[Wheatfield]

I always use a UV or protector filter in front of all my lenses except the D FA100 Macro. Also I sometimes use ND and circular polarizer. I am really surprised that the vast majority of responses was against the use of filters, as I would have expected the opposite. I have never done it to protect the lens from major injury e.g. an accidental fall, but for the sea salt, oil, dirt, dust ... which all seem to love the front lens so much! It takes too much effort and stress to clean the front element with the fear of scratching it. I rather prefer to have a filter which I can clean more easily (e.g. those with nano-coating) with less fear of damaging. But yes it is advisable to use good stuff and it is expensive... so you end up spending more than buying an extra lens for sure.
But I love Pentax because it is so rugged and well sealed I can leave in on a beach .. just on the sand of use it on a boat running in the middle of the sea. I don't want to stop enjoying that freedom because I fear for my front element.

I think if you have a decent lens and for whatever reason you want to put a protective filter on, at least get a decent one. If you have a really good lens that you want an always filter for, spend real money on the filter.

The main objection to an always filter is that they can take a good lens and turn it into a mediocre one. In which case why waste your money on the good lens?

I think they are a waste of money, and I have seen them degrade a lens. My A*600/5.6 came with a 122mm clear filter. It did terrible things to the optical quality.

The only filters I use regularly now are ND & polarizers. When I was shooting film I used other filters, but if I can emulate a filter during processing, I will go that route.

If you use a lens hood, you are getting good physical protection of the lens and helping it give flare free photos.

Dust isn't really a big deal, it can be blown ir brushed off, and unless one is really klutzy, fingerprints should be pretty rare. I get the occasional dog nose print on lenses, they wipe off easily enough, and represent about the only time I clean an optic.

[DRAGONART]

Personally I don't run any filters on lenses as I standard - it's been a point debated both ways over years, but I feel they're not needed or can be more detrimental than beneficial.
However, I do use a polariser or neutral density filter for their effects sometimes.

Totally, agree.. polarisers and ND are the only filters I use, who needs the extra glass, in the old days it was common practise to have some kind of neutral filter that was sacrificed in case of an accident.

[FJC]

No, I don't. I know what some people say about protecting your lens and so. But if you take well care of your equipment you won't need filters for that purpose. And IMHO, anything you put in front of your lens will diminish the quality of your picture, no matter how good your filter is.

[Clockwork]

No, I don't. I know what some people say about protecting your lens and so. But if you take well care of your equipment you won't need filters for that purpose. And IMHO, anything you put in front of your lens will diminish the quality of your picture, no matter how good your filter is.

Thank you.

---------- Post added 05-03-21 at 10:41 AM ----------

Totally, agree.. polarisers and ND are the only filters I use, who needs the extra glass, in the old days it was common practise to have some kind of neutral filter that was sacrificed in case of an accident.

Thank you.

---------- Post added 05-03-21 at 10:42 AM ----------

I think if you have a decent lens and for whatever reason you want to put a protective filter on, at least get a decent one. If you have a really good lens that you want an always filter for, spend real money on the filter.

The main objection to an always filter is that they can take a good lens and turn it into a mediocre one. In which case why waste your money on the good lens?

I think they are a waste of money, and I have seen them degrade a lens. My A*600/5.6 came with a 122mm clear filter. It did terrible things to the optical quality.

The only filters I use regularly now are ND & polarizers. When I was shooting film I used other filters, but if I can emulate a filter during processing, I will go that route.

If you use a lens hood, you are getting good physical protection of the lens and helping it give flare free photos.

Dust isn't really a big deal, it can be blown ir brushed off, and unless one is really klutzy, fingerprints should be pretty rare. I get the occasional dog nose print on lenses, they wipe off easily enough, and represent about the only time I clean an optic.

Thank you.

[photoaki]

I have always used one for protection, and can recall exactly one instance that it saved the lens from damage.
That’s in a lot of years.

[trixtroll]

I used to use a CPL regularly when I still shot film and it was great.

My (previous) K10 always seemed to have focus issues with them on, so I quit using them. I haven’t tried them on the KP yet.

[photoaki]

I have always used one for protection, and can recall exactly one instance that it saved the lens from damage.
That’s in a lot of years.

Quoting myself to correct and clarify — just remembered a 2nd occasion.

So, my opinion is yes for the filter, unless you’re not as clumsy as I am!

[Clockwork]

Quoting myself to correct and clarify — just remembered a 2nd occasion.

So, my opinion is yes for the filter, unless you’re not as clumsy as I am!

Thank you

[RICHARD L.]

The only "necessary" filters are those used inside a mirror lens (catadioptric) as they are part of the optical layout of the lens. Mirror lenses can misfocus if these filters are removed.

Otherwise I personally use a CPL only with wide-angle lenses most of the time in the vertical format and this, sparingly. Polarizers are almost useless with longer focal lengths except to remove some relections.

You almost don't need CPLs anymore with modern camera sensors. UV or clear filters only tend to degrade sharpness and introduce unwanted internal relections or ghosts.

Regards

[pschlute]

You almost don't need CPLs anymore with modern camera sensors

Really ? How does a camera sensor reduce polarised (reflected) light ?

[RICHARD L.]

You can simply obtain bluer skies on a digital sensor than in the heydays of argentic photography. It's not a matter of polarization per se (rather a matter of more extended Dynamic Range), new cameras produce very blue sky color while film produced bland sky expanses under the same conditions unless you used a CPL.

Regards

P.S. Using a CPL sometimes create weird pictures on digital. The filter removes reflections on the leaves and increases their color and contrast a little but the sky seems "overdone".

[Wheatfield]

You can simply obtain bluer skies on a digital sensor than in the heydays of argentic photography. It's not a matter of polarization per se (rather a matter of more extended Dynamic Range), new cameras produce very blue sky color while film produced bland sky expanses under the same conditions unless you used a CPL.

Regards

That is a very narrow view of what polarizing filters are used for. Narrow to the point of missing almost every use of them.

[RICHARD L.]

That is a very narrow view of what polarizing filters are used for. Narrow to the point of missing almost every use of them.

Could you show us examples of what you do with a CPL ?

[Wheatfield]

Could you show us examples of what you do with a CPL ?

Why don't I just tell you, it saves me from turning on my computer.
I use them to limit reflections on various non metallic objects.
Let your imagination run wild with that. As a visual artist, it shouldn't be hard for you to figure it out.
What I don't do is use them to deliberately uglify a picture so that I can score internet points.

[RICHARD L.]

Thank you for your helpful tips.

Regards


P.S. Removing reflections and increasing contrast sure helps make pictures stand out more. Pola-screens are used mostly is Desert areas of the West to make ultra blue skies stand out as a complimentary color to the ultra red landscape, or here in the East during the fall to add a complementary ultra blue to Maple tree leaves turning orange and yellow. But very blue skies may appear "garish" if overdone.

Examples of a succesful use of a CPL :