and help to keep the site free for all
What do i do?? :S
- Thread starter gabriella
- Start date
- Messages
- 7,517
- Name
- John
- Edit My Images
- Yes
actually there are not 2 hoods - but a replacement
Nikon says...''Nikon HB-45 Replacement Lens Hood for 18-55mm VR Lens and 18-55mm DX''
doubt if you can find a HB-33 anymore
when you see
''HB-33 Lens Hood For Nikon AF-S DX 18-55m''..... it's a copy.. not Nikon
only found 2 Genuine Nikon HB-45 on eBay....''link''
and
''link''.....the price is the give-away...genuine ain't cheap
Nikon says...''Nikon HB-45 Replacement Lens Hood for 18-55mm VR Lens and 18-55mm DX''
doubt if you can find a HB-33 anymore
when you see
''HB-33 Lens Hood For Nikon AF-S DX 18-55m''..... it's a copy.. not Nikon
only found 2 Genuine Nikon HB-45 on eBay....''link''
and
''link''.....the price is the give-away...genuine ain't cheap
Last edited:
- Messages
- 7,517
- Name
- John
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Thankyou for all your help everyone, where i was going wrong is that i had a uv filter on and then the hood. I have now taken it off and it works fine!! Thankyou again
sorted...
btw - was it a Nikon HB-45 hood..?
odd jim
Flimsiest Lambresta
- Messages
- 9,209
- Name
- Jim
- Edit My Images
- Yes
gabriella said:Thankyou for all your help everyone, where i was going wrong is that i had a uv filter on and then the hood. I have now taken it off and it works fine!! Thankyou again
Chuck your uv filters in the bin!
They do nothing on dslr's.
- Messages
- 730
- Name
- Dave
- Edit My Images
- Yes
TCR4x4
Wishes he had a couple more Inches
- Messages
- 8,849
- Name
- Tom
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Here we go again....:bonk:
Or get stuck on and shatter and make even more of a mess than if you had just used the lens hood. If you drop your lens, a UV wont help you. If you bash the front with enough force to break the filter, chances are you will have dislodged the front element, or the autofocus system too.
Loose- loose situation really.
As far as I'm aware, the hood on my 70-200 and 17-40 help to prevent glare or lens flare from the sun (or other light source)
I would say as a secondary use it does prevent large objects from getting at the glass, however in my opinion it certainly does not offer enough 'protection' for peace of mind
Rich
Yes they do, thats why they call them salesman/woman. On the same subject I attended a photography seminar and the person giving it (a x salesman) was asked about polarizers film-digital. He said don't believe the sales person an old polarizer for a film camera will work just as good on a digital camera. I have lost count of the number of sales people that have told me to get rid of the film one and get a digital one
Last edited:
I'm not advocating that a UV filter will offer ultimate protection, I merely stated it may prevent accidental damage.
The whole point is completely moot anyway since it will most likely boil down to personal preference, however I know there have been many times I have been glad that I have a filter on the ends of my lens.
Rich
odd jim
Flimsiest Lambresta
- Messages
- 9,209
- Name
- Jim
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Me too, I'll be banging my head against the wall otherwise.
My parting comment is this though - I've been doing photography for nigh on 15 years and have never used a filter for protection.
I have never suffered a damaged front element.
Hoods and common sense.
My parting comment is this though - I've been doing photography for nigh on 15 years and have never used a filter for protection.
I have never suffered a damaged front element.
Hoods and common sense.
- Messages
- 730
- Name
- Dave
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Spot on Jim.
Take heed on this. If you think a UV filter is useful for anything on a DSLR, you are wrong.
Haven't wrecked any lenses yet (touch wood)
Any need for 5 smilies? I'm just stating my opinion that I like the protection (of whatever level you do/don't believe it offers)
Again, the point is moot so I don't see any reason to continue discussing it with all this animosity.
Let's just respect each others decision on the matter.
Rich
So im guessing that uv filters are just a complete waste of timethen??
unless you plan on scratching your lens... which im hoping not to!
That was a waste of £8 then :/ :/
But it clearly seems a sensitive subject questioning the purpose of a uv filter
unless you plan on scratching your lens... which im hoping not to!
That was a waste of £8 then :/ :/
But it clearly seems a sensitive subject questioning the purpose of a uv filter
So im guessing that uv filters are just a complete waste of timethen??
unless you plan on scratching your lens... which im hoping not to!
That was a waste of £8 then :/ :/
But it clearly seems a sensitive subject questioning the purpose of a uv filter
unless you plan on scratching your lens... which im hoping not to!
That was a waste of £8 then :/ :/
But it clearly seems a sensitive subject questioning the purpose of a uv filter
- Messages
- 730
- Name
- Dave
- Edit My Images
- Yes
So im guessing that uv filters are just a complete waste of timethen??
unless you plan on scratching your lens... which im hoping not to!
That was a waste of £8 then :/ :/
But it clearly seems a sensitive subject questioning the purpose of a uv filter
Not at all!
Take the UV filter, clean it carefully, then put it on your coffee table and rest your mug on it!
Perfect coaster! See? no waste!
- Messages
- 29,408
- Name
- Marcel
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Well I'd like to point out you're wrong.
I dropped my 50mm with a filter on the front, which took the brunt of the damage. Lens was fine, filter was cracked and bent.
So to categorically state they will not offer any protection is incorrect.
(Yes, the 50mm was hoodless, but that's not the point).
Apart from my own personal experience, I have to disagree anyway. A UV filter *will* offer protection of the front element. The level of protection is open to discussion depending on who the user is.
It will also degrade image quality somewhat (depending on the filter of course).
That's where personal choice comes in. For some, the level of protection offered outweighs the degradation in image quality.
If the OP wants to use a UV filter on their lens, then that's fine. It will offer a bit of protection (although admittedly it's better to use a hood for physical drop protection), but it will also offer protection from rogue airborne elements. Stones, scratches etc.
If those replying dont think they should, then that's fine too.
It's a personal choice.
However, don't ram your opinions down other people's throats and post with animosity should they not agree. It's a personal choice, and everyone would do well remember that, and respecting that choice.
We're supposed to be the friendliest photography forum, and I like us to stay that way.
Not entirely - I use one on my 15mm Limited & 70mm Limited, because much as I trust the SMC, getting dirt on it is a bugger to clean, and chucking a 25 quid UV filter in the bin rather than spending ages trying to get the front element pristine is a good use of my time. That said, the Limited do have an irritating design mis-feature - the interior of the lens hood is flock coated and it dispenses small fibres all over the front element (shrug).
C
Last edited:
- Messages
- 7,517
- Name
- John
- Edit My Images
- Yes
from Marcel
''However, don't ram your opinions down other people's throats and post with animosity should they not agree. It's a personal choice, and everyone would do well remember that, and respecting that choice.''
if I want to add a Hoya Pro-1 Protector then I will, and it's my choice
now - about battery grips.......................
''However, don't ram your opinions down other people's throats and post with animosity should they not agree. It's a personal choice, and everyone would do well remember that, and respecting that choice.''
if I want to add a Hoya Pro-1 Protector then I will, and it's my choice
now - about battery grips.......................
- Messages
- 2,377
- Name
- Andy
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Hi Gabriella,
Welcome to TP There are some sensitive subjects on here but don't worry about it......these are just personal points of view.
Any filter on front will offer more protection than no filter, how is this even disputable? Have a look at these vids to see how useless filters are
http://www.hoyafilter.com/products/hoya/HD-01.htm
Is a filter better than a hood for protection? Hoods would be more effective in most situations, however this doesn't automatically relegate protection filters to junk status.
Are you more likely to drop your lens and benefit from the hood argument, or more likely to have something come flying onto the front element. These points are very user dependent. Not everyone has hoods and some wideangle hoods wont do much for a dropped lens. Filters are always on, hood typically not or are sometimes reversed during storage.
Some lenses need filters on to complete weatherproofness so to imply they are completely useless is entirely subjective and is total tripe.
If these posts were answered more objectively to newbies they wouldn't become acrimonious. Drumming your point of view in doesn't help everyone even if you think you are correct.
Welcome to TP
There are some sensitive subjects on here but don't worry about it......these are just personal points of view. Any filter on front will offer more protection than no filter, how is this even disputable? Have a look at these vids to see how useless filters are
http://www.hoyafilter.com/products/hoya/HD-01.htm
Is a filter better than a hood for protection? Hoods would be more effective in most situations, however this doesn't automatically relegate protection filters to junk status.
Are you more likely to drop your lens and benefit from the hood argument, or more likely to have something come flying onto the front element. These points are very user dependent. Not everyone has hoods and some wideangle hoods wont do much for a dropped lens. Filters are always on, hood typically not or are sometimes reversed during storage.
Some lenses need filters on to complete weatherproofness so to imply they are completely useless is entirely subjective and is total tripe.
If these posts were answered more objectively to newbies they wouldn't become acrimonious. Drumming your point of view in doesn't help everyone even if you think you are correct.
- Messages
- 7,517
- Name
- John
- Edit My Images
- Yes
So im guessing that uv filters are just a complete waste of timethen??
unless you plan on scratching your lens... which im hoping not to!
That was a waste of £8 then :/ :/
But it clearly seems a sensitive subject questioning the purpose of a uv filter
...dont worry about all the remarks........when you've been here a little you will see many topics are a proverbial red-flag to a bull.....
filters
hoods
weddings
tripods
baby photos.......
all get their share of Yes/No...as it should be, as we are ALL entitled to our opinions
however..you did say you paid £8...this level of quality will 'certainly' be no good for your lens
if you do want to add a 'protector' look at Hoya HD, Hoya Pro-1, Marumi DHG
but they are costly
nevertheless, most comments are true...you dont need a UV filter
the front glass of my Sigma 17-70mm 2.8 is a bit exposed, so I added a Marumi 77mm Protector
sorry if that's long-winded ....didn't want you to get the feeling there was lotsa animosity here..........
.......john
- Messages
- 2,377
- Name
- Andy
- Edit My Images
- Yes
when you've been here a little you will see many topics are a proverbial red-flag to a bull.....
filters
hoods
weddings
tripods
baby photos.......
Time for experience (working for nothing to gain experience)...how could you forget that old chestnut
Last edited:
odd jim
Flimsiest Lambresta
- Messages
- 9,209
- Name
- Jim
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Yardbent said:
when you've been here a little you will see many topics are a proverbial red-flag to a bull.....
filters
hoods
weddings
tripods
baby photos.......
all get their share of Yes/No...as it should be, as we are ALL entitled to our opinions
however..you did say you paid £8...this level of quality will 'certainly' be no good for your lens
if you do want to add a 'protector' look at Hoya HD, Hoya Pro-1, Marumi DHG
but they are costly
nevertheless, most comments are true...you dont need a UV filter
the front glass of my Sigma 17-70mm 2.8 is a bit exposed, so I added a Marumi 77mm Protector
sorry if that's long-winded ....didn't want you to get the feeling there was lotsa animosity here..........
Thats right, everybody is entitled to their opinions, which is why I don't understand why those of us advising against them are being berated.
I'm still waiting to find out why my posts were regarded as :- "responding with animosity" by marcel...
I'm only trying to save people money. You wouldn't buy a developer for a memory card now would you?
Last edited:
