To hood or not to hood? Nikkor 35/1.8 AF-S

[kivis]

<p>Other than bright sun from the side, should I hood this lens?</p>

[Michael R Freeman]

<p>An effective hood is always beneficial, as it blocks extraneous non-image forming light from hitting the front surface of the lens. The hood for this lens (HB-46) appears to be deep enough that it will actually be effective, but not so deep or large as to be awkward to use. There really is no reason to -not- use the hood on this lens at all times.</p>

[Two23]

<p>I always use a hood, even at night. Not only does it help increase the color saturation by reducing veiling flare, it's also great protection for the lens. It keeps harmful things from getting at your lens elements. The only reason to not use one is laziness.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

[daverhaas]

<p>Plus 1 to Kent's post...says it all. </p>

<p> </p>

[ariel_s1]

<p>As mentioned, it's not just bright sun, but any stray light sources that shine on the front element. Your lens takes the light that is bouncing off of a subject and focuses it onto the sensor. Any time you have a light source shining light onto your front element, whether it's the sun or a desktop lamp, you are interfering with the image that you're capturing. I use a lens hood on all of my lenses that came with them, because I've experienced stray light degrading my image. Why not test this for yourself? Turn on a lamp in your house, and then take a photo where the hood is blocking that lamplight from hitting the len, and one where it doesn't. You'll see for yourself the results, and whether it's worth getting a hood. Alternatively, some creative google searching will bring up thousands of discussions and explanations on this, as you must realize that you aren't the first person to wonder about this.</p>

[mike_halliwell]

<p>The <em>only</em> downside I've ever had with lenses mounted with petal-style hoods, is the petals can sometimes snag on the edges of camera bags.</p>

<p>However, I'm <em>always</em> a hood-on person. Sometimes I see people (??wannabee PROs??) shooting into bright light, or worse with oblique sunlight, with the hood still reverse stored on the lens. That's just SLOPPY!</p>

[kivis]

<p>OK I got it. Keep the hood on. OK while I have your attention, what about UV filters? I am a bit paranoid about protecting the lens. But does a UV filter degrade the image IQ any?</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>Ahhh, the dreaded filter question.... one of the old debates that can run hot.<br>

Basically, with the hood on, you have decent protection of the front element. The one thing for which I find filters useful is not cleaning (cleaning a filter is easier than cleaning a lens, and less costly if I make a mess of things), but all filters do affect (to some extend) the image quality. So I have UV filters on those lenses I tend to use in bad conditions (rain/storm/sand etc.) to make cleaning them easier. On all other lenses, I go without.<br>

All this assumes a high quality UV filter - the cheaper ones are really better left off.</p>

<p>And some <a href="http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2008/10/front-element-scratches">mandatory reading for fears of damaging your lens</a> :-)</p>

[mike_halliwell]

<p>I guess the obvious answer is...</p>

<p>1) ....a bad one will DEFINITELY make your IQ worse....no question.</p>

<p>2) ....a good one <strong><em>MAY</em></strong> make it better by removing UV fuzz....</p>

<p>The alternative to a UV filter is a protection filter with no obvious absorption.</p>

[Michael R Freeman]

<p>Every piece of glass affects image quality to some degree. A low quality uncoated filter will probably produce noticeable image degradation, such as flare, ghosts or poor contrast, in many circumstances. On the other end of the spectrum, a high quality multicoated filter will produce no noticeable change in image quality for 99% of people 99% of the time. However ... there are circumstances, such as bright point light sources at night within the image frame, where even the best quality filter can produce obvious image defects (most notably ghosts), so in those circumstances one should remove the filter for the best possible result.</p>

<p>Bottom line? If you are uncomfortable using your lens "naked", then by all means use a filter for your own peace of mind. But buy the highest quality filter that fits within your budget, and know when not to use it.</p>

<p>And incidentally, if a flat glass surface (i.e. a filter) is in the image forming light path, then it is even more important to use a hood.</p>

[craig_shearman1]

<p>Yes, any additional piece of glass degrades the image to an extent that can be measured in the lab. But having beeen a news photographer in the past sent out to all sorts of situations where my gear was knocked around and abused, I always kept a UV/skylight/clear filter on all of my lenses and still do. And if there was any degradation in the image quality, I couldn't see it. Certainly not by the time the photo was reproduced through a halftone screen on newsprint. Certaintly not any worse than I would have gotten from a huge permanent scratch in the front element of a lens, or a front element being totally shattered, or a front element being sandpapered by blowing sand, or splattered with paint or blood or saltwater spray -- all of which happened to filters I was able to throw away and replace instead of it happening to my lenses. </p>

[eric merrill]

<p>Aside from protecting against stray light, hoods also protect against stray bumps. While I wouldn't intentionally want to ram a petal hood into somebody, I've had an uncontrolled kid charge into me and hit his head on my hood. He rubbed his head for a while, and then he steered clear of me after that. :)</p>

<p>I've also had a hood break the fall of a camera. By giving way, the hood absorbed most of the impact.</p>

<p>Eric</p>

[ed_farmer]

<p>Hood, hood, hood, hood, hood . . . Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes . . . <br /><br />The hood will NEVER decrease image quality! It can only EVER help! Why would you NOT use the hood? </p>

[djthomas]

<p>I use a hood nearly all the time, but have found from time to time (especially when using my Nikon 17-55 lens) that it makes it a bit more difficult to rotate the front element of my polarizing filter--reaching into the hood and trying to spin it--or I find myselfy taking the hood off--and then back on after getting the filter set as I want.</p>

[ariel_s1]

<p>Akiva, again, not to rag on you too hard, but you're asking basic questions here that have been covered TO DEATH on the internet. Go to google and type some general search phrases, and you'll see a wealth of information. Do you honestly think you are the first person to wonder these things? Or the second, or the third, or the 10 millionth, for that matter.</p>

<p>Mike H, digital sensors are not sensitive to UV light, often because they already have UV filters on the sensor assembly, so even without a UV filter screwed onto the front of the lens, you won't get "UV fuzz." Your outlook is as outdated as the instructions for hand-cranking a car's engine. As the general UV protective filter vs none has been hashed to death, I won't get into it specifically, but I felt that I should point out any factual inaccuracies. However, I will applaud Craig's post for at least mentioning testing it, because as I said about lens hoods, you really need to decide what works best for you.</p>

[mike_halliwell]

<p>Ariel S. Oh yes they are. Period. Ever been here..? <a href="http://www.naturfotograf.com/UV_IR_rev01UV.html">http://www.naturfotograf.com/UV_IR_rev01UV.html</a></p>

<p>So the entire <em><strong>UV</strong></em> filter for a digital camera is a big conspiracy by all camera and filter manufacturers! Wow, good one!</p>

<p>UV will and does go through 20mm+ of optical glass and does produce a very good image on a DSLR sensor. It is wavelength dependent, sure, but commonly done.</p>

<p>I take reflected UV images all the time with both a converted and un-converted DSLR. They are taken through a VISUALLY OPAQUE filter with no secondary IR window, in case you ask.</p>

<p><em>but I felt that I should point out any factual inaccuracies.... </em>me too. You're wrong.<br /> __________________<br /> <br /> However, hoods are a good idea especially if a protection filter is used as it often provides another 2 surfaces for flair to be produced if oblique sun hits it.</p>

[mightypir]

<p>I think that a hood is vital for big and heavy lenses...other than the flare issue, protection afforded is worth it. I always have one on my telezooms. For the 35mm and other small lenses I am not sure. I do have Nikon NC filters on all of my lenses, and these are far better protection than any UV filter. Having said that, Tiffen UV filters are great for the beach and other extreme environments.</p>

[ted_raper1]

<p>Because I have expensive lenses and don't fancy having to to buy them again if I screw them up, I use BOTH hoods and filters. I keep UV filters on all my lens, but remove them when shooting; I will use polarizers, NDs and ND grads when necessary but otherwise prefer not to put additional layers of glass on my lenses. Even on my two small cameras - a Nikon P7100 and a Canon G1x, I have filter adapters for both of them and keep UVs on them as well.</p>

[vrankin]

<p>Back to the original post: I have the same lens and the hood supplied with it does a nice job. Starting today, after reading this thread I'm going to recover it from the drawer and have it on!</p>

[mendel_leisk]

 

<blockquote>

<p ><a name="00alrj"></a><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=3865751">Ed Farmer</a>, Aug 29, 2012; 11:26 a.m.</p>

</blockquote>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Hood, hood, hood, hood, hood . . . Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes . . . <br /><br />The hood will NEVER decrease image quality! It can only EVER help! Why would you NOT use the hood?</p>

</blockquote>

 

^ The hood will decrease image quality, if you <em>miss</em> the picture due to it, for whatever reason: it does increase complexity and bulk.

 

[ariel_s1]

<p>Ed, you state that "the hood will NEVER decrease image quality." Again, if you look on the first page you will see that I'm a pro-hood guy, but that statement is incorrect. A hood can cause vignetting, especially on the wider end of a zoom lens. Again, it's up to the individual user to decide whether that shortcoming outweighs the benefits, but it's incorrect to make the claim that you did.</p>

<p>Mike, as your link admits, with today's sensors and lenses, UV is essentially a nonissue. To get any sort of UV response, you have to specifically use a UV-specific or an obsolete lens, and even then, the response is, according to your own link, "up to 15 stops" less sensitive. So, if you guys want to see the effect that a 15-stop different sensitivity that UV light would have on your photo, go take a photo of your car or house. Now, underexpose a second photo by even "just" 10 stops, and try and see how much detail was retained in the photo, because that's how much UV light is getting to your sensor. Therefore, even <strong>if</strong> you had both a camera and lens combination that were UV sensitive today (hint: you don't), that is how much your photo would be affected by it. Considering that a filter introduces at least two air-glass boundaries in front of your photo that each reduce transmittance, any gain from cutting out more UV would be offset by that. Also, those are dinosaur-age DSLRs, the very first from Nikon. Anything produced in the last DECADE doesn't have the same shortcomings of being UV sensitive. Example, again, from your linked webpage:<br>

http://www.naturfotograf.com/D2X_rev05UV.html#top_page<br>

http://www.naturfotograf.com/D3/D3_rev05UV.html<br>

"However, unlike IR, the UV rays are quite efficiently filtered out by pure optical means long before they can reach the imaging chip inside. The optical glass in the lens, and in particular the multi-coating layers, prevent much of the impinging UV to pass through." Bjorn's own words. Plus, as he tests with his 105mm UV Nikkor against a regular lens:<br>

http://www.naturfotograf.com/spectral.html#fig1<br>

What do you know, zero UV transmittance! How unexpected! Also backed up by this link:<br>

http://www.astrosurf.com/luxorion/photo-ir-uv4.htm<br>

Anything newer than a D200 is essentially impervious to UV. As shown in this blog post:<br>

http://photographyoftheinvisibleworld.blogspot.com/2011/02/new-shutter-control-unit-seems-to-spoil.html<br>

The current Nikon SLRs are so impervious to UV, that if you remove the internal hot filter to try to expose long enough while blocking visible light to capture a UV photo, then UV light from the internals of the camera itself is enough to overpower the incoming UV light! Ouch. And that link ALSO mentions the modern hot filter that Nikon DLRs all have "which usually cuts from 400-700nm," which means, surprise surprise, NO UV SENSITIVITY WITH NIKON DSLRS! Factor in that ALSO no lenses that 99.9999% of people use on a DSLR allow the passthrough of UV light:<br>

http://photographyoftheinvisibleworld.blogspot.com/2008/11/principle-thoughts-about-lenses-filters.html<br>

And, we have no choice but to come to the conclusion that DSLRs are not sensitive to UV light. Seriously, if you have EXPERIENCE shooting in UV, I would have expected you to be aware of at least a smidgen of this. You seem to know "just enough to get yourself into trouble," as we say in the motorcycle world.</p>

<p>And yeah, UV filters are essentially a marketing conspiracy. About as much of a conspiracy as you'd find in ANY hobby. For example, my father's home receiver has a 32 bit DAC and is capable of 130W per channel. Those are ridiculous numbers that have no bearing in reality. They're just marketing nonsense. Read response number 2 here about the dynamic range of a 32 bit signal, and what it means in terms of volume and pressure:<br>

http://www.stereophile.com/content/whats-point-32bit-dac<br>

And, if you have a digital multimeter or oscilloscope handy, go to the speaker leads on your home stereo and measure the output of your stereo. You are putting out MAYBE 13-15 Watts per channel during a loud, turned-up action scene, but most of the time are enjoying your music and movies at 6-10 Watts per channel. It's just as much of a conspiracy. If people will buy something based off of a spec, then the company will tout that spec. The whole point of UV filters is that they are a cash COW to the industry. Unfortunately, this link gives an argument of whether or not it's necessary, as I'm trying to stay out of, but Thom explains pretty well the situation of why photo shops are so ready to push filters onto consumers:<br>

http://www.bythom.com/filters.htm<br>

"The reason the dealer asks this is simple: it's a way to increase their profit. Mail order outfits such as B&H and Adorama have made it difficult for local dealers to charge list price on lenses (though some still manage). For example, the markup on a 24-85mm AF-S lens is quite small, meaning that the dealer might make only $50 on your purchase. The markup on a $30 filter can be as high as 80%. By selling you that filter, the dealer can make another $24 on the sale, increasing his profit by 50%." Which explains it about as well as I'd care to type out. So, while UV filters DO actually block UV, it is pointless because as I showed above, a modern camera is unaffected by UV light. You would just as well sell someone in Kansas some anti-whale attack armor, because that's just as likely as UV light actually getting to your sensor.<br>

<br>

Again, your info is outdated. Image degradation from UV haze <strong>did</strong> exist, but technologically speaking, not in this lifetime. </p>

[mike_halliwell]

<p><em>Therefore, even <strong>if</strong> you had both a camera and lens combination that were UV sensitive today <strong>(hint: you don't)</strong> </em><br>

<em> </em><br>

Not sure why you're making this personal, but I'm sorry, <strong>I DO</strong>! If you'd like to go to the listing on Bjorn's site you'll find the lovely 28mm & 35mm Series E....nice lens for UV that. Bolt that to my nice D50 and you take lovely pictures in UV ONLY. If you feel like checking, the most modern Baader Venus (U) filter has no secondary IR window, and what I record IS A TRUE UV image.</p>

<p>To quote from your own link <br>

..<a href="http://photographyoftheinvisibleworld.blogspot.co.uk/2011/01/simple-tutorial-for-reflected-uv.html">http://photographyoftheinvisibleworld.blogspot.co.uk/2011/01/simple-tutorial-for-reflected-uv.html</a><br>

<br>

<!--

<em>'My finding is that the Nikon D70(s) is the best value for money <strong>for UV</strong> as is the D40, since both <strong>work off the shelf unmodified</strong>.....</em><em>...My usual setting on an sunny to overcast day is 2..4" @ f8-11 ISO200</em><em> '</em><br>

<em> </em><br>

-->

<I>Quote removed upon Klaus Schmitt and Mike Halliwell's requests. -- Shun Cheung</I>

<br>

<br>

Makes your quote of<em> '<strong>NO UV SENSITIVITY WITH NIKON DSLRS!</strong> c</em>ompletely WRONG doesn't it!</p>

<p>I have enough knowledge to take completely acceptable UV and IR photos. Thank You. I guess if you've never tried, you don't. Anyway, enough about this.</p>

<p>______</p>

<p>Specific UV filters are no longer required.</p>

<p>Protection filters are a good idea if the camera is being used in an environment that damage to the front element or the coatings might occur.</p>

<p>Hoods offer both physical protection and help prevent image degradation from oblique light flair.</p>

[ariel_s1]

<p>Exactly my point. D50 and D70 are first-gen cameras. For the most part, no one uses them anymore, and this is coming from a D200 user, which is also pretty much on that downward spiral to disuse. D40 shares that first-gen 6MP sensor. Every Nikon camera since then doesn't have UV sensitivity. As I've said twice already, and will say again, YOUR ADVICE IS OUTDATED. The D50 and D70 were discontinued a LIFETIME ago, and they belong in a graveyard. In addition to no contemporary camera having UV sensitivity, to find a Nikon lens that isn't UV-blocking, you have to go back to a manual focus, non-metering, bottom-end lens from 40 years ago? Oh wait, even then it doesn't hold up, because those lenses don't pass UV out of the box! You fail to mention that you systematically have to remove the coatings from the lens in order for it to pass UV!</p>

<p>And then, one more time, even if you do all of that, you STILL have a UV sensitivity of over 10 stops less than visible light. Those cameras barely have 10 EV of dynamic range! To get that UV exposed onto the sensor, without blowing your image into a field of pure white, you have to use a special filter that blocks all visible light! So, to recap, even IF someone were using a first-gen obsolete Nikon DSLR, <strong>and</strong> if they got their hands on a very old lens that didn't meter with the camera, <strong>and</strong> if they scratched all of the coatings off of this lens, if they went and took a visible-light photo, you would still get ZERO ultraviolet light exposed onto the sensor! Which is why, I will say one more time: FOR ALL INTENTS AND PURPOSES, NIKON DSLRS ARE NOT SENSITIVE TO UV LIGHT. Or more precisely, as it pertains to this discussion, IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO GET UV HAZE ON A PHOTO FROM A NIKON DSLR. No one that is considering buying a UV filter is in any danger whatsoever of getting any UV haze in any of their photos.</p>

[Two23]

<p>Wouter--<br>

I have indeed had a broken filter destroy one of my lenses--a Nikon 80-400mm VR. Filter broke, the shards scratched the lens' front element. Another time I was with a friend in Chicago. He tried to drop a lens into a belt pouch, but instead it went "face" down on the sidewalk. UV filter broke and scratched the glass. I saw both of these incidents first hand, and have heard of others from people who report it happened to them. If the lens cap had been used instead, there would have been no damage to the elements in either case I saw, and probably the ones I was told about. Second factor is that for me to put a quality filter on each of the lenses I actively use would cost MORE than a repair. Makes no economic sense. Finally, I have a collection of lenses going back to 1847. (Eighteen-fortyseven!) None of these lenses ever had filters (no threads) yet all are perfect. They do have good lens hoods on them. </p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>I did a test with and without filter with the 35 and the D90.</p>

<p>There was no detectable difference whatsoever unless you're shooting into the sun, in which case get that filter off of there.</p>

<p>Always use the hood. Especially on that lens, it's remarkably unobtrusive.</p>

<p> </p>