[jolepp]

+1 for anticipation of the quality (multicoated) filter test :-)

The protection issue is not just about impact damage (where a hood helps a lot too) but making cleaning the front element less frequent as some of the dirt that doesn't want to get blown off by air is bound to be abrasive; I certainly take it as a plus if a seller reports having routinely used a filter. Also, going to seashore with the salty mist and ultra fine sand (where applicable :-) in the air would feel horrid without protection. The Pacific at around San Fransisco latitude seemed to have a special knack for the sand: after a few minutes on a windy shore there was some everywhere including between the teeth. Definitely not a spot to change lenses. People living there should have a tax credit for WR kit ;-)

[omega leader]

+1 for anticipation of the quality (multicoated) filter test :-)

I've updated the first post with the test from this morning. The multicoated filter shows almost no change (though there is some).

[imtheguy]

I've updated the first post with the test from this morning. The multicoated filter shows almost no change (though there is some).

Thanks for the tests. I can easily live with the difference that I am not even sure I can see in the re-test.
+1

[estudleon]

Several years ago, I did a test using my konica 1,7/50 mm lens (very good, endeed), an UV and skylight filters . both Heliopan with multi coated (very good too), and XP2 Super film at iso 400. (something fast, to use all the apertures possibles).
And a cheap piece of common acrylic transparent of 1 mm.

Without any filter, I had at F/5,6, the resolving power was 90 pl/mm (at iso 400 not bad = 180 l/mm).

With UV filter, not 90, only 70 pl/mm.

With SK filter, 60 pl/mm it's OK, 70 pl/mm not very clear with some sagital CA. I suposse 65 pl/mm.

With acrylic, 60 pl/mm. What??? Yes, 60 pl/mm.

Between the less intrusive heliopan (UV one) and the crude acrylic piece the difference was less than with or without the filter.

Ridiculous? It may seems, but certainly.

[omega leader]

Estudleon,

Based upon the LensTip spectrophotometer tests the heliopan filters unfortunately aren't very good. And certainly not worth the money.

[gofour3]

I've updated the first post with the test from this morning. The multicoated filter shows almost no change (though there is some).

Thanks for posting. I actually prefer the shot with the Hoya UV filter in the second test, over the shot with no filter.

Phil.

[reeftool]

I had not seen this kind of test but there are lots more issues with filters, particularly the low quality versions. Check out the UV and CPL tests here if you want to see how much difference there is between the good, the bad and the ugly. The most expensive are NOT the least intrusive.

Articles - Lenstip.com

BTW, I routinely use protection/UV filters because cleaning salt water mist off a $1,300 lens is too painful.

There are conditions where a protective filter has its place and salt spray is probably one of them. Another would be blowing sand/dirt, sparks from a fire or industrial work, etc. I think the main drift of the thread is that putting on a protective filter for all the time use may cause more problems than it prevents. I was watching the locker room interviews after the World Series recently and noticed filters on the lenses of the various photographers that came into view and rightly so as champagne and soda spray can be a sticky mess also.

[photogerald]

Thanks for sharing the results of your test.

Just wondering - did you check that the focus was the same with and without filter attached?

I've noticed a softening when using my Sigma 70-200/2.8 EX with an old Hoya HMC UV filter, and my informal tests indicate that the lens is actually slightly back focusing with the filter. Hence the apparent softness.

[LensScribe]

Like Wheatfield, some casual tests a couple of years back have made me take the UV filters off every single one of my lenses. I use a hood, and if I'm going to the coast or somewhere similar I'll take filters and use them when it's prudent.

I used to have the slap-a-filter-on-everything fear, but then I realised that lenses are tougher than I think, and that my paranoia makes me use lens hood and be generally careful anyway. I'd rather have better images and take my chances.

[Jonathan Mac]

I bought protective filters (cheap ones) initially in different sizes for all my lenses, but as I almost always use hoods, I no longer use the filters. The exception is, as commented by several other members here, when I expect a higher likelihood of spray or dust or mud etc. In that case I may be willing to lose some quality in order to protect the lens.

The important thing to learn is that a hood & a good rocket blower are a much better option than a protective or UV filter.

[estudleon]

Estudleon,

Based upon the LensTip spectrophotometer tests the heliopan filters unfortunately aren't very good. And certainly not worth the money.

1- You are talking about the UV filters test - Introduction - Lenstip.com

That inform doesn't refer to the incidence of the filter in the resolving power of the lens, that was the subject of my test.

How much Pl/mm can the Heliopan tansmit, based in the inform? We don't know.


2- Leica didn't know it, heliopan made some leica's filters (B&W made them too). Well, we can assume that LEICA didn't know very much about glasses (Schott ones).


3- 1- That not change the message : the negative effect of the filters over the lens optical complex.

The tests are very useful but they must be read and interpret properly.

Regards.

[Arjay Bee]

Yes, me too, it's a bit like driving without a seat belt (which I don't do, of course!).

Using the same theory for hoods instead of filters you could try this:

Substitute your head for the dogs head and skip the seat belt.

[typical8o8]

Like Wheatfield, some casual tests a couple of years back have made me take the UV filters off every single one of my lenses. I use a hood, and if I'm going to the coast or somewhere similar I'll take filters and use them when it's prudent.

I used to have the slap-a-filter-on-everything fear, but then I realised that lenses are tougher than I think, and that my paranoia makes me use lens hood and be generally careful anyway. I'd rather have better images and take my chances.

i think this is sound advice. shattered filters often do severe damage as in this case:

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/photographic-equipment-sale/123511-sale-p...mm-1-8-us.html

the only time i use filters are on WR lenses when i'm playing outdoors with rain, salt, dust, sand, etc. and expect to be wiping the front of the lens often.

[glanglois]

Marumi seems to test well. And Hoya has a line that can be cleaned w/o damaging the filter too much.

So ..... good-quality UV outdoors with lens hood. Naked indoors (when I think of it) with lens good.

Shooting during public events, particularly those with lots of airplanes and/or other motor vehicles, tends to produce dust/dirt/exhaust/scum that needs to be cleaned. Off something.

I really don't want to subject my lens to anything more abrasive that a gentle puff of air. And there are plenty of occasions when that gentle puff just ain't enough. So ...... protective glass.

[Spock]

I used to have the slap-a-filter-on-everything fear, but then I realised that lenses are tougher than I think,

I wish this were so as then I wouldn't have had to pass on so many nice second hand lenses over the years due to scratches and rub marks.

I have had an ostrich peck my at my lens and it left a mark on my filter that would not clean off (it must have had sand on its beak). Pity it was an expensive Hoya Pro-1 uv filter but lucky it was a filter and not the lens front element.

Any impact that would shatter a filter and indirectly damage the lens would have damaged the front element of the lens anyway.