The lens hood one is a bit of a strange one to be annoyed at. I do this purely out of laziness. I can’t be arsed stopping and fishing it out of my bag if I need it for a shot. I quickly just change it around and have done since the 90s when I started. Why does it annoy you?
The lens hood one is a bit of a strange one to be annoyed at. I do this purely out of laziness. I can’t be arsed stopping and fishing it out of my bag if I need it for a shot. I quickly just change it around and have done since the 90s when I started. Why does it annoy you?
A lens hood is not just optional, if it is the original one which came with the lens it is carefully designed to keep the image circle clear while obstructing light rays which hit the front element at small enough angles such that the refraction index of the glass causes them to diminish contrast.
Whether outdoors or inside under artificial lighting, the hood will improve (micro)contrast and through that, sharpness. It will also allow more accurate exposure readings, especially when using a flash by not allowing environmental lighting to hit the lightmeter.
A decent hood has a certain degree of stiffness/elasticity to it which will diffuse energy in a fall or bump not dissimilar to the crumple zone in a car. and also protects the front element from being accidentally touched.
You’ve changed the original question from it being a “pet peeve” to an “annoyance” and having it reversed while shooting to just having it reversed in the bag (which makes sense) so I cannot say it annoys me. I It rather tells me the person behind the camera cannot be arsed to…oh well, you said it youself.
In the bag: reversed for storage. The moment the camera comes out: put it on as it was meant to, that’s all.
took me a long time to stop. I started in the '70s when using a UV filter for protection was a radical new idea.
Took me until 2010 to realise just HOW MUCH extra flare and desaturation they were responsible for. Took me until 2020 to realise I had literally never scratched one or replaced one, and that they had therefore achieved precisely fuck-all. Took them all off.
I now use exactly one, which is on a pinhole lens to keep the dust out. Oh and another I use on my cheapest DSLR kit lens when I am on a beach - not that I have ever replaced THAT either.
I have always put a filter on my lenses and I have replaced many over the years. There are situations where I take them off where flair or reflections are an issue but otherwise they stay on.
That is very interesting. I checked all mine with a loupe a couple of years ago, in raking light, and they were all practically undamaged. Maybe I don’t use my lenses nearly enough!
I have to say that I have never checked mine with a loupe but occasionally I do clean my actual lens glass (I find those lens pens are very good) and have only ever had one small spec on one lens (200 2.8). It was very minor, but it was there.
I don’t spare my equipment and risk it a bit. I find having fulters on my lenses allows me to operate in situations where I might not otherwise - like in crowded situations where i might get a scratch, thumb print or some liquid spilt on it. Or dusty environments etc.
Also, when the tempo of a shoot picks up I occasionally put lenses in my camera bag or jacket with no lenscap on (I always manage to get the rear caps on). It’s not hard to get a scuff on an uncovered lens in that situation.
I must admit that I have never taken side by side shots with the filter on and off to compare the results. I think I will do that to see how much difference it makes.
I have become very lazy about lens caps since I started religiously using lens hoods which help against bumps and knocks a lot.
But I think a lot of it is just being less poor than I was: it would not be disastrous if I damaged a lens, like it would have been 10, 20, 30 years ago for me. Not a good attitude, I admit :-(
Ahh yes, you will get flare at an almost 90 degree angle to the sun if you have a filter on because it’s further forward than the lens itself.
I shoot a few portraits and probably 75% of them are backlit so there’s potential for flair to get on my lenses a lot of the time.
So I have three tiers of lens shading to keep sun off my filter. The first is a lens hood. If, due to the angle, the lens hood doesn’t stop sunlight or other bright light striking the filter I take off my cap or hat (which I always wear on a shoot for this single purpose) and hold it at the end of the lens would to shade the lens.
Then, if it’s still not enough shade I have an assistant or a bystander hold a black card which I have on a stick and ask them to shade the lens with that. Regulars have become very adept at wielding the card on a stick! Then sometimes when I’m going for a strong rim light I will shoot right into the sun and in that situation I remove the filters.
I find it’s imperative to take the filters off when I’m shooting at night because any bright light will reflect off the inside of the filter causing bright spots in undesirable places. So that’s pretty well any nighttime light source.
If I damage a lens, for me that wouldn’t be disaster either. But it would be a financial inconvenience. Then there’s also downtime for the time it takes to replace or repair the lens. And on top of that there’s the boss (my wife) to take into account!
I have always used a uv filter on my lenses.
It’s not necessary to protect against dropping or other impacts although sometimes it helps with that too.
The main reason is that the $40 filter takes the wear and scrapes rather than the $2K lens - you have to be careful cleaning the actual lens and it takes time. Also, whenever you clean the lens you erode the coating and risk scratching it. Meanwhile you can scrub a filter clean with a tissue while on the go. The upshot is that I’m confident to deploy my cameras in risky situations and clean if they get dirty.
There are times when I take them off to reduce flare and reflection.
Whenever you clean the lens you erode the coating and risk scratching it. Meanwhile you can scrub a filter clean with a tissue while on the go.
Now read your words back slowly and carefully. So you care about not scratching your lens why? To put a piece of scratched glass in front of it? What have you accomplished by doing that - bad IQ.
You seemed to miss my point. The filter cost $40 to replace
No, it rather is YOU who missed my point. Sticking a $40 filter in front of what you claimed is your $2k lens" is just outright insanity.
Either you buy a cheap lens and you don’t care enough about image quality or its front element to put any cheap piece of glass in front of it or you buy a very expensive less in which case you especially do not want to degrade its potential IQ by dumping a cheap piece of glass in front of it.
You cannot win, the $40 cheap filter has no proper use case whether you have a cheap or an expensive lens.
Ow wow! Don’t get me started…
I use an NC filter for all my lenses. Why is that bad?
OMG, I just can’t be bothered dude. Use Google FFS
The lens hood one is a bit of a strange one to be annoyed at. I do this purely out of laziness. I can’t be arsed stopping and fishing it out of my bag if I need it for a shot. I quickly just change it around and have done since the 90s when I started. Why does it annoy you?
A lens hood is not just optional, if it is the original one which came with the lens it is carefully designed to keep the image circle clear while obstructing light rays which hit the front element at small enough angles such that the refraction index of the glass causes them to diminish contrast.
Whether outdoors or inside under artificial lighting, the hood will improve (micro)contrast and through that, sharpness. It will also allow more accurate exposure readings, especially when using a flash by not allowing environmental lighting to hit the lightmeter.
A decent hood has a certain degree of stiffness/elasticity to it which will diffuse energy in a fall or bump not dissimilar to the crumple zone in a car. and also protects the front element from being accidentally touched.
You’ve changed the original question from it being a “pet peeve” to an “annoyance” and having it reversed while shooting to just having it reversed in the bag (which makes sense) so I cannot say it annoys me. I It rather tells me the person behind the camera cannot be arsed to…oh well, you said it youself.
In the bag: reversed for storage. The moment the camera comes out: put it on as it was meant to, that’s all.
Jeesus now my inbox is full of people are getting ‘annoyed’ at my take on ‘peeve’. Just stop 🤣 ps look up the meaning of peeve in the dictionary
Sure: pet peeve = a minor annoyance
And I don’t always need or want the use of the hood to keep flare out. Sometimes I want it in the shot.
took me a long time to stop. I started in the '70s when using a UV filter for protection was a radical new idea.
Took me until 2010 to realise just HOW MUCH extra flare and desaturation they were responsible for. Took me until 2020 to realise I had literally never scratched one or replaced one, and that they had therefore achieved precisely fuck-all. Took them all off.
I now use exactly one, which is on a pinhole lens to keep the dust out. Oh and another I use on my cheapest DSLR kit lens when I am on a beach - not that I have ever replaced THAT either.
I have always put a filter on my lenses and I have replaced many over the years. There are situations where I take them off where flair or reflections are an issue but otherwise they stay on.
That is very interesting. I checked all mine with a loupe a couple of years ago, in raking light, and they were all practically undamaged. Maybe I don’t use my lenses nearly enough!
I have to say that I have never checked mine with a loupe but occasionally I do clean my actual lens glass (I find those lens pens are very good) and have only ever had one small spec on one lens (200 2.8). It was very minor, but it was there.
I don’t spare my equipment and risk it a bit. I find having fulters on my lenses allows me to operate in situations where I might not otherwise - like in crowded situations where i might get a scratch, thumb print or some liquid spilt on it. Or dusty environments etc.
Also, when the tempo of a shoot picks up I occasionally put lenses in my camera bag or jacket with no lenscap on (I always manage to get the rear caps on). It’s not hard to get a scuff on an uncovered lens in that situation.
I must admit that I have never taken side by side shots with the filter on and off to compare the results. I think I will do that to see how much difference it makes.
I have become very lazy about lens caps since I started religiously using lens hoods which help against bumps and knocks a lot.
But I think a lot of it is just being less poor than I was: it would not be disastrous if I damaged a lens, like it would have been 10, 20, 30 years ago for me. Not a good attitude, I admit :-(
Ahh yes, you will get flare at an almost 90 degree angle to the sun if you have a filter on because it’s further forward than the lens itself.
I shoot a few portraits and probably 75% of them are backlit so there’s potential for flair to get on my lenses a lot of the time.
So I have three tiers of lens shading to keep sun off my filter. The first is a lens hood. If, due to the angle, the lens hood doesn’t stop sunlight or other bright light striking the filter I take off my cap or hat (which I always wear on a shoot for this single purpose) and hold it at the end of the lens would to shade the lens.
Then, if it’s still not enough shade I have an assistant or a bystander hold a black card which I have on a stick and ask them to shade the lens with that. Regulars have become very adept at wielding the card on a stick! Then sometimes when I’m going for a strong rim light I will shoot right into the sun and in that situation I remove the filters.
I find it’s imperative to take the filters off when I’m shooting at night because any bright light will reflect off the inside of the filter causing bright spots in undesirable places. So that’s pretty well any nighttime light source.
If I damage a lens, for me that wouldn’t be disaster either. But it would be a financial inconvenience. Then there’s also downtime for the time it takes to replace or repair the lens. And on top of that there’s the boss (my wife) to take into account!
I have always used a uv filter on my lenses. It’s not necessary to protect against dropping or other impacts although sometimes it helps with that too.
The main reason is that the $40 filter takes the wear and scrapes rather than the $2K lens - you have to be careful cleaning the actual lens and it takes time. Also, whenever you clean the lens you erode the coating and risk scratching it. Meanwhile you can scrub a filter clean with a tissue while on the go. The upshot is that I’m confident to deploy my cameras in risky situations and clean if they get dirty.
There are times when I take them off to reduce flare and reflection.
Now read your words back slowly and carefully. So you care about not scratching your lens why? To put a piece of scratched glass in front of it? What have you accomplished by doing that - bad IQ.
You seemed to miss my point. The filter cost $40 to replace, which I do when it needs replacing.
No, it rather is YOU who missed my point. Sticking a $40 filter in front of what you claimed is your $2k lens" is just outright insanity.
Either you buy a cheap lens and you don’t care enough about image quality or its front element to put any cheap piece of glass in front of it or you buy a very expensive less in which case you especially do not want to degrade its potential IQ by dumping a cheap piece of glass in front of it.
You cannot win, the $40 cheap filter has no proper use case whether you have a cheap or an expensive lens.