[BruceBanner]

I find the whole idea of putting filters in front of exquisitely crafted lenses ludicrous to being with. Stacking filters is close to utter madness. Tossing expensive lenses without a cap into bags full of metal scratchy things is either going to scratch your lens badly (as you already stated) or it's going to scratch (or worse shatter) your expensive filter which in turn will damage everything else in the bag. Lenses have hoods - for protection and flare control and contrast optimization. Lenses have lens caps - for protection. Lenses have front elements - designed to be the first optically refractive air/glass boundary in the light-path.

This is all about sloppiness and easy to fix root causes. The only lenscap in your shirt- or coat pocket should be that of the lens that is currently on your camera. Lens comes off, only one cap to choose from and it takes less than half a second to cap the lens. Lenses do not get "tossed" into anything as they are complex optical electro-mechanical precision items which do not take to being tossed. They have sleeves, dividers or dedicated pockets to go in to.

Lenses get a filter when the filter is supposed to have a photographically intended effect. Increase saturation, reduce reflections, reduce dynamic range, allow slower shutterspeeds or wider apertures.

If you use filters for protection the outcome is binary: either you are not worried to scratch your filter because it is too cheap and therefore will degrade IQ or you are terribly worried about scratching your expensive filter in which case you win nothing. Also the IQ impact of UV or protective filters go one way only: the only certainty is that they will never, ever improve IQ. In a worst-case scenario even an extremely competent (and potentially expensive) filter will cause glare, ghosting or diminished contrast and haze.

Lastly, simple laws of probability and ROI (as used by f.i. insurance companies) - I suppose fitting every single lens in my bag with a good filter would cost me over US$750. In the 13 years I've been shooting DSLRs I have never scratched a front element yet but I've sold and purchased many lenses with a variety of filter thread sizes. I could have probably purchased the most expensive lens I own twice over in all of those years just to account for the cost of those filters i'd have needed over those years. A very decent economic law is that you insure yourself only for unforeseen and unavoidable incidents - anything else is just an expensive and costly investment scheme you will never play even on.

Interested to see just what your opinion of these images would be; UV+CPL+ND | Flickr

Utter madness? Ok Boomer lol

Here's a few embedded in this post for ease and reference, all these had UV+CPL+ND;

Takumar 50/1.4 (8E)


Lensbaby Twist 60


HD DA 20-40 in FF mode on the K-1


Utter madness!!!

Ok. My point being is that sometimes for certain shots you need at least a stack of two. Camera tripodded you take a shot of a waterfall with CPL, this shot could be pixelshifted with a higher ISO and relatively quick shutter speed. The idea here is to knock out reflections on rocks and boost saturation in the scene. Second take has the ND filter applied for slowing down the water, again to assist with reflections and keep the colours the same (helps when in PP to blend the two images together) I find leaving the CPL on a good idea.

So not only is stacking needed for some photography, just how much improved do you think these images would be without the filters?! Like seriously..


Moving on...

I do care about my gear very much, I have sold many copies of my lenses here in this forum and they have been in mint condition and very happy customers. I am however a realist, and despite all best intentions (especially during more paid hectic work such as concert photo pits, weddings, events) there can be moments something enters the lens pouch section that shouldn't be there. This leaves me feeling very uncomfortable that the front element could be damaged by accident. I'd rather have protection on 99% of the time and whip off the UV filter for those rare 1% shots that it's causing an issue.

I note my filters are slightly scratched at places, so maybe I'm behaving smart and scratching replaceable filters and not harming thousand dollar lenses... (I do agree that it doesn't make a huge about of sense to filter inexpensive easily replaceable lenses).

When I must choose between a NC, UV or a skylight filter as protection I usually select the latter because it has an extra function for free (the price of these filters are about the same). Of course this will certainly apply when you are shooting film and digital.

For people who would like to use a protection filter on a lens but afraid to tell anyone, then a useful filter on digital could be a polarizing filter; which is of a type you can easily defend. :-)
However, contrary what you would expect they have a filter factor 3 or 4, so inevitably your ISO value goes up. And they are not cheap.

@newmikey, of course adding a filter can only worsen IQ, no question about that. It depends what kind of photographer you are (your style), what kind of lens is used, or if you want to show the photo on a monitor (shooting JPEG anyways) or use it for a print with maximum quality. Sometimes it doesn't matter if you have a bit less IQ. Depending on the circumstances one can decide to add a filter or not, there is no absolute truth about that.

I thought Skylights only worked for film cameras and not digital? What benefits are you seeing on digital?

I just thought it would be worth showing one example of what can happen when shooting through a UV or protective filter...

In this instance, I'd forgotten to remove the filter before shooting indoors (where it simply wasn't necessary). It wouldn't have been a keeper shot anyway, but that's besides the point for this example. Note the purple flare around and next to the light source. Difficult to repair, if it's even worth trying.

Not long after this shoot, I stopped leaving the filters on my lenses by default and began carrying them in my bag separately, in case conditions warranted fitting them (based on my use cases and personal preferences)...

Yes I have seen stuff like that happen to me before, but I'm aware of it more so kinda just whip it off for those shots.

For me I'm basically replacing lens caps with a UV filter, I feel using both is over kill.

'Protect Filters' are a relatively recent pitch for money. Those that I have seen, e.g. by Tiffen, are uncoated; not the sort of thing you'd slap on a $6,000 lens. UV filters are a better choice (particularly on hazy "blue" days or at altitude), despite some hip pocket objections. I have either a UV(0) or SKYLIGHT1B on all of my lenses.

Another shout out to the Skylight filter. So they work on digital as well?

[Bassat]

UV and protective filters come into their own, and become really useful, if you have a cold beverage and a nice finish on your coffee table. Screwed onto the front of a lens, they serve no purpose at all. Ok, ok, they have some small potential to diminish the quality of your photographs. Other than that, useless. Throw them out. Buy hoods.

[BruceBanner]

UV and protective filters come into their own, and become really useful, if you have a cold beverage and a nice finish on your coffee table. Screwed onto the front of a lens, they serve no purpose at all. Ok, ok, they have some small potential to diminish the quality of your photographs. Other than that, useless. Throw them out. Buy hoods.

Yep, and I was using hoods for a long part of last year before investing in the Manfrotto Xume system, now however it makes using hoods a little more problematic. I mean I can use the magnetic adapter and magnetic filter just fine to mount a hood, but I can no longer toss the two together in a bag as the hood can detach too easily and scratch the filter/element. Under this Xume system it's wiser to think of a hood like one of it's magnetic filters and mount on the camera lens when needing it for a shot, otherwise stow it away separately from the lens. If I screw the hood on the lens then i need to unscrew the hood everytime I want to use the Xume system, so I have decided to somewhat ignore hoods and add them instead for shots where needed by using them with the Xume system (hood grips on magnetically).
It's about the only downside of the Xume system which I have really enjoyed thus far. For the kind of work I have been doing it's taken a lot of the headache and annoyance to adding and taking away filters from a tripodded shot.

[Silent Street]

Interested to see just what your opinion of these images would be; UV+CPL+ND | Flickr


Another shout out to the Skylight filter. So they work on digital as well?

___________

I made no claim nor reference to the suitability or otherwise of Skylight 1B for digital, besides which I do not own a digital camera.

Both Hoya and B+W market filters optimised for digital or analogue, and indeed filters optimised for digital are fine with film though difficult to qualify the sometimes 'gilding of the lily' claims by manufacturers. How these filters are applied, and when it a matter for the photographer based on experience. I don't know -- I cannot really see how a SKYLIGHT1B filter would not work on digital, other than imparting a slight 'warming' effect (assuming WB doesn't cancel it out)? This is certainly the effect on film, additional to hedging the blueness of open shade shooting on transparency film (of which other tricks are useful, of course), also Ektar 100 and the occasionally irksome Ektachrome 100.

If I want to "slow water down", a multispot meter with basal shift is used for that, never an ND filter (same with sunrise and sunset scenes, in any case I am facing west, not east! ).

[BruceBanner]

___________

I made no claim nor reference to the suitability or otherwise of Skylight 1B for digital, besides which I do not own a digital camera.

Both Hoya and B+W market filters optimised for digital or analogue, and indeed filters optimised for digital are fine with film though difficult to qualify the sometimes 'gilding of the lily' claims by manufacturers. How these filters are applied, and when it a matter for the photographer based on experience. I don't know -- I cannot really see how a SKYLIGHT1B filter would not work on digital, other than imparting a slight 'warming' effect (assuming WB doesn't cancel it out)? This is certainly the effect on film, additional to hedging the blueness of open shade shooting on transparency film (of which other tricks are useful, of course), also Ektar 100 and the occasionally irksome Ektachrome 100.

If I want to "slow water down", a multispot meter with basal shift is used for that, never an ND filter (same with sunrise and sunset scenes, in any case I am facing west, not east! ).

Thanks for that, can you please expand on what you mean by the text highlighted? Thanks!

[Silent Street]

Thanks for that, can you please expand on what you mean by the text highlighted? Thanks!

Applying a greater or lesser filter factor (to a mean-weighted averaged scene reading) than what is in use to progressively reduce or increase Tv.

[BruceBanner]

Applying a greater or lesser filter factor (to a mean-weighted averaged scene reading) than what is in use to progressively reduce or increase Tv.

Are you meaning to use modes such as composites/multiexposures to mimic the slow motion/longer exposures of water?

My experience with shooting water thus far goes a bit like this;

- Some water when fast flowing can be captured sufficiently without the use of ND Filter, stopping down or getting the shutter speed down to 1/4th second can be enough at times.
- Some waterfalls require longer durations, 2-3 secs and depending upon artistic intent (aperture chosen) it's physically not possible in one take without the use of a filter.

Shooting clouds and wanting dream like blur can take minutes, something I think impossible to do without a filter, even when using some hard stop apertures.

If you know of methods to perform these types of effects without filters I'm all ears. If it's about using Multi Exposure mode and stacking then I'm not so fond of that technique, I find a single take with ND Filter to be the lesser of two evils (as well as typically quicker).

[Silent Street]

I do have factory-fitted ME on my Pentax 67, and this is used occasionally when conditions are favourable, for example, no movement of any elements anywhere in the scene across the series of ME exposures, same as stacking in digital. This is the second method for "texturing" the flow of water - - I generally avoid, if I can, the clichéd, over-used "disaster at the ice cream factory upstream" - look to imaging involving the flow of water, so often representative of tugging at the forelocks of a romantic, and technically-restricted era.

But yes I do muck around occasionally when I am not producing work professionally, I shoot absolute crap photos (blurred, lop-sided horizons, mundane scenes) with an XA! ��

Today on my Monday off I painted with acrylics: "That's going straight to the pool room!" ��

[From1980]

I find the whole idea of putting filters in front of exquisitely crafted lenses ludicrous to being with. Stacking filters is close to utter madness. Tossing expensive lenses without a cap into bags full of metal scratchy things is either going to scratch your lens badly (as you already stated) or it's going to scratch (or worse shatter) your expensive filter which in turn will damage everything else in the bag. Lenses have hoods - for protection and flare control and contrast optimization. Lenses have lens caps - for protection. Lenses have front elements - designed to be the first optically refractive air/glass boundary in the light-path.

This is all about sloppiness and easy to fix root causes. The only lenscap in your shirt- or coat pocket should be that of the lens that is currently on your camera. Lens comes off, only one cap to choose from and it takes less than half a second to cap the lens. Lenses do not get "tossed" into anything as they are complex optical electro-mechanical precision items which do not take to being tossed. They have sleeves, dividers or dedicated pockets to go in to.

Lenses get a filter when the filter is supposed to have a photographically intended effect. Increase saturation, reduce reflections, reduce dynamic range, allow slower shutterspeeds or wider apertures.

If you use filters for protection the outcome is binary: either you are not worried to scratch your filter because it is too cheap and therefore will degrade IQ or you are terribly worried about scratching your expensive filter in which case you win nothing. Also the IQ impact of UV or protective filters go one way only: the only certainty is that they will never, ever improve IQ. In a worst-case scenario even an extremely competent (and potentially expensive) filter will cause glare, ghosting or diminished contrast and haze.

Lastly, simple laws of probability and ROI (as used by f.i. insurance companies) - I suppose fitting every single lens in my bag with a good filter would cost me over US$750. In the 13 years I've been shooting DSLRs I have never scratched a front element yet but I've sold and purchased many lenses with a variety of filter thread sizes. I could have probably purchased the most expensive lens I own twice over in all of those years just to account for the cost of those filters i'd have needed over those years. A very decent economic law is that you insure yourself only for unforeseen and unavoidable incidents - anything else is just an expensive and costly investment scheme you will never play even on.

While I find it amazing that this topic is being "discussed" AGAIN, the above post by newmikey should have wrapped it up. The need for UV filtration ended when film emulsions were generally being made without oversensitivity to the blue end of the spectrum a couple of generations ago and no digital camera needs help filtering for excess UV light. Even when I worked in a camera store 40 years ago the industry had become inclined to refer to the UV filters as protection for the lens. Then, as now, the potential degradation of the image far outweighs a claim to protection for the lens. Filters were sold at a very large markup compared to lenses and cameras so that two or three extra attachments or filters sold with a basic camera kit for $10-$15 each could often bring greater profit than a camera lens combined. Filters - 500+%, cameras and lenses - usually 5-10%. As mentioned previously here, equipment is less prone to damage with careful handling, extra glass surfaces can only degrade the image, and hoods and lens caps provide the best protection with hoods actually improving the results. Also, modern digital gear may suffer damage to electronic components in addition to optical issues when it's subject to "tossed in a bag" rough handling. It may be possible to work on better planning and technique for situations that can become very busy or hectic. A second body with another lens mounted may prove more useful than so much lens changing too.

[BruceBanner]

While I find it amazing that this topic is being "discussed" AGAIN, the above post by newmikey should have wrapped it up. The need for UV filtration ended when film emulsions were generally being made without oversensitivity to the blue end of the spectrum a couple of generations ago and no digital camera needs help filtering for excess UV light. Even when I worked in a camera store 40 years ago the industry had become inclined to refer to the UV filters as protection for the lens. Then, as now, the potential degradation of the image far outweighs a claim to protection for the lens. Filters were sold at a very large markup compared to lenses and cameras so that two or three extra attachments or filters sold with a basic camera kit for $10-$15 each could often bring greater profit than a camera lens combined. Filters - 500+%, cameras and lenses - usually 5-10%. As mentioned previously here, equipment is less prone to damage with careful handling, extra glass surfaces can only degrade the image, and hoods and lens caps provide the best protection with hoods actually improving the results. Also, modern digital gear may suffer damage to electronic components in addition to optical issues when it's subject to "tossed in a bag" rough handling. It may be possible to work on better planning and technique for situations that can become very busy or hectic. A second body with another lens mounted may prove more useful than so much lens changing too.

Maybe it's just how I roll, I doubt I can change my habits. I shoot professionally, I wear a holdfast harness that has two cameras on my person at all time. I shoot a lot of primes and zooms and on my person are also lens pouch bags and other accessories such as flashes, light stands, softboxes... the list is endless.

I think a lot of these opinions are valid. I recall the glorious days of old when I didn't shoot professionally, went out for a walk with 1-2 lens and a tripod, oh the joy of freedom!! All I can tell you is that when working for money it becomes quite a different game entirely. I no longer have the luxury of time during a shoot like I used to. The level of multi tasking is on a whole other level. At first it was hoods to protect the lens, but then using filters for the times it was needed became annoying with so much screwing and unscrewing of items. Enters Xume Magnetic filter system which can be very useful and quick system to taking filters for a job off and on.

My OP was not about pros and cons of filter, simply what are the differences between Protective ones vs UV. It's everyone else that decided to go crazy and give their 2 cents on whether they had merit or not.

As I stated before, rear lens cap keep a place in the system I operate with because all rear lens caps are of the same size, one is on the bag somewhere, doesn't matter which one I grab because they all fit the any lens, the same can not be said for front lens caps. FWIW lens caps no longer work when the lens has a Xume Adapter also, so that's another issue and draw back of the system. Lens hoods if magnetised to the Xume Adapter also run the risk of being parted with the lens in the bag as it's jumbled around, screwing a hood on negates the purpose of Xume. Using Xume doesn't mean no using hood, it just means stowing the lens away with hood is not an option. But even if you could, that still doesn't stop the unthinkable happening such as a discarded battery making its way into the wrong compartment and making contact with the frome element with the hood on. I have found small stones in my lens pouches at times! Lord knows how they got in, bush walk, under a tree? I have no idea...

Right now I can look at my current lenses that have UV filters on them, they do indeed have small hairline scratches, I'd rather them have those scratches than the front element. I am a working professional but I prefer not to spend a 1/3rd of my payment from a job on a replacement FA77 when a $30 UV filter can give me some additional peace of mind. The idea that UV filters degrade IQ is just laughable to me. Yes there is some times a weird affect can occur, get familiar with when that might happen and then take it off, it's really no different than being aware of when a CPL might not work for even blue sky. It doesn't mean therefore all CPLs and wide angle lenses should never ever use them... I can show you my portfolio of FA43 and FA77 shots and you would never ever go "wow... they would be so much better without a UV filter"... plainly put no one would ever know if they had one on or off... so c'mon... let's get real here.

Anyway, I feel my question has been answered. Protective filters are just another money grab, go with a reputable UV filter if you have to (and I have to).

[From1980]

Interesting. It reminds me of the old bit of advice I heard years ago when comparing equipment and its suitability for different purposes. Each individual's needs may be different and people have different expectations. It may depend on whether you need small files for web viewing, large files of the best quality possible for large scale printing, or something in between. If you get what your customers need using scratched extra glass then it's not our business and your habits need no refining.

[stevebrot]

UV and protective filters come into their own, and become really useful,

I carry a couple for those days when I really don't want full-on splash on the front element of my non-WR lenses.


Steve

* I confess...I have zero sealed lenses, but go out in high spray/splash environments anyway...bad habit going back to decades of shooting with non-sealed film SLRs in all conditions...the Sigma 17-70/2.8-4.0 | C almost died one day, victim of mist, but those are the hazards...

[BruceBanner]

I carry a couple for those days when I really don't want full-on splash on the front element of my non-WR lenses.


Steve

* I confess...I have zero sealed lenses, but go out in high spray/splash environments anyway...bad habit going back to decades of shooting with non-sealed film SLRs in all conditions...the Sigma 17-70/2.8-4.0 | C almost died one day, victim of mist, but those are the hazards...

It is ironic somewhat that I don't actually care that much about the shoot, like I have no problem shooting the 20-40 in the rain without front element protection. If I know my element has been exposed to conditions where sand and grit have been blown in then I will be careful about the cleaning of the lens at a later point.

This really for me is about stowing the lenses away and minimising the risk of something (even a neighbouring lens) accidentally bumping an exposed front element. I do take great care as I said, using dividers and what not... but stuff happens...
As mentioned before the use of hoods is kinda out under this Xume system. Lens caps vary in sizes and take up additional storage space, a UV filter placed on first on the lens>Xume Adapter is what I plan/have been doing for some peace of mind and fluid filter/hood changes in the field.

[Digitalis]

I carry a couple for those days when I really don't want full-on splash on the front element of my non-WR lenses.

This is basically what I do to keep salt sea spray or dust and sand off my lenses. For the record I use fully multicoated filters to minimize any potential for flare. There are some manufacturers that use exotic hard materials for their filters like Sapphire glass, which can still be shattered if you hit them on the plane of cleavage: shards of sapphire glass hold a keener edge than any knife.

When I'm working in the studio and I need to work at a fast pace and the situation demands switching lenses quickly, I select the lens I need and I hand the previous lens on to my assistant whom I rely on to take care of them on pain of death.

[stevebrot]

on pain of death.

Death by digitalis...I have heard of such a thing.


Steve