami FL where the sun is bright all year around and yes the Lens hood DOES make a noticeable difference in Image quality! I have photos with and without the hood and u can clearly see the difference in contrast!
That “back reflection” of the headlight is actually caused by the filter you’re using over the lens, it would absolutely not be there if you took the same shot with no filter.
You're right! I discovered this recently when shooting astro. Now if I'm shooting low-light I'll completely remove all filters!
I discovered this shooting roads with street lights, so many internal reflections with a filter!
@@RewildingFilms especially with that cheap tiffen filter. That is why people are willing to pay 5 times as much for a B+W MRC filter.
lens hoods are my default just for protection. I was at a recent event, with lots of people moving about. It would have been easy for someone have accidentally hit the front of my lens in theory. with a lens hood, that is impossible. I also find that it looks more "professional" I was one of the official photographers for this event and with the lens hood, I feel people treat you differently and are more willing to be photographed/interacted with.
You aren't a stranger with a camera, you are photographer for the event.
Now the added benefits of lens flare and stuff is just handy
The lens hood protection works well with tele lenses but not with wide or super wide. There just isn't much of the hood left.
Thank you! I am packing for a trip to the desert and was just going to use lens hoods but after you showed the helicopter and mentioned wind driven damage, I'm about to pack my UV filter as well.
It also helps with the opposite problem: rain. I don't want to wipe over the front lens for every shot.
Would love for you to make a video reviewing some of the filters such as PMK's filter and others compare value and such.
This is just what I needed. Thanks!
first time watching your long form content 😂 so weird seeing you in a horizontal video
H&Y RevoRing + RevoRing lens hood. Solves almost all of your problems (variable thread size)
Really helpful as always! Always enjoying watching your content.
this is awesome im going to everthing u just said on video about step up fiilter not fitting and lens cap etc
thank you as you help me with what i need
“Always use protection”
I am only a hobby photographer, and I use the Lens hood also for protection.
I don’t use UV filters just because of possible focusing issues. However, I use them when I’m at places such as a shooting range. All kinds of debris are flying around, such as bullet casings. The UV filter has saved my lens a time or two.
I've ALWAYS used lens hoods for all my shoots over 18 years - I've NEVER used a UV filter for protection. None of my lenses ever had a scratch and I don't have to deal with image degradation from a UV filter.
Even at 5:04 I can see a loss in sharpness with the Polar Pro filter... and it will get worse when you have lens flare situations and in lower light.
Lens hoods come with the lens and can give better image quality by potentially reducing flares (better contrast in side lit situations).
UV filters cost extra $$$ and they degrade IQ potentially, potentially increasing flares (lowering sharpness) , especially in low light.
Not every lens comes with a lens hood. On wide angle lenses they protect nearly nothing. And I have several protection filter which did there duty and took the scratches which luckily didn't hit the lens. I even have one completele destroyed. The lens threading only as a very small dent.
If you are worried about flares you still can put the filter down for that situations. If you shoot in not so controlled situations (festivals, hikes, photos inside of something narrow) especially with wider lenses you can't be sure to protect your lens. And a hood will only help marginally.
Are you team lens hood, or team no lens hood?
Probably team no lens hood after watching this
I tend to use mine for more protection of the lens, far too many people aren't aware of whats going on around them so tend to just bump into me or the lens, I may see if I can get a UV one that will fit my lens and fit the hood on to because I don't trust people
Lens hood for 18 years... no uv filters ever. All my lenses are crispy clean with no scratches and they DO help with lens flare in realistic situations (ie, not backlit directly into the sun).
Lens hood...
lens hood; just like flipping down the sun visor while driving or putting on a baseball cap - I'll be able to see clearly what's in front of me (cause I won't be squinting through a strong beam of light) + I will NOT have to do substantial post-processing to get contrast. Otherwise, remove the hood if you want lens flare and less contrast in your shot.
I find it helpful when it rains :P... and sometimes on the 70-200...
Just the video I was looking for!
I have one on my 24-105 but I don’t think I’ve ever actually used it
I saw in your lens filter that you can't attach a len cap and I kind of suprised. I have never stumbled that before, I always could connect the lens cap without even notice
Nd and polariser from different brand don’t fit the hood and anyway with the hood you cannot turn them which is the point of these filters. In photo i don’t use filter except a protector which is compatible with my lens hoods of my wide angle and telephoto lens.
Anthony please review the Canon R8 in depth🙏🏾
I always buy filters that fit the lense instead of the convertering. Yeah it costs a little more but worth it.
UV filter - yes. But ND or pola not necessarily. I don't use them that often and they are not cheap. And I have a bunch of different sizes on the lenses.
Haha you obviously don’t know much about video or landscape photography if you think nd and polarized isn’t necessary.
@@mattgericke4537 I didn't say they are not necessary, just that I don't use them often (not much video).
thank god i am using my lens hood when i accidentally bang my lens on an iron gate.
I almost always use a lens hood with a UV filter.. and have since 1985, lol..
Thank you bro
3x the hood literally saved my Sony G Fe 24-105 f4, well it still dented a bit but no way it would've survived without the hood - best $30 protection you can get.
Not to mention it's niceto be able to set the cam down w/o putting the lens cap on or worry about much touching the lens directly.
Attributing glare/flare to light reflected off the sensor is extremely naive. And you need to distinguish glare from flare. Glare is when your image becomes hazy all over and this reduces contrast as well as reduces colour or saturation. This simply happens at transitions or lens element surfaces. Note that a simple single lens element, like a magnifying glass, has four surface transitions (if we ignore the side walls of the cylinder it was conceptually cut from). When glass elements aren't coated, this places an upper limit to the number of elements usable in a lens. When Dr. Paul Rudolph designed the Planar lens (a "double Gaussian") of 6 elements just before 1900, that was a great design. But with 6 elements, it became only usable properly in the 1950s when lens coatings reduced the glare.
Glare is exacerbated by backlight, but always present and the quality of lens coatings determines how much we suffer from it.
Glare also contributes to light losses that happen in any lens and this is expressed in the T-value that gives light transmission. The number in f/number only gives the geometric relation between focal length and diameter of entry pupil.
Look for a Canon 1.2L lens in DxOMark and you'll see a T-value of 1.5. Then look for a Nikon 1.4G and you'll also see a T-value of 1.5. This means both are equally "fast" and one of these has better coatings.
Flare is when you have recognisable shapes in your image, like sun trails, aperture shape trails, etc.
In the 1970s, with the coatings of the time, 7 elements would be about the maximum usable. Some zoomlenses had more, but these were "soft". Not a problem with low-res small movie formats, or low-res print publications, but an issue everywhere else. Today, Nikon's Z 58/0.95 S Noct lens has 17 elements in 10 groups with excellent contrast and sharpness.
A source of optical glare issue can be between the sensor and the OLPF, in backlight, if the angle of incidence is unfortunate. Light can get stuck in resonation between the back of the OLPF and front of the sensor and depending on the distance between the two, you'll have a colour cast all over your image that is hard to remove.
Lens hoods got introduced to prevent glare from light sources that came in from the side of the lens as such light could give a lot of glare.
Today's coatings will suppress that a lot, but you could experiment taking test shots with a strong focused torch feathering over the lens at different angles, to see what the effect is and if/when you need the lens hood.
If the hood does nothing optically, then it still is a protection against mechanical damage.
i only use uv protection and no lens cap.
I like this approach, no messing around with lens caps
2:53 "grab your hand" 🤨
Yours aren't detachable?
Team *NO LENS HOOD* for stylistic choice.
Tldr: yes they do
I'm 97% lens hood. But when I use a VND Filter it is usually too big to place a hood over it. Lame. Lol
Same. 99% lens hood except when using a VND. 18 years, my lenses are still sparkling new looking (no uv filters ever).
Still waiting for a dji air 3 review video .
I use them for video.
I just use a lens hood to look cooler 😎
Always lens hood
"Tee-fan"
I'm already subscribed. I can't hit the button again or it will unsubscribe me!
🎉naked .Thank You
I dont use one because it takes too mutch space on my backpack and I'm lazy, might regret it one day 😅
Just put it on the lens backwards.....
@@stevet1898 It still costs space (more diameter). In some bags that won't work well. And it needs time for each lens change.
As a full-time professional commercial photographer, I never use lens hood for work. They are just extra baggage. When I’m shooting personally or for fun, I never not use a Lens hood. And that’s just for the extra protection they offer the lens
I just wasted 9:26 minutes but I like your passion so it’s ok LOL ! Like I know all this information already 😂
i use them because it looks better lmao
Bruh that’s alot of protections 😅
I don’t think I’ve ever used a lens hood…
Instead of a lens hood why not buy a ND Filter instead? i use an ND/Polarizer. it’s a 2 in 1.
that's if you want to keep the flare but decrease the exposure of the flare
filters dont really offer protection they are less resilient glass then your lens glass to begin with
Will they help against a frontal impact of a hard object - probably not. But something sharp just touching the front or a weaker impact can be taken by the filter and save the lens. Then you need to change a 10-100$ filter (or continue shooting without filter) instead of haveing a 1000$ repair if even economically viable. There might be special occasions where the filter gets a scratch but the lens wouldn't. I don't try to find them.
First
This is why i love universal standards. Absolute clusterfuck
Standard for what ?