n00b question: Do you use have a UV filter (at minimum) on all your lenses? - Page 2

*Marc Langille* · 08-01-2008, 08:26 PM

I use them all the time, but I'm outside a lot, with dust, etc. always being a concern. I may be the odd one out, but I'm shooting often in much less than ideal conditions. The filters protect my gear, based on my needs. Walking around town, or simply leaving the vehicle to photography doesn't usually put your lens' front element in jeopardy. Of course, I don't buy cheap stuff either, especially when you're using the highest quality lenses.

Unfortunately some lenses have small or minimal hoods that will offer little or no protection. That's why my DA 12-24 always has a CPL on it, since it often used for landscape work. I'm not comfortable leaving it exposed, or just having the lens cap on it, based on my usage patterns, etc.

Do what works for you!

Cheers,
Marc

pentkon52 · 08-02-2008, 04:21 AM

I have sky light filters on the two lenses i use at horse show,lots of dust and dirt flying around.
Other than those two, i don't use filters, unless going for effects.

Dave

JJJPhoto · 08-02-2008, 06:52 AM

Over the years I've found that different lenses respond differently to filters ... sometimes even an high-quality (expensive) filter has an obviously negative impact on image quality.

In years past I used UV/haze filters, graduated filters and polarizer filters all the time ... and I even tried a completely new set of expensive filters earlier this year after a strong recommendation from another photographer I know.

However, whenever I use filters I continue to run into problems that can only be attributed to filters screwing up the image.

Lenses are designed to capture images as accurately as possible without the need for filters. If you add a filter you're just "polluting" the optical design with an additional lens element.

I understand the argument that "a filter protects the lens from damage" but I've found that to be nothing more than a false sense of security. If you drop your lens on the front element with enough force to break the filter you're going to damage the lens ... I've had it happen to me before.

The only thing that I've discovered that really protects the front element is a strong/rigid metal lens hood or a very thick plastic hood. Hoods provide much more protection than filters (adding several inches of metal or plastic protection rather than just a thin piece of glass) and don't pollute the optics.

The only way that a hood won't protect your lens is if you drop it (front element down) on a sharp pointy object that is small enough to fit inside the hood (like the pointy end of a screwdriver or an ice pick).

Since I don't drop my lenses onto screwdrivers I've never run into a problem that my hoods haven't protected me from.

IMHO, the only thing that offers more protection than a good metal hood is a lens cap ... and if you leave your lens cap on all the time it's hard to create impressive photos.

*deuces* · 08-04-2008, 08:19 AM

2 reasons that I use filters.

1. I hate cleaning optical surfaces. This includes all my computer monitors. I think it comes from reading so much about detailing black cars. The slightest bit of dirt on the cleaning cloth/sponge will put scratches all over what you're cleaning. Ugh. I feel much better about cleaning a filter than the lens.

2. I often find the lens cap has fallen off the lens in my bag. I hate to think of the lenscap grinding against the front element in my bag.

TaoMaas · 08-04-2008, 05:50 PM

I think it really kind of depends on what sort of pictures you take. If you like shooting backlit pics, then you're probably going to notice more problems when using filters. But if you shoot with the sun at your back and use a lens hood, the filter won't make that much difference.

danielchtong · 08-05-2008, 02:44 AM

Originally Posted by alohadave

No, unless you are in a place with sea/water spray or blowing sand/dust, it's not worth buying a filter for every lens you have.

I second that. All my lenses have some filters and I mean a multiple of them without the glass though.

The glassless filters do provide protection usually my finger print. If my lens falls, the filter rims will absorb majority of the impack shock. I find hoods offensive too particularly those huge petal shaped one. I put them away in case I need to resell the lens.

Daniel

*OrenMc* · 08-07-2008, 07:20 PM

I am one that uses at least a UV. When I bought my Sigma 100-300 f/4 which has a 82mm thread I went a while before I got it covered because after shelling out that kind of money I was a little tight. I didn't want to buy a cheap filter just to cover it because I was concerned about the IQ also.
But the price of a quality 82mm

Anyway, I was very uncomfortable that whole time it was bare. I mean' if one was in a studio why worry. But I notice after just a few minutes of being out on a norrmal shooting day the lens attracts a lot of dust. And I hate touching that lens with anything, but thats just me.

*davef* · 08-07-2008, 10:06 PM

For the past 30 years I have always had a neutral filter (i.e. 1A, UV) on all my lenses. It was one of those things that we were taught early on and it always seemed to be logical. Like many, I have always wondered if there is any material impact to image quality and have occasionally removed one for critical shoots. Until yesterday, I have never wrecked a lens or a filter.

I was taking a walk in one of the local parks and stopped to change lenses and noticed what appeared to be a smudge on the filter protecting the 77. On closer inspection the coating on the filter was permanently damaged. I have no idea how it happened. I suspect it must have been poked by a stalk or branch but don't recall hitting anything. After I got over the frustration of toasting a perfectly good filter, I was certainly happy that I only had to replace the filter rather than the front element of the lens! Needless to say, the filters will now stay on for the next 30 (or however many) years. Dave

*OrenMc* · 08-08-2008, 07:24 AM

Does anyone have any info or have used Marumi brand filters? I have found very little information on these but they sound like a fairy good quality filter.

*sandpipe* · 08-08-2008, 08:00 AM

Who sells the filter that attaches to the lens like a lens cap? In a pinch (pun intended) a shot could be taken quickly, but for higher quality shots the filter could easily and quickly be removed.

I'm sure this has been invented before August 8, 2008.

If not, *Patent Pending* on above invention*

**wlank** · 08-11-2008, 11:37 AM

No! I just try to be careful.

Serpiente · 08-12-2008, 11:09 AM

in all things.. the wost part of the configuration makes the quality

Gooshin · 08-12-2008, 01:50 PM

Unnecessary precaution for a rampant paranoia of damage to personal property.

Ben_Edict · 08-12-2008, 02:44 PM

Originally Posted by SpecialK

I've asked this question in a few of these threads but have never been answered...

If a "really good" filter costs, say $100-150, and is essentially a single multi-coated optically-flat piece of glass, why oh why are lenses so comparatively cheap? They may have 8 or more elements that are ground to some precision, plus focus/zoom/aperture mechanisms as well. Certainly a 16-50 or 50-135 is more than 5x complicated than a filter.

Because making the single flat glass really flat is difficult. Indeed it may be more difficult, than making a curved lens, because you get a regular curve by simply grinding and polishing long enough (random motion will produce a spherical surface). Grinding and polishing a real flat surface is more complicated. And in a filter you need two of these surfaces PLUS they even need to be completely parallel, which adds another degree of complication.

Then add to that, that filters have probably a much lower production run, than many lenses. A good filter will have dyed glass (even a simply Skylight filter has a slight colour) - and for any different filter you need a new supply of homogenously dyed glass.

If you then look at gradual filters, like Grey GRads, just imagine how complicated it is, to have the graduation completely homogenous along the whole peice of glass or resin.

And then, there is the marketing factor on top: Why would manufactureres sell a top-line filter for 50 USD, when we photogs are prepared to pay 100 USD? This is true for many other products too, so I don't blame the filter manufacturers.

Ben

*navcom* · 08-12-2008, 02:45 PM

Originally Posted by Gooshin

Unnecessary precaution for a rampant paranoia of damage to personal property.

Right on! Kinda like buying a $2000 fancy leather recliner and then covering it with one of those thick uncomfortable plastic furniture protectors and never taking it off for fear your recliner will be damaged. You never get to enjoy your purchase to the full extent it was designed for. If that's my intent, I'll just buy a cheaper recliner that doesn't worry me as much!

Yes, your lens may get damaged, but unless you are an uber-clutz or extremely reckless the chances are pretty small. In the 20+ years I"ve been photo-ing, I"ve never damaged a single lens OR UV filter. As I said in a previous post, I've experienced very noticeable changes in quality to some of my pix, especially sunset/sunrises, with the UV filter on all the time. If I'm going to spend the money on a great lens, it makes no sense to handicap it back to being an average lens with a UV filter unless that filter is needed under the circumstances you would need a UV filter for. The pix quality is worth the risk as it was the quality of the glass that got me to buy the better lens to begin with.

If you know of an imminent danger to the lens (sea water, huge quantities of dust, etc.), then there is a point. Outside of that, let the lens do what it was intended to do.

I have spoken my peace.