Originally posted by TaoMaas That's great that your lens was saved, but could a metal hood have saved the lens, too?
Possibly, or it could have transferred more impact to the body of the lens. For me, one reason I don't tend to use a hood on a "standard zoom" or short prime is because I use a camera backpack where having the hood would make it harder to take the camera out and put away. On some lenses, a hood interferes with manual focus (or quick shift). Having said that, the hood is built into my DA 35 limited and always stays on the DA 55-300 and DA*300. I still use a filter to protect the glass however. When travelling, I usually alternate between the DA 16-45 and DA 55-300. Having the hood on the DA 16-45 would make it much harder to swap and store in the pack.
Quote: In 35 years of shooting on the job and off, I've never had a situation where a filter would have saved a lens. Sorry...but I think it's an unfounded fear. We all have to do what we think is best, though, right? What has worked for me, may not work for you.
Exactly, each to their own. I was only stating what I do and why - and since it has helped me, I don't see it as an unfounded fear at all. I don't know what sort of photography you do - perhaps you'd not out in rough country as often as I am. Or perhaps you can afford to replace lenses if the wear and tear on the coatings takes its toll.