I do the same, especially with a UV filter, man I never have to worry about scratching my front element because the filter gets scratched first, and thsm I can replace the filter, instead for the lens
@@blanked3 you can scratch the front element hard with a key or a rock and it will not show up in photos, u can find people testing it here on YT. Meanwhile that useless filter is bending light worsening each one of your shots.
I don’t understand the physics of how this is true since the incident light that creates the image will never come from the where the hood is, else it’d be visible in the image. Is it just because it’s refracting and scattering in the lens, but then wouldn’t it also add noise and overall brightness? Can you please explain, Keen to learn
@@AnalogFilmDiary Yes it is light that scatters inside the lens and it does add overall brightness. Adding brightness everywhere reduces the contrast between the dark areas and the light areas. It may make it impossible to see some fine details in the darkest parts of the image.
Especially if you're not looking at the light, a lens hood prevents light from scattering and illuminating the front element in particular. The best example of this is when you're shooting side on to the sun, the sun is not in the shot but it's shining directly onto your front element and this will make the image extremely washed out, but it won't necessarily create an actual lens flare. This is why many photogs use lens hoods when shooting outdoors and film crews use matte boxes with flags.
When your super expensive lens has been through countless hours of testing, research and development just for you to not use the hood and get chromatic aberrations like a $30 lens for the 1950’s with lens fungus…
Funny thing, people are like “I wish manufacturers made a lens to protect your lens” then if they do and it costs like 500$, they’ll be like “I better put this UV filter on to protect that 500$ piece of glass that is supposed to protect my lens.
The fact you wiped your lens with your shirt kinda says it all. Been a professional photographer for 5 years I’m not paying all that money for a lens to use it without the hood, even if it’s less convenient!
Some old lenses cannot be used without a lens hood. The contrast will drop to 0 on some lenses in direct sunlight. Some cheap UV cut filters can soften the image and reduce sharpness significantly. Also, UV filters can introduce reflections between the filter and the lens, which can lead to lower contrast.
I think the point about 'size' has some validity, but the majority of hoods I have will go on in reverse, so you still add a bit of girth, but there's no issue with length. For all else, I think that uv filter use is completely bogus. £1000 lens covered with crap filter. No. Also, is you smack a lens with a hood, the hood may break. If you smack a lens with a uv filter, it's inevitable that the lens is still going to be hassled, and best of luck getting the damn filter off. Lens hood every time!
It is not just lens flares but also diffuse reflection. In my experience, a lenshood increases contrast in my images. I rarely use UV filters, as they actually can add additional reflections, no matter how good the coating of those filters is and I have 100€ UV filters!... I use them to protect vor example from oils or smoke. Also: A lens hood protects not just the front element of the lens but it also serves as a sort of crumble zone for your falling camera...
How is shattering/breaking glass of UV filter going a "crumple zone" to the front element. They're millimeters apart! Lens caps are the actual protectors of the front lens element, and a lens hood also protects a falling lens as well. A UV filter with a half a centimeter to the front element isn't gonna protect s**t.
@@maxbenson9982 I don’t own a kit lens. it’s a nifty fifty prime lens and haven’t bought any lens filter or hood for that lens yet and I barely used the lens since it was bought this year.
Now you're getting twice as much flare by using a filter without a lens hood. Not too smart. And instead of using a UV filter use a *clear protective filter* of good quality, like those made by B+W.
I can see where you're coming from, but putting a $100 piece of glass in front of your $2,500 lens unnecessarily reduces image quality. The antiglare coatings and extensive engineering are why these lenses are so expensive, throwing a UV filter on the end nullifies both. UV filters are also pretty brittle, so if it does break, not only do you have a bag full of glass and fine particles that could work into focus rings and between elements, but you also run the risk of scratching your lens while it shifts around in your bag. Lens hoods also help preserve contrast and saturation. There's a reason lenses come with hoods and not filters.
I have had a lens hood save two of my lenses when dropped (and thankfully the only two times they were dropped). The hood is also very helpful to reduce the effect of rain.
When I don't have a lens hood, I use my hand and cup it around the lens in the direction of the light. The contrast and clarity boost is night and day. Use your lens hood people.
I've completely stopped using uv filters because uv filters can get scratched more easily than the lens's front element. In my case, it actually made my images less sharper.
That's literally the main reason people put UV filters on their lenses. It's the cheapest filter uou can get. It protects against UV light. Most importantly, if you drop or scratch your lens, you scratch or chip the $10 filter instead of the $800 lens. A lens hood doesn't do much if youre....you know, taking pictures of the sun. A lens hood is not meant for what he is saying. It's just mindless, easy content for his youtube channel. It's something to say for 60 seconds that people will watch because he has a lot of followers. More power to him - its a revenue stream, but NOBODY buys a lens hood to protect their camera from UV rays; they use a lens hood for one reason : to prevent lens flare.
@@Pentistry There is no merit to the claim that UV filters noticeably affect image quality - and if they do, it's at the pixel peeping level. I did not claim that cameras needed a UV filter. I explained what a UV filter does - - and since it's among the cheapest filters you can get, it's a good solution to protect your lens from scratches and things like that. UV light doesn't affect the image necessarily, so they are not applying any image altering. I have a UV filter on every lens - - not to block UV light, but to protect the lens. As do many others.
@@willoughbykrenzteinburg I'm a photographer who does landscapes and portraits. I've had an UV Filter on my lens before, and it made my images less sharp. You can look online and see what others have said. I'm not the only one saying this.
Bumps and scratches all good, but how about something slamming into your lens Like an apple lol or a basketball. You cleaned your filter with your shirt 😂😂😂 Your still my fav
Lens hoods have saved me a bunch, especially with sports photography where basketballs and football players have nearly destroyed my lenses if it weren’t for the lens hood.
How can you be sure that the filter prevented the front element from breaking? The filter is probably much thinner and weaker than the front element, something that broke the filter might not have broken the front element.
YEEEEES and No. I use Lens hoods ONLY for the protection factor. It creates a distance between me and a running dog for example. I shoot many dogs in action and I need protection. Using UV filters can also have a disadvantage though if you´re not know what you´re doing. Because I KNOW many photographers who are using 2.000$ lenses and then put a 5$ UV filter on. Which is semiproductive if you ask me.
Worst. Advice. Ever. I have the same Canon 50mm 1.2 lens...and several others. I have never had a problem putting lenses in my bag. And for the exorbitant price of those lenses, there is no way I'm covering the main element with a cheap UV filter. I have NEVER had a scratch on any lens.
It's not about lens flare or to protect the lens.. it's about keeping the Contrast so that the glre doesnt wash out the image. The fct this isn't even mentioned makes this videa just objectively bad since tou totally missed the issue entirely
The disadvantage of UV filters is that you put a low quality piece of glass on an expensive piece of glass which would reduce the quality of the images...
I’ll stick with the lens hood. Having a 2-5 inch barrier between the lens and the outside world makes me feel better. Plus I get to shoot with the unobstructed premium glass I paid a mortgage for. BUT AS ALWAYS….. YOU DO YOU BOO!
How does a UV filter which need to be a $100 UV filter B+W or Hoya UV (O), going to protect your lens? If it falls and cracks the UV filter inertia will send the broken glass into the front element either scratching it or breaking it. Having a large lens hood on your lens and lens cap is the best protection if the lens is dropped the lens hood can take most of the impact.
What kind of UV filters do you have... Bear in mind that most people might follow your opinion and put cheap UV in front of expensive glass... 😢 and this is not a desired outcome of this video, right?
Wrong, UV filter negatively affects image quality as it’s not part of the original optical formulation and the different glass imparts different qualities - doesn’t matter if it’s a cheap or expensive filter. This was a non-issue back in the day but no longer the case with advanced higher resolution equipment today. Also the lens hoods fold back over the lens just fine so they take no extra space and they not only reduce lens flare and improve contrast in some situations, they are just better at protecting your lens overall.
I use B+W filter and hood on every lens. Even when pixel peeping I can’t see difference with/without filter. I used to use cheaper filters in my young and dumb days; not any more.
At first, I thought this was lame, but it turned out I was doing the same after a while. The hood is ridiculously huge with big lenses. I opted for varial ND and CPL filter. When there is a need for light, I just take it off, but rarely is that the case.
Need to let your people know that some "protection" filters simply protect you from good images. Tiffen hasnt made a good slim UV protector in years. Cheap filters are bad.
Weirdly- I always use a lens hood and I've been shooting longer than you've been alive. And of course, the front element always gets a protective filter.
In 1970,s cannon lenses came with uv filters to protect your front elements. The lens hood was sold separately and made of rubber, but cost forced them to sell the uv filter separately and give away lens hoods
Yesterday while shooting my friends dogs, we let them run around, few mins after, doggo smashed my lens hood while I was taking photos of the other dogs. Cool tip, use lens hood around happy unleashed dogs
Filter Will take some light and sharpness away does not matter how good and expensive he is. Also if you crack your filter or if he bends he will do more bad than good scratching the lens
plus lens filter particles do not impact the picture quality Those reversal covers aren't too bad and have a cover as well, just a lot of parts to manage.
Unless your lens fell directly over a sharp rock it would have probably been fine anyways. The front element of the lens is much more resistant than most uv filters. The filter is generally gonna break or scratch in situations where the front element just wouldn't
I dropped mine at a concert onto a brick floor, the Uv filter acted like a crumplezone on a car the only thing that happened to the lens was a small ding and I had to fix the zoom slider because it didn't like the impact
I used to keep UV filters on all my lenses. We're talking for 30 years lol. I spent the bucks on good ones, and know now no there are no good ones! They'll amplify all the issues you get without a hood (low contrast, glare, flare). I like flares too, but too many other issues that are very hard to fix in post (especially video). Better to go with no UV filters, and less hassle with filters that are actually needed.
When buying used lenses I try to get ones that come with a UV filter. I throw them away immediately. It's just reassuring that the person who owned this last was so neurotic about protecting their lens that they sacrificed their image quality significantly to do it.
So do I. But a lot of people swear that uv filters destroy your photos. But to be honest, I haven’t really noticed any of that… and I do use lens hoods with my vintage lenses, because some of them flare pretty wildly and actually have a build in lens hood.
Thank you for clearing up, what I thought made sense. As someone who's dabbling in photography. I've always used filters As the actual lens is protected from dirt, water & damage. Let alone there's less cleaning. Whereas a lens hood adds more bulk.
The lense hood is not for protection. It blocks unwanted stray light. If light gets on the glass, it desaturates the image. If you want that look great. If you want fully saturated and clean colors, you put it on.
![[Live] ศึกมหึมันส์มวยไทยสังเวียนเดือด เวทีมวยชั่วคราวสวนสยาม | จันทร์ 30 กันยายน 2567](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/pM1k6f7JXUc/mqdefault.jpg)
i like to take care of my lenses a lot, so i put both a hood and a uv filter on them
Thats smart.
I do the same, especially with a UV filter, man I never have to worry about scratching my front element because the filter gets scratched first, and thsm I can replace the filter, instead for the lens
@@blanked3 you can scratch the front element hard with a key or a rock and it will not show up in photos, u can find people testing it here on YT. Meanwhile that useless filter is bending light worsening each one of your shots.
@@KeatsITyeah but the resale value goes down
@@JailerGamer you do you, I value more using my gear properly and getting the best possible result than a "what if" future resell.
Buy a 1000$ piece of glass, cover it up with a 10$ piece of glass.
Hopefully you are taking off that cheap glass before your shoot.
And swap the 10$ piece instead of the 1000$ lens if anything happens. Or just continue to shoot without the now broken filter.
Exactly. This guy gives horrible advice. And that 50mm 1.2 lens is more like $2300.
@@bilcarterhe's good with "tiktok time limit enunciation" though 😂
Exactly.
The lens hood will naturally boost contrast, to me that looks better than any added in post
I don’t understand the physics of how this is true since the incident light that creates the image will never come from the where the hood is, else it’d be visible in the image.
Is it just because it’s refracting and scattering in the lens, but then wouldn’t it also add noise and overall brightness?
Can you please explain, Keen to learn
@@AnalogFilmDiary Yes it is light that scatters inside the lens and it does add overall brightness. Adding brightness everywhere reduces the contrast between the dark areas and the light areas. It may make it impossible to see some fine details in the darkest parts of the image.
Especially if you're not looking at the light, a lens hood prevents light from scattering and illuminating the front element in particular. The best example of this is when you're shooting side on to the sun, the sun is not in the shot but it's shining directly onto your front element and this will make the image extremely washed out, but it won't necessarily create an actual lens flare. This is why many photogs use lens hoods when shooting outdoors and film crews use matte boxes with flags.
When your super expensive lens has been through countless hours of testing, research and development just for you to not use the hood and get chromatic aberrations like a $30 lens for the 1950’s with lens fungus…
I hope the glass in those UV filters is just as high quality as the glass it’s covering, otherwise it makes them expensive lenses worthless mostly
A les hood can totally save your lens if you drop it
That works good with tele lenses, but with wide angle lenses it only protects in some cases because there is not much of a lens hood.
Funny thing, people are like “I wish manufacturers made a lens to protect your lens” then if they do and it costs like 500$, they’ll be like “I better put this UV filter on to protect that 500$ piece of glass that is supposed to protect my lens.
😂😂😂 insanely accurate
hahaha true
The fact you wiped your lens with your shirt kinda says it all. Been a professional photographer for 5 years I’m not paying all that money for a lens to use it without the hood, even if it’s less convenient!
😂
I cringed when he did that. 🫣
pretty sure he wiped the filter..
Isn't this an ongoing meme with him? He does it because it makes our blood boil.
Some old lenses cannot be used without a lens hood. The contrast will drop to 0 on some lenses in direct sunlight. Some cheap UV cut filters can soften the image and reduce sharpness significantly. Also, UV filters can introduce reflections between the filter and the lens, which can lead to lower contrast.
Expensive UV filters are a scam in my opinion. Doesn't matter the price, they always cause reflections.
I think the point about 'size' has some validity, but the majority of hoods I have will go on in reverse, so you still add a bit of girth, but there's no issue with length. For all else, I think that uv filter use is completely bogus. £1000 lens covered with crap filter. No. Also, is you smack a lens with a hood, the hood may break. If you smack a lens with a uv filter, it's inevitable that the lens is still going to be hassled, and best of luck getting the damn filter off. Lens hood every time!
I use lens hood to protect the front of the lens from rain 😅
It is not just lens flares but also diffuse reflection. In my experience, a lenshood increases contrast in my images. I rarely use UV filters, as they actually can add additional reflections, no matter how good the coating of those filters is and I have 100€ UV filters!... I use them to protect vor example from oils or smoke.
Also: A lens hood protects not just the front element of the lens but it also serves as a sort of crumble zone for your falling camera...
How is shattering/breaking glass of UV filter going a "crumple zone" to the front element. They're millimeters apart!
Lens caps are the actual protectors of the front lens element, and a lens hood also protects a falling lens as well. A UV filter with a half a centimeter to the front element isn't gonna protect s**t.
I do use lens hood in one of my lens, filter on other and none for the 3rd one 🤣
Kit lens gets no love, huh?
@@maxbenson9982 I don’t own a kit lens. it’s a nifty fifty prime lens and haven’t bought any lens filter or hood for that lens yet and I barely used the lens since it was bought this year.
You can just flip the lens hood around and put it on backwards to save space
I know, I don’t even find it to take up that much space tbh.
I think he makes videos just to make videos lol
Most lens hoods can be put on the lens backwards for storage so they add almost no bulk, especially the super expensive lenses you use
Now you're getting twice as much flare by using a filter without a lens hood. Not too smart. And instead of using a UV filter use a *clear protective filter* of good quality, like those made by B+W.
I can see where you're coming from, but putting a $100 piece of glass in front of your $2,500 lens unnecessarily reduces image quality. The antiglare coatings and extensive engineering are why these lenses are so expensive, throwing a UV filter on the end nullifies both. UV filters are also pretty brittle, so if it does break, not only do you have a bag full of glass and fine particles that could work into focus rings and between elements, but you also run the risk of scratching your lens while it shifts around in your bag. Lens hoods also help preserve contrast and saturation. There's a reason lenses come with hoods and not filters.
And of course uv filters dont ruin your "thousand million" dollar lens image quality..
Alternate view is all your lenses made of amazing glass have a crappy filter stuck on the front ;)
I have had a lens hood save two of my lenses when dropped (and thankfully the only two times they were dropped). The hood is also very helpful to reduce the effect of rain.
When I don't have a lens hood, I use my hand and cup it around the lens in the direction of the light. The contrast and clarity boost is night and day. Use your lens hood people.
I've completely stopped using uv filters because uv filters can get scratched more easily than the lens's front element. In my case, it actually made my images less sharper.
That's literally the main reason people put UV filters on their lenses. It's the cheapest filter uou can get. It protects against UV light. Most importantly, if you drop or scratch your lens, you scratch or chip the $10 filter instead of the $800 lens.
A lens hood doesn't do much if youre....you know, taking pictures of the sun. A lens hood is not meant for what he is saying. It's just mindless, easy content for his youtube channel. It's something to say for 60 seconds that people will watch because he has a lot of followers. More power to him - its a revenue stream, but NOBODY buys a lens hood to protect their camera from UV rays; they use a lens hood for one reason : to prevent lens flare.
@@willoughbykrenzteinburg 1. DSLRs and Mirrorless already have a UV Filter built in.
2. The UV Filter makes images less sharper.
@@Pentistry There is no merit to the claim that UV filters noticeably affect image quality - and if they do, it's at the pixel peeping level.
I did not claim that cameras needed a UV filter. I explained what a UV filter does - - and since it's among the cheapest filters you can get, it's a good solution to protect your lens from scratches and things like that. UV light doesn't affect the image necessarily, so they are not applying any image altering. I have a UV filter on every lens - - not to block UV light, but to protect the lens. As do many others.
@@willoughbykrenzteinburg I'm a photographer who does landscapes and portraits. I've had an UV Filter on my lens before, and it made my images less sharp. You can look online and see what others have said. I'm not the only one saying this.
@@Pentistry then you had a shitty uv filter
Bumps and scratches all good, but how about something slamming into your lens
Like an apple lol or a basketball. You cleaned your filter with your shirt
😂😂😂 Your still my fav
Lens hoods have saved me a bunch, especially with sports photography where basketballs and football players have nearly destroyed my lenses if it weren’t for the lens hood.
Truly, a filter once prevented my front element from broken but I prefer putting a hood rather then filter.
How can you be sure that the filter prevented the front element from breaking? The filter is probably much thinner and weaker than the front element, something that broke the filter might not have broken the front element.
@@barneylaurance1865 as a fact my camera felt from 1.2m on the lens. The filter craced and the front element wasnt affected. 😊.
YEEEEES and No. I use Lens hoods ONLY for the protection factor. It creates a distance between me and a running dog for example. I shoot many dogs in action and I need protection. Using UV filters can also have a disadvantage though if you´re not know what you´re doing. Because I KNOW many photographers who are using 2.000$ lenses and then put a 5$ UV filter on. Which is semiproductive if you ask me.
Worst. Advice. Ever.
I have the same Canon 50mm 1.2 lens...and several others. I have never had a problem putting lenses in my bag.
And for the exorbitant price of those lenses, there is no way I'm covering the main element with a cheap UV filter. I have NEVER had a scratch on any lens.
I've a vintage lens w/ a hood which retracts as a 'forelense' hood of sorts: Tele Rokkor 135mm. Should manufarees use such mode... no space lost.
Buy a £2.5k lens, then put a £10 piece of plastic in front of it. Great. Lens hood all the way. Buy a fractionally bigger bag man.
Take strap of bag. Pull lenshoods in a pile on each other through.
Reattach strap.
Doesn't work on all bags but if it does, it saves you space.
It's not about lens flare or to protect the lens.. it's about keeping the Contrast so that the glre doesnt wash out the image. The fct this isn't even mentioned makes this videa just objectively bad since tou totally missed the issue entirely
The disadvantage of UV filters is that you put a low quality piece of glass on an expensive piece of glass which would reduce the quality of the images...
Pay loads for premium glass then attach poor quality glass over it, right.
Its not just lens flare, its lost contrast too. And if there's rain or snow you really need the hood.
He's going... to pause... several times... in every... sentence.
bro missed harddddd with this one 💀
?
If the filter breaks due to any hit, the particles could scratch the front element.
Oh...you put yourself into this, pourist will come with...."Oh..you buy a million dollar lens to put a 10 dólares filter! 🙄🙄🙄"
I’ll stick with the lens hood. Having a 2-5 inch barrier between the lens and the outside world makes me feel better. Plus I get to shoot with the unobstructed premium glass I paid a mortgage for.
BUT AS ALWAYS….. YOU DO YOU BOO!
I dont use any protection on my lenses, and they’re fine.
How does a UV filter which need to be a $100 UV filter B+W or Hoya UV (O), going to protect your lens? If it falls and cracks the UV filter inertia will send the broken glass into the front element either scratching it or breaking it.
Having a large lens hood on your lens and lens cap is the best protection if the lens is dropped the lens hood can take most of the impact.
What kind of UV filters do you have...
Bear in mind that most people might follow your opinion and put cheap UV in front of expensive glass... 😢 and this is not a desired outcome of this video, right?
Wrong, UV filter negatively affects image quality as it’s not part of the original optical formulation and the different glass imparts different qualities - doesn’t matter if it’s a cheap or expensive filter. This was a non-issue back in the day but no longer the case with advanced higher resolution equipment today. Also the lens hoods fold back over the lens just fine so they take no extra space and they not only reduce lens flare and improve contrast in some situations, they are just better at protecting your lens overall.
For me I noticed UV lens filters just seemed to attract more dust than without it.
I use B+W filter and hood on every lens. Even when pixel peeping I can’t see difference with/without filter. I used to use cheaper filters in my young and dumb days; not any more.
At first, I thought this was lame, but it turned out I was doing the same after a while.
The hood is ridiculously huge with big lenses. I opted for varial ND and CPL filter.
When there is a need for light, I just take it off, but rarely is that the case.
Need to let your people know that some "protection" filters simply protect you from good images. Tiffen hasnt made a good slim UV protector in years. Cheap filters are bad.
Weirdly- I always use a lens hood and I've been shooting longer than you've been alive. And of course, the front element always gets a protective filter.
In 1970,s cannon lenses came with uv filters to protect your front elements. The lens hood was sold separately and made of rubber, but cost forced them to sell the uv filter separately and give away lens hoods
This is a stupid recommendation
You just want to support CANON which push you to by the hood separately.
Yesterday while shooting my friends dogs, we let them run around, few mins after, doggo smashed my lens hood while I was taking photos of the other dogs.
Cool tip, use lens hood around happy unleashed dogs
You actually have the worst advice of any TH-cam photographer… yet you still keep popping up on my algorithm
Filter Will take some light and sharpness away does not matter how good and expensive he is. Also if you crack your filter or if he bends he will do more bad than good scratching the lens
Interesting that a UV filter, being a dielectric, will induce loss of light and sharpness. It may be a small amount but it is still measurable!
plus lens filter particles do not impact the picture quality Those reversal covers aren't too bad and have a cover as well, just a lot of parts to manage.
Why would you put a cheap filter over quality glass? You might as well buy a cheap lens.
That's because you like to put cheap glass in front of expensive glass and promote canon. Pro as f bro!
Never trust someonenwvo claims something but then had to pause and clean off somethings he says its not suppose to have.
And you have me who let the lens hood on all my lenses all the time.. I don’t mind if it takes a bit more space in my bag since I have plenty of it
Yeah I don't use any lens caps for the same reason, but when I bounced a lens off something I'm so happy to have it.
I use the hood. I don't like the idea of putting glass in front of a lens that was designed without the addition of a filter in mind
I stepped in my strap of my canon camera, the 10 dollar piece of glass saved my 700 dollar lens
Unless your lens fell directly over a sharp rock it would have probably been fine anyways.
The front element of the lens is much more resistant than most uv filters. The filter is generally gonna break or scratch in situations where the front element just wouldn't
I dropped mine at a concert onto a brick floor, the Uv filter acted like a crumplezone on a car the only thing that happened to the lens was a small ding and I had to fix the zoom slider because it didn't like the impact
Is it just me or others also use CPL outdoors? UV filters are not needed in newer cameras since sensors are UV protected.
Why are lens protectors still UV? That's redundant with the hot-mirror on the cell.
Actually both some cheap UV filters from Aliexpress for this same reason haha
you're potentially putting a low quality glass on top of your high quality glass.
Lens hoods flip around for storage and don't make the lens any longer. Does he not know this?
Lens hood isn’t going to do anything when you point the camera straight at the sun as in your photo 🫡
The storage aspect has got to be the most pathetic excuse to not use a hood out of the reasons to not use a hood.
If you can clearly see the reflections on the filter, it's not a very good filter 😅
lower the quality with a uv filter hahaha
Why would you put a piece of crap filter on an expensive lense...
I protect the back of my UV filter by covering it with a lens
*wipes lens with shirt*
All my lenses are protected from scratches
Don't use Uv filters, it will ruin your image quality ,
Use a high quality clear filter not a cheap uv filter.
Oki doju
Don't forget about contrast
Or maybe… just maybe… use the lens cap it comes with?
Wow what a terrible idea. Adding more flares to the lens lol
Bro advising to damage lens without hood 😂😂
Ngl I cringed a little when he cleaned the filter with the t-shirt
Why attach a cheap piece of glass to an expensive lens? 🤡
I used to keep UV filters on all my lenses. We're talking for 30 years lol. I spent the bucks on good ones, and know now no there are no good ones! They'll amplify all the issues you get without a hood (low contrast, glare, flare). I like flares too, but too many other issues that are very hard to fix in post (especially video). Better to go with no UV filters, and less hassle with filters that are actually needed.
I use lens hoods when it rains so the front elements of my lens doesn't get wet
But another benefit to a good is if you drop the lens it can protect you filter threads from denting in
How is shattering/breaking glass of UV filter going to protect the front element, were you dropped as a baby?
Did you clean your lens with a t-shirt???
When buying used lenses I try to get ones that come with a UV filter. I throw them away immediately. It's just reassuring that the person who owned this last was so neurotic about protecting their lens that they sacrificed their image quality significantly to do it.
HAHAHA! I use uv filters but this comment made me LOL!
Seriously? I 🤣
So do I. But a lot of people swear that uv filters destroy your photos. But to be honest, I haven’t really noticed any of that… and I do use lens hoods with my vintage lenses, because some of them flare pretty wildly and actually have a build in lens hood.
UV filters don’t really worsen the image quality that much but it can introduce way more flaring under bright lights
Shit glass front of expensive glass😂
0:04 no i have not noticed
lens hoods make your lens look bigger.
Das gilt auch für Magerquark, Vorhautverengung und Quantenphysik.
Get a lens cap
Worst advice ever
Bruh just turn the lens hood inside out
Bro what happened to your hair
Thank you for clearing up, what I thought made sense. As someone who's dabbling in photography. I've always used filters As the actual lens is protected from dirt, water & damage. Let alone there's less cleaning. Whereas a lens hood adds more bulk.
The lense hood is not for protection. It blocks unwanted stray light. If light gets on the glass, it desaturates the image. If you want that look great. If you want fully saturated and clean colors, you put it on.
UV filters? Really? 👀