[Laurentiu Cristofor]

I circled the flares in red.

Most of these are actually ghosting, not flare. Not that it changes their undesirability, of course.

[Schraubstock]

... and I couldn't see any difference between using my lens with them or without them.

Hi

This filter business is an argument that neither side will ever win. - Understood!

I however will ever only put anything up the front of my lenses if it actually does something. If you have, by your own admission, learned it doesn't do anything why bother. And we all know from experience that it is actually very difficult to scratch lens glass. (If at all) If it is one of those very very old lenses that actually can scratch, perhaps it is already scratched anyway and if it isn't, well big deal it is an old museum piece.

If you have scratched one of those very old lenses (perhaps added one more to the others already there) by cleaning it, may I suggest you have been going the wrong way about it. If you are afraid of scratches never use as a first attack a cloth, no matter how soft. Always take a lens brush first and flick off anything that sits on the glass, and only then use a cloth.

There are two very simple words: Sand and Scratch. By themselves they are perfectly innocent. Put them together and utter them in a conversation where the main topic is lenses (as in camera lenses) they take on a live of their own and become very powerful. I have seen big strong men go to water over this.

Let me recount a true story.
About two years ago I visited a notable long established camera store here in Melbourne. I was waiting in line at the counter and overheard the salesman next to me trying to close a deal on a Canon DSLR with a couple of lenses. All during the selection process for the lenses the salesman must have uttered these two magic words, sand and scratch, at least a dozen times. I said to myself, this guy is planting the seed! I know what comes next.

The customer finally agreed to buy the cam and two lenses. You know what? When everything was said and done the customer was literally begging for the UV filters to be added to the sale. The sales guy did not even have to prompt him for it.

A sales job well done. All the salesman ever did mentioned the two magic words Sand and Scratch repeatedly. He new how powerful they can be.

Greetings

[Anvh]

The last incident in which I was glad I had a filter on was when I tried to take a close up photo of a telescope viewfinder and I ended up hitting the filter against it. And yes, I had the hood on, but the viewfinder was smaller than its diameter, so the hood couldn't block it. I would have freaked out if I didn't had the filter, but this way, I didn't care.

Depends on which lens it was but if the lens front element is coated well and properly threaded glass it's much stronger than any filter, so the story you have here is purely psychological.
Just look at the canon glass movie that i posted earlier, i doubt your hit with the viewfinder was more brutal than that.

Besides the filter can actually damage the front element if it shatter, this has happen to a view members here...

[wlachan]

All filters flare, even the most expensive ones. All HOYA are difficult to clean except the HD which I recommend. If you believe in German stuffs, then B+W MRC. I have found tests on filters meaningless because batch to batch variation is too great. For ND or CPL, you can detect colour and contrast difference. For UV? Just pick any of the top models and be done with it. Any difference is just one's imagination (other than flare, which again they all do). Personally I use protective filters on wide angles only because their hoods are too wide to carry. The rest of my lenses have screw-on hoods permanently.

[demp10]

These shots don't prove anything - the lens flares without the filter on and the angles are different, so why should we assume that the flare in the first shot is entirely or mostly due to the filter? If you would have taken two shots in the same place, with and without the filter, then that would prove that *that filter* had a bad effect, and then it would help to let us know what brand and model of filter it was. It would still not prove necessarily that *any other filter* would have the same bad effect.

I have 28 pictures of the first type (night scenes with a UV filter and flares/ghosts) and 42 from the second (same location, same camera/lens and no UV filter) that show very little, if any artifacts.

It is obvious to me that the UV filter significantly affected the image quality. If you believe otherwise and you are happy with the images you take with UV filters on your lenses, then keep using them and happy shooting.

[cpk]

30+ years ago, when I was buying a Leica M camera, I wanted to put a filter in front of the lens to protect it. I spoke with a Leica representative in the factory, and he persuaded me otherwise. He indicated that an ink eraser (the gritty kind) would not damage the lens. Since then I have never thought of using a protective filter. I would expect the glass today to be as good as, or at least almost as good as, the Leica glass back then.

[Laurentiu Cristofor]

Depends on which lens it was but if the lens front element is coated well and properly threaded glass it's much stronger than any filter, so the story you have here is purely psychological.

Most stories about the filter impacting the image quality are psychological too. Saying something is psychological does not mean it is not important - on the contrary.

And yes, I know that the lens may withstand the impact and might be cleaned easily, but I feel better not testing this when I can simply take images and verify the results. If I would take a night shot and I would see ghosting, I'd take out the filter - how hard is that? And I feel easier about taking risks and getting closer to my kid when she's waving a toy, because even if she throws it at my camera, the hood and filter will suffer the impact.

I have 28 pictures of the first type (night scenes with a UV filter and flares/ghosts) and 42 from the second (same location, same camera/lens and no UV filter) that show very little, if any artifacts.

So what UV filter did you use? That information would help.

If you have, by your own admission, learned it doesn't do anything why bother.

Because that is the mark of a great protection filter: "to not do anything". I don't expect it to make images sharper. I expect it to be there instead of the front element when something is about to hit it - that is the only job it has.

If you have scratched one of those very old lenses..

I didn't. I scratched a modern Tamron SP 17-50/2.8. Scratch is too strong a word, perhaps - the coating got a tiny nick - insignificant for anything else than to prove that the coating can get damaged. I used the same cleaning method tens of times on old and new lenses of various brands - this is the only incident I have where a permanent mark was left on the front element. And yes, I blow the dust away before using a microfiber.

[Anvh]

Not this again...

[Schraubstock]

Because that is the mark of a great protection filter: "to not do anything"

Sorry don't follow your logic, you mount a filter to do nothing? If you get "nothing" from a filter you have not improved anything except the filter sellers and manufacturers bottom line.
I don't mount a filter and I also get "nothing" but it's a hell of a lot cheaper.

And you think you need the thing to protect your lens in case something unforeseen catastrophic will befall it? Well, if this is your concern may I suggest it to be wise never to venture out into the big wide world without safety glasses. What can hurt your lens can hurt your eyes! But you never think of putting safety glasses on every time you go for a photo shoot, do you. I put safety glasses on when I deem it to be appropriate, same with lenses when I apply the lens cap.

In dicky situations a apply the lens cap, take it off when taking the shot and put it back when done. There is no problem with this and I do not have to do this very often because dangerous shooting situations are very rare in my live. Otherwise I walk around all day freely with my camera in my hand with nothing up front other then the lens hood. And I swear, of the ten lenses I own not one displays any damage. Your situation may be different though I grant you that but somehow I doubt it.

Greetings

[Laurentiu Cristofor]

Sorry don't follow your logic, you mount a filter to do nothing?

Yes, optically speaking, I don't want it to do anything. Practically speaking, I want it to be there in front of my lens. If you can't follow this, read it again, or just give up, because it won't get any simpler.

If you find it easier to mount filters when you think you're going to bump your lens into something, good for you. I'm too lazy to do a risk analysis before heading out, so I'd rather have the filter there all the time and not think about it. Especially when it doesn't impact anything.

[Schraubstock]

Especially when it doesn't impact anything.

Very well said

[Laurentiu Cristofor]

Very well said

Well, no one can make you understand something you don't want to understand.

[Schraubstock]

Well, no one can make you understand something you don't want to understand.

Again very well said

[Anvh]

For the price of a good UV filter you can easily get an insurance for the lens.

UV filter doesn't give you any insurance what so ever.

[creampuff]

Photographic proof from some product test shots taken a long while back. Whether you wanna call it ghosting or internal lens flare, even a top end filter can and does degrade image quality.
Don't be duped and believe every marketing literature out there hook, line and sinker. Simply put, manufacturers are out there to sell and convince you that their products are the best.
In my opinion, the clear protection filter is the biggest con job out there, and there are lots of gullible photographers who are prepared to spend on this.

1) Image ghosting (green spot) with a B+W MRC multicoated filter mounted


2) No image ghosting when B+W MRC filter was later removed