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

[mike_halliwell]

<p>D40 works <strong>out of the box</strong>.<br>

Nikon 28mm Series E works<strong> out of the box</strong>.<br>

2" Baader U filter.<br>

Modest tripod.<br>

Add sunshine. Takes UV ONLY images.</p>

<p>OK UV haze might be a thing of the past, but there's a lot of people out there using Nikon gear to take UV images with DSLRs.</p>

<p>I'm opting out of this post....too much aggression. Don't need it.</p>

<p>_____</p>

<p> </p>

[andylynn]

The OP is asking about a 35mm 1.8G lens. Not asking for a flame war about hoods. (A flame war about hoods?

Seriously, guys?)

 

Akiva, I think you have your answers: the hood on that lens blocks stray light while protecting the front of the lens and

has no apparent downside, so usually it should be used.

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>Kent, I fail to see why you reply to me with these anecdotes? I stated I use UV filters for lenses I have to clean often due to relatively rough usage? Otherwise, I recommend a hood for protection over filters. I am in no way disputing what you wrote?</p>

[john_r._fulton_jr.]

<p>Someone asked why would anybody not use a sunshade or filter?</p>

<p>Antonín Kratochvíl, one of the great contemporary photojournalists on the planet and a member of Agency VII, says he doesn't use a hood or a filter because they are obtrusive. Basically he says that the camera is obtrusive itself, but adding a sunshade just adds to he "look" of the camera.</p>

<p>Let's face it. A D4 with a 70-200 plus sunshade, on the street, is pretty intimidating. A D3200 with a 35mm f1.8 (minus) sunshade isn't going to make anybody very nervous. I realize that many of you are not street photographers but next time you go on vacation try what Antonin suggests. Leave the sunshade in the hotel room. One camera, one (small) lens. Keep it simple. </p>

<p>Good shooting everybody!</p>

[dsms photos]

<p>Ariel, Mike,</p>

<p>you both are violating my rights, as I have clearly stated on my BLOG: "<strong>All text and images carry my copyright and I do not allow to link to or copy / download from my site or any parts thereof without my prior permission</strong>." So since I haven't been asked, REMOVE THE LINKS HERE IMMEDIATELY.<br>

Thanks, Dr Klaus Schmitt<br>

uvir.eu</p>

 

[mike_halliwell]

<p>Dear Dr.Schmitt, I'm sorry, I had no intention of deliberately going against your wishes and admit I was driven to do so against my better judgment by overt provocation.</p>

<p>Hopefully the moderators can remove these links.</p>

<p>Apologies again.</p>

<p>Mike</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>i generally just slip the 35/1.,8 into a bag without the hood. i mainly use it for night shooting, so flare isn't a big issue. i do have an UV filter on it, for protection. the thing about filters is, they will protect your glass in case of a drop, errant fingers, etc., and you can always remove them in situations which warrant that. i have filters on all my lenses as i'm a bit nervous about getting a scratch in a front element. even a $200 lens is a hassle to replace.</p>

<p>as far as arguing over the benefits of UV filters on digital cameras, it's not that serious. i generally assume UV isn't a big issue with modern DSLRs, but protecting lenses is. if i want optimal IQ and have time to set up a shot, i'll go filter-free. but most of the time i keep the filter on, especially when shooting events where there are lots of people milling about. i do use the hoods for the 70-200 and 24-70 most of the time, but they do add to the bulk, particularly the 24-70, which is almost svelte without it.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Folks, this discussion is getting out of hand, so I am going to close this thread.</p>

<p>Since Klaus Schmitt does not like people to quote his text or copy his images, I am going to remove the quotes. However, he does not have the right to demand people not to post links to his article.</p>