Camera filters: CPL, UV (0)

[lucid]

Camera filters:

A CPL seems like a useful tool for reducing reflections, and from what I've read in research it seems that the cheap filters are not as effective as a Hoya or better make. For someone like me though who just wants to get some decent before and after snaps of installs is there an appreciable difference between a Digital and Non-Digital CPL? The price difference is about another 50% on top (£20 vs £30)


UV (0) vs hood:

Opinions seem divided regarding using a UV (0). Quite a few of the vids I have seen show softer images, less contrast and more internal reflections from using a UV (0). So is a hood a better way to protect the lens? If so, does anyone have any recommendations on what to get that will still allow the lens cap to be used?




Camera: EOS 400D + 18-35 std wide zoom

 

[lucid]

Non digital polariser (also known as a linear polariser) can mess with a DSLR camera's metering system so best to stick with a CPL.

Thanks for your efforts, but although I am a noobie at the whole DSLR thing even I know that the above is not right. Non-Digital polarisers are not exclusively linear polarisers at all.

Circular polarisers exist because linear polarisers mess up Auto Focus systems. CPLs existed long before DSLRs. If one had a 35mm SLR with AF then a CPL would have been an appropriate choice then just as it is now with AF DSLRs.

The question was "standard CPL vs "Digital" CPL..... What's the additional benefit with the so called "Digital" version or is it simply marketing BS."

 

[lucid]

You should always use a hood ...(SNIP) ... I'm old-fashioned and still have one on every lens.

Thanks, but you've just regurgitated most of what I know and wrote in the first post.

Do you have any actually recommendations of hoods you think are good and worth the extra of something basic off the auction site?