Hood v quality filter

Having bought the bargain primes on Amazon yesterday, I was wondering if I need to get a hood or is a quality filter (like HOYA HD) to get the most out of the lens (aberrations and flaring)

Hood; but I'm biased as I don't use filters after bad experiences with reflections on the DA55-300.

Hood - not only does it help to reduce flare it can also improve contrast, a UV filter does neither of these and it could be argued it doesn't really provide any benefit

Simon

Hood. It will provide flare resistance, improve the contrast as a result and will take the first knocks should the lens get bumped into anything.

definitely hood....

Yes, you need to become a Hoody.

Hood. And filter if muck / dust / salt water is flying at the lens

Ditto

Filter!

If you're really careful with your gear (so you don't whack things with it), but have an inexplicable tendency to end up with fingerprints on the front element.

And hood, if you want all the other benefits.

I tend to use a hood in some circumstances - if I know I'll be shooting towards the sun, and if the camera's going to be out for a long period of time. Otherwise, I'm too lazy to keep putting it on and taking it off.

A hood, of course, makes your gear look that little bit bigger, so you don't feel so inferior next to all the Canon guys.

I'm a bit of a fan of Hoya/Kenko Pro 1 Protector filters. However, I also have the relevant hood on more often than not. Double protection!

Dave

Personally I don't feel inferior with my Pentax, especially with one of the pancake lenses on the front.

Superior, maybe but definitely not inferior at all!

Of course it would usually also be with the hood on as well.

Both a hood and a filter. Better safe than sorry - I've never had any issues with flare or reflections on my 55-300 with a filter and hood attached.

Regards
David

Hoodes are good - they improve IQ while providing good protection, as they're plastic or rubber.

Filters are bad - the reduce IQ (sometimes drasticaslly) while providing virtually no protection. If the lens falls & breaks, the attached filter will break, likely scratching the glass of the front element.

As has been said already, protective filters should only be used when there's a lot of much flying around, not in normal circumstances.

Do you have any proof to support this nonsense?

Every site/report I've ever seen confirms that filters don't
degrade the image and it is a fact that lens makers such as
Tamron include a filter in certain designs and not using one
degrades the quality.

From a lens test: link

Next, I wanted to see what effect Tamron's large 112mm front "normal" filter would have on the sharpness. I repeated three of the measurements with the filter on. This is shown below:

I didn't expect there to be a significant difference but I was surprised to see that the presence of the filter increased the sharpness quite a bit when the aperture was wide open (f2.8 ). Personally, I wouldn't want to use this lens below f4.0. But if I did, I certainly would use the filter. Besides, it also protects the front lens element.

Some UV tests at Lenstip link

-

Ditto.

John