[lithedreamer]

This is exactly why I fall into the filter camp.

Because they've saved your lenses a number of times?

[Wheatfield]

This thread appears to be devolving into a peeing contest. It's not really a big deal. I know that longer lenses are more susceptible to image degradation from filters. It's something I have experienced first hand. I also know that shorter lenses aren't so much, especially if quality filters are used. When I'm hiking, I generally have the cap on if I am doing anything that might damage the front element. I generally don't hike with my 600mm lens, as it's just too big and heavy.
I'm less concerned about walking on a clear trail as I am if I am bushwhacking, for example. I've never lost or missed a shot because I've had to take off a lens cap. If that half second is the difference between getting the shot and missing it, I've missed it anyway.

[gm4life]

Because they've saved your lenses a number of times?

No, but I do feel better about using them and carrying them around. With the small fortune I have amassed in good lens in the past few months I feel better. Not saying your choice to not use them is wrong either. Different strokes for different folks, I say. This thread was really a way for me to get thoughts on inexpensive vs better quality filters. In my case with my Hoya HD my 300 * performs the way it should and its 1,100 price tag entails.

It has also slightly improved performance on my less expensive glass too. We agree to disagree and that is OK.

---------- Post added 02-14-17 at 11:03 AM ----------

This thread appears to be devolving into a peeing contest. It's not really a big deal. I know that longer lenses are more susceptible to image degradation from filters. It's something I have experienced first hand. I also know that shorter lenses aren't so much, especially if quality filters are used. When I'm hiking, I generally have the cap on if I am doing anything that might damage the front element. I generally don't hike with my 600mm lens, as it's just too big and heavy.
I'm less concerned about walking on a clear trail as I am if I am bushwhacking, for example. I've never lost or missed a shot because I've had to take off a lens cap. If that half second is the difference between getting the shot and missing it, I've missed it anyway.

I agree 100 percent with the peeing contest part!

[csa]

I do not use protective filters; but that's just my preference for the type of shooting I do. Those that feel better having the protective filters should by all means use them. There really isn't a right/wrong here, just personal preference.

I do however, agree that high quality filters are a must, if you do not want your images degraded to some extent. So, to the OP, I say congratulations, and good job on acquiring higher end filters!

[rawr]

It's easier to clean grease and JP5 off of the filter rather than try to chase it out of the front element

This is one of those situations where even I would probably use a protection filter of some sort.

[gm4life]

I do not use protective filters; but that's just my preference for the type of shooting I do. Those that feel better having the protective filters should by all means use them. There really isn't a right/wrong here, just personal preference.

I do however, agree that high quality filters are a must, if you do not want your images degraded to some extent. So, to the OP, I say congratulations, and good job on acquiring higher end filters!

Thanks great thoughts much appreciated!

[BarryE]

All my lenses have B+W clear (#007) filters on them.

I rarely, if ever, notice any significant degradation of image quality using the filter. I've had a few cases of filter-induced flare in the face of car headlights at night with my DA 50mm f/1.8, but that's a rather extreme situation and a quality filter will make no visible difference in everyday shooting. To me, eliminating the need to clean the front element directly and having an extra layer of protection against dust ingress and fingerprints outweighs the cost of the filter or the (generally undetectable) loss in image quality.

Draco

I'd second the B+W clear protective filters. I tried many lighting conditions and only in extreme cases was there a difference, sometimes the filtered lens was actually better. So for me these filters are an absolute no-brainer. I am forever scrambling around through the woods where debris and wippy stems are a hazard. Yes a hood helps ... so I use them too. They clean up nicely, the surface seems very robust. UV and cheap filters are pointless and harmful, respectively, in the testing I've done.

I was also happy with the Kenko Zeta filters. Happy, enough, but they don't seem to be as flare resistant as the B+Ws; they were more tricky to clean, and I felt they did alter the light transmission in unpredictable ways. Clears are my strong favourites now.

Also, with the front element protected and never needing cleaning, they probably help with re-sale value.

[Nicolas06]

Well 150 for the my star lenses, 300 DA * 77mm ones I did a Hoya 1B Skylight, Hoya HD Clear and the same but for my 55 DA * 58mm in that size.

So those four plus the other 5 Hoya HD's for the two Limiteds and my other three DA lenses. Those nailed me another 150, so 300 bucks to get all Hoya HD's plus two additional Skylight 1B's for the star lenses. Not cheap but like you said it pays to get the good ones. I have learned my lesson on cheap or half price filters they aren't worth it!

300 more bucks to make the lens perform worse make it much harder to clean that what the great Pentax coatings allows is not my definition of a great investment.

If you never buy filters, with the money saved, you can replace a broken lens by a new one or at least pay the repear when whatever happen to one of your lenses. If that's after many years, that's an opportunity to get a newer/better design. If you buy the filters, you may still have to replace or buy a new lens anyway.

[Tatouzou]

So my big day arrived the 300 * made it in, I have OK weather in Iowa, no snow etc. Relatively warm well into the 40's etc - I am all ready to see what my 1 grand got me. I mount the 300 on the tripod collar to my Manfrotto 290 Extra tripod with the 496RC2 ball head, disable SR, and enable 2 second self timer, crank my ISO setting way down and take my first photo. What I am greeted with on the view finder and laptop is the most marginal photograph I have seen in a few days nothing is tack sharp - "fuzzy" is the technical term - I am nearly positive I have it in focus etc... I thought I did everything "correct" and I took a few more same results. I then go ahead and take aim at the only thing left I can think of and I remove my Hoya Alpha MC UV filter - start taking the same photos again. Time after time the photographs are coming back sharper and it is delivering the results I expected. This got me wondering...

I then took out the 55-300 for a quick spin and when shooting I found the photographs to be very good - not as good as the 300 * but still sharp for that kind of lens. This made me wonder how come the Hoya Alpha MC UV filter of course a different size, at the same focal length did not interfere with sharpness of the image on the 55-300 at 300mm? I mean the weird thing was the modestly priced lens and modestly priced filter did just fine. When I went to the expensive lens and modestly priced filter the results were worse than the modest lens and filter... The next step was to go "rob" a 77mm Pentax SMC branded Skylight my dad has had on the 400 * F5.6 for overly 13 years and see my results again - the 300 * performance was still as exceptional as the performance with no filter at all. Can someone tell me why this is? Naturally it is a better filter - but still... I am really logically struggling with this one. All the other lenses I have use the same Hoya Alpha MC UV filters even the 55 * too, and my Limited's all the results with these modestly price filters have been great - but the big boy 300 * didn't like them.

I am going to order a few different filters for my * lenses, a few nice (i.e. more expensive) Skylights and a couple clear HD filters too. I will keep rocking the less expensive Hoya Alpha MC UV filters on the other lenses as the do the job well, but it begs the question - why do the other lenses deliver sharp photographs with the moderately priced filters but the 300 * didn't? Any expert/advice thoughts are greatly appreciated!

Thanks!

Is it really a surprise that Hoya did not make the best with Pentax cameras?

---------- Post added 02-15-17 at 11:53 PM ----------

Most of my clear filters are relatively inexpensive options and I keep them on most of my lenses to reduce the amount of front element cleaning and to protect from sea spray when that's relevant. Even then for a lens like the DA*300 if I don't intend to stay out for long I'm more likely to capture what I want without the clear filter and just rinse the lens off afterwards as you can't stay out long in bad spray due to the build up on the front element ruining image quality. For extended time in these conditions I prefer to use the clear filter as I can repeatedly clean it and not be worrying about rubbing salt across the front lens element.

For all other times I remove the clear filters as they are an unecessary layer of glass and will add to flaring problems with light sources. I see some people don't notice a degradation in image quality when using them but I notice the difference in images captured with my Zeiss lenses everytime I leave them on. Even CPL on the Zeiss muddies images when shooting on the K-1 so I use them less frequently too. My Singh Ray filters are the only filters I own that don't seem to have as significant a degree of degraded image quality but the potential for flare is worse with any filters so when shooting contre jour I might opt for bracketing and PP to manage light instead.

So I sit in both camps: clear filters to protect the front element in storage, but do not shoot with clear/UV/Skylight filters fitted unless I'm out for an extended period and there's the potential for salt laden spray to be present.

Tas

I dont understand why one would use filters for storage: lens caps do the job!

---------- Post added 02-16-17 at 12:02 AM ----------

So I went cheap and paid the price 300 bucks to fix the problem is expensive but well worth it to me.

Good point a good lens needs a good filter.

IMO, a good lens doesnt need any filter at all!
Pentax front lenses have a special protect coating that helps cleaning dirt.

Modern lens coatings are harder than you believe: I wear spectacles with anti flare coatings, I dont take any special care and after severalyears of intensive use, the metal or plastic frame shows scratches, but not the glass!

---------- Post added 02-16-17 at 12:17 AM ----------

300 more bucks to make the lens perform worse make it much harder to clean that what the great Pentax coatings allows is not my definition of a great investment.

If you never buy filters, with the money saved, you can replace a broken lens by a new one or at least pay the repear when whatever happen to one of your lenses. If that's after many years, that's an opportunity to get a newer/better design. If you buy the filters, you may still have to replace or buy a new lens anyway.

I am on the no filters side.
But I think some people dont feel secure without a fliter.
Like many people who buy a new car and immediately put covers on all the seats, because when they will sell the car, the seats will look new. But they will never have enjoyed these nice seats!

[Tas]

I dont understand why one would use filters for storage: lens caps do the job!

I have lens caps on the lenses, and leave filters on as well. It's not as convenient to remove both to use a lens but I don't care as I prefer the added protection I get from this yet prefer not to shoot with filters. However, if there's salt spray or sand being blown around on the wind, then I'm going to leave a filter on and it's there ready to go. Some of the filters I leave on are CPL, so I might be leaving it on anyway.

Like many people who buy a new car and immediately put covers on all the seats, because when they will sell the car, the seats will look new. But they will never have enjoyed these nice seats!

Mate, if you don't want to use filters, then fine. but your comments lose validity if you choose to mock people who make different decisions than yours.

[gm4life]

300 more bucks to make the lens perform worse make it much harder to clean that what the great Pentax coatings allows is not my definition of a great investment.

If you never buy filters, with the money saved, you can replace a broken lens by a new one or at least pay the repear when whatever happen to one of your lenses. If that's after many years, that's an opportunity to get a newer/better design. If you buy the filters, you may still have to replace or buy a new lens anyway.

Thanks for the thoughts this filters no filters thing is like Ford vs Chevrolet!

[MarkJerling]

Thanks for the thoughts this filters no filters thing is like Ford vs Chevrolet!

I have only one thing to say to that:

Y-block.

[TaoMaas]

I'm in the "no filters" camp, but then, I like to shoot backlit subjects so having another piece of glass between my subject and the sensor can sometimes be a problem. For what it's worth, I used to avoid zoom lenses for the same reason. More glass = more chance of flare. However, if you shoot everything with the sun at your back, using a filter may have relatively no effect on your pics.

[Nicolas06]

I brought a few filters. High quality ones. Polariser, and ND... Expensive, great brand.

What I noticed is:
- I got much more flare in some situations and sometime loss of contrast.
- It became difficult to clean the filter while cleaning the lens was easy.
- Because the lens is more likely to be dirty as a consequence there no chance to see the effect on the final image
- the filters doesn't even fit all lenses.

I am far from being a cautious guy. I tend to drop things you know. That's why I use the straps on the camera. Always. And when the lens not used, well it is in the bag meant to protect gear. Still never got an issue.

Being honest for me the most likely outcome of a lens fall is either:
- nothing happen.
- it appear like nothing happened but the internal lenses moved a bit, so the lens is now noticably weaker. Less sharp, decentered.
- the lens doesn't focus anymore or zoom anymore because the impact deformed it.
- the hood is destroyed.

If you don't get any of the previous situations, it might be that the lens front element got damaged. The worst is that often this doesn't even alter image quality that much but yes it can ruin the lens. Still if the lens very expensive and there only that, you can ask for repair. If the rest is damaged anyway and that's too expensive to repair, you could as well have no filter.

[davek]

I had an occasion when the UV filter actually damaged the front element.

Lens on camera in bag, front element pointing to the bottom. The bag fell, hit the lens cap, pushing it into the filter, smashing it and scratching up the front element. I'm reasonably certain than there would have been no damage to the lens if I didn't have the UV filter on.

I know it's a rare occurrence but I'm in the no filter camp now.