[Denver]

I use UV filters on all my lenses. I live in Colorado and out here in the west, ie NM, CO, WY, NV, AZ the wind even when slight has high levels of abrasive particles. I would rather replace a filter from being pitted from abrasive particles than have the front element of expensive lens damage. I always use a lens hood to reduce flare issues. I know this is not unique to where I live as other semi-arid and desert areas will have similar issues. If not for that I would not use UV filters. I do use a wide array of filters with my film cameras and use ND, Polarizer with my digital cameras.

[rogerstg]

I live in Colorado and out here in the west, ie NM, CO, WY, NV, AZ the wind even when slight has high levels of abrasive particles. . . . I know this is not unique to where I live as other semi-arid and desert areas will have similar issues.

If that were really a problem, how does one explain all the shiny cars and clear windows? Tons more exposure than a lens, and no anti scratch coatings on those.

After analysis, it appears that protective filters for general use are simply expensive insurance with little coverage. Lots of testing is available on youtube showing that things that easily destroy filters do not hurt lenses. By the time the force is great enough to damage the front element, the lens's mechanisms have been damaged anyway, with or without a filter. Usually front elements can be replaced and filter threads can be repaired for much less than the cost of a lens.

[savoche]

I never use filters for protection, only if I need certain effects (i.e. either ND or polariser).

My reasoning is that if I buy an expensive lens I don't want to ruin the image quality by adding a cheap filter. So, if I want to add a filter it would have to a good one - which means an expensive one. If I were to add an expensive filter to each of my lenses It'd quickly add up to more than buying a new lens. In my case I'd rather take that extra risk and buy a new lens should I manage to riun one. So far I haven't and I've saved $$ by not byuing filters.

I always use a hood if I have one, and I always put on a lens cap when stowing a lens (with or without camera attached) in the bag.

Of course, if not adding a filter makes you hesitant of using the lens out of fear of ruining it, add a filter. Not using the lens is the poorest value of all, in every way.

[Denver]

If that were really a problem, how does one explain all the shiny cars and clear windows? Tons more exposure than a lens, and no anti scratch coatings on those.

After analysis, it appears that protective filters for general use are simply expensive insurance with little coverage. Lots of testing is available on youtube showing that things that easily destroy filters do not hurt lenses. By the time the force is great enough to damage the front element, the lens's mechanisms have been damaged anyway, with or without a filter. Usually front elements can be replaced and filter threads can be repaired for much less than the cost of a lens.

You haven't seen what happens to our car windshields out here.

[MikeMcE]

You haven't seen what happens to our car windshields out here.

No that’s not really sandblasting...... I don’t think.... hmmm......


Hang up and DRIVE!

[Clockwork]

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.

Thank you.

---------- Post added 04-07-21 at 04:43 AM ----------

Hi

Does the new prime lens come with a hood ?
That is what I prefer to use before filters.

Thank you.

---------- Post added 04-07-21 at 04:44 AM ----------

I don't use them but if you are going too, I suggest you get good ones. Coated both sides and with brass threads not aluminum as the aluminum ones can stick and be difficult to remove. Good also = $$$$$$

Thank you.

---------- Post added 04-07-21 at 04:45 AM ----------

Use a hood for protection.

Thank you.

---------- Post added 04-07-21 at 04:46 AM ----------

No. At best they're benign, at worst they can introduce distortions or flare. I would only consider using one for protection in very challenging conditions, e.g., trudging through mud and grit, or perhaps where there is a lot of salt water spray.

I had a bad experience with a UV filter (good brand) on my DA 55-300 a few years ago. I couldn't understand why I was routinely getting strong diagonal streaks in the bokeh. It was the filter.

Thank you.

---------- Post added 04-07-21 at 04:47 AM ----------

I’m ancient school. I’ve always had a high end UV or polarizer on my lens.
I also always use a hood .UV on long glass/zooms, wide or normal have polarizers, that’s my needs
My reason is simple. I was a owner/tech of my photographic repair shop. My crew serviced Leica, hasselblad, linhoff, and all the regular household brands. My area was glass/ lenses. Most common repair was a bent filter, even one needing cutting to remove rarely damaged the lens barrel. Drop a zoom or IF Len, bend the barrel and you might have junk. The slight refractive loss of a optically flat filter is usually not noticeable. Note, I’m not a studio shooter, that’s a different thought..

Bottom line no need if it never drops!


Hang up and DRIVE!

Thank you.

---------- Post added 04-07-21 at 04:48 AM ----------

I don't think any other subject has been debated as many times as this has on this forum. Opinions break down roughly 50 / 50 for and against.

Personally I don't use filters for protection but I do use the lens hood.


You can make a case for and against. There are stories of filters saving a lens and stories of them causing optical issues and even stories of the broken filter glass scratching the lens front. My opinion is do what you are comfortable with. If you feel better having a filter on then just buy a good multi-coated one and feel good about it.

Thank you.

---------- Post added 04-07-21 at 04:48 AM ----------

I would say get a good quality circular polarizer filter.

Thank you.

---------- Post added 04-07-21 at 04:49 AM ----------

The only time I use a filter for lens protection is when I'm around sea spray or blowing sand/dirt. Blowing salt and sand is very abrasive and can easily etch glass. Otherwise, I rely on the proper lens hood and handling for protection. I do use circular polarizing filters and neutral density filters for creative purposes. IMO unless your are willing to spend several hundreds of dollars on protection filters, they will degrade image quality.

Thank you.

---------- Post added 04-07-21 at 04:51 AM ----------

For a digital camera, you will want to get a multicoated clear glass filter. UV was helpful for film only.

Agree with others that diligent use of a lens hood is best, and if you're going to use a polarizer or ND filter, do not stack them with the clear filter.

I have a clear filter, but often remove them depending on the environment and the lighting. They are more problematic with wide angle primes or with small apertures. I never use a clear filters indoors and I am more likely to use them on non-WR primes where there is moisture in the air or potential condensation conditions.

What prime are you considering?

I'm thinking of getting a 35mm lens

---------- Post added 04-07-21 at 04:52 AM ----------

One (or more if stacked) EMPTY filter rings can protect filter threads against damage, provide moderate protection for glass and offer some hooded shade effect. Easy to carry along if not used. POL and ND filters can be stacked if used.


There are a lot of unused color filters available for cannibalization in this digital PP era.

Thank you.

---------- Post added 04-07-21 at 04:53 AM ----------

The only filter i still use is ND filters, and all the UV ,polarizer.. just remains in their packing for years now.

Thank you.

---------- Post added 04-07-21 at 04:53 AM ----------

This is a third rail topic. It is most like going to degenerate.

My input. No I never use a protective filter on digital. I particularly avoid this with telephoto lenses. I have personally seen image degradation but I have seen others posts on this effect in controlled conditions.

Anecdotally I had a customer send me a lens that ended up having the filter and front element destroyed by a mispacked item outside the very well packed lens. So in practice the one time a lens was damaged the filter didn’t help protect it. That’s not a randomized sample of damage protection however.

Thank you.

---------- Post added 04-07-21 at 04:55 AM ----------

Like others, I don't use a filters but use lens hoods. I do occasionally us a circular polarizer. I agree with others that a filter defeats the purpose of a quality lens which is the heart of a quality image, and if for whatever reason you decide to use filters, buy quality.

Thank you.

---------- Post added 04-07-21 at 04:56 AM ----------

Clear or UV filters can be useful to protect the lens - not so much from impact damage but from particles, water, and accidental finger marks, all of which can leave a layer of micro-junk on the lens surface. It seems preferable regularly to clean an easily replaceable filter, rather than having to clean the expensive lens. Multi-coated filters appear to have no discernible negative effect on image quality in the majority of scenarios - would serious landscape photographers regularly use filters (e.g. GND) if they did?

Philip

Thank you.

---------- Post added 04-07-21 at 04:58 AM ----------

My 2 cents. I do a lot of photography at motor sports events when there is a mixture of oil, grease, rubber and unburnt fuel which is magically attracted to lenses.
The first time you try to clean that stuff off the front element of an expensive lens you wish you had some kind of protection like a filter.

Thank you.

---------- Post added 04-07-21 at 04:58 AM ----------

My take, polarizers & NDs are essential kit. Buy a UV for days where the lens may need protecting from sand, grit, salt etc. Test it with or without, particularly in bright, flary conditions and if yo feel better using it, use it I have them but rarely use them

Thank you.

---------- Post added 04-07-21 at 04:59 AM ----------

When carrying lenses in my bag(s), they are fitted with a cheap UV filter and the lens cap. When I come to use them, I unscrew the filter and place it, together with the lens cap, in a sealable plastic bag in the camera bag - UNLESS the weather conditions dictate protection for the front element from the elements is required. My feeling is that, if raindrops and snowflakes are going to land on the filter, then the minimal distortion cause by the filter itself will hopefully pass unnoticed - and any image is better than none at all. I also fit the appropriate lens hood to the lens whenever using it for shooting, to reduce the amount of stray light striking either the filter or the front element, and for a certain amount of protection from accidental damage.

ND and CPL filters are a different matter, of course.

Thank you.

---------- Post added 04-07-21 at 05:00 AM ----------

Ok , are DSLR lenses better coated than the takumar M42 lenses, I have three M42 lenses which I use a lot, have been using them for 40 odd years always with a filter. Just wondering if I should keep using, I use them just to protect the lens.

Thank you.

---------- Post added 04-07-21 at 05:01 AM ----------

A filter should be used to solve a problem or provide an effect. If the problem is damage to the front of the lens get a good hood it will prevent damage and also provide other benefits.

I have only one lens that I regularly use a filter with and that is my SMC A* 400 F/2.8 ED [IF] and there the lens really requires having a filter in the drop in filter holder. The optical formula of that lens was designed to have a filter there and without it the lens has a noticeable performance drop. So there I put in the best multicoated UV filter I could find locally. Other than that the only filters I use are circular polarizers and a Hoya Red Intensifier (poor man's light pollution filter) and there it is because I am going for the look that a polarizer gives or to solve the problem of the massive light pollution where I live when shooting the night sky.

I would like to get a good set of color filters so that I can play around with B&W shooting but again there it is to do a specific thing.

So what problem are you trying to solve or what effect are you trying to achieve?

Thank you.

---------- Post added 04-07-21 at 05:02 AM ----------

Only use a filter for protection if you're in an environment where that might be particularly needed, otherwise they degrade image quality. They offer less protection from bumps than a hood will.

Thank you.

---------- Post added 04-07-21 at 05:03 AM ----------

Never using protection filters. Only some grey filters if I need very long exposure in light but it is effect filter. Use hood if you are shooting in conditions that require it or if you want drop/bump protection.

Thank you.

---------- Post added 04-07-21 at 05:04 AM ----------

I always do, but would echo what's been said about getting the best ones you can, and preferably brass ringed with knurling on both the top and side.

This might be a good subject for one o'them poll threads.

Thank you.

---------- Post added 04-07-21 at 05:05 AM ----------

You could try testing to find the answer for yourself - when you already have the gear, digital photography is almost free. Take the same shots with and without your protection filter; repeat in lots of different scenarios; study the pairs of images to see if the filter visibly degrades your images, in your view. My views were in an earlier post and I'll stick to those, just as any muck sticks to the filters which keep the lenses clean!

Philip

Thank you.

---------- Post added 04-07-21 at 05:06 AM ----------

Very simply:
Find out!

Otherwise you'll never understand it, you just know (by hearsay)

Thank you.

---------- Post added 04-07-21 at 05:06 AM ----------

I keep a R72 on my k100d 99% of the time

Thank you.

---------- Post added 04-07-21 at 05:07 AM ----------

For me that's not a general decision - it's about taking or not taking risks in different situations and scenarios and may depend on the specific lens used.

I always use the hood on the lenses. Exceptions: I want to prevent from strong vignetting when using an APS-C lens in K-1 FF mode or I'm using square filter system.

Now suppose I'm walking through narrow paths with a lot of bushes - happens often.

The DA*11-18's hood isn't very deep and the front glass element prodrudes to the front. Risk is high that some twigs or branches strike the lenses front element. The hood IMO doesn't offer sufficient protection for the front element.

So I simply screw in the B&W 82mm 010 UV-Haze slim filter in addition to using the hood. Highest quality - I never realised image quality problems because of using this filter. For all my lenses I own such a high quality UV filter - not cheap, but gives me a save feeling and that counts. Sometimes these filters stay screwed to the lens simply because I'm too lazy to unscrew them.

Same goes for my DA15 Ltd. - not much protection by the built-in hood. And if I'd own a DA20-40 I'd also use a protective filter if being in bushy lands or in other risky situations like being at the see with spray water or in desert-like areas with wind.

Longer lenses like the DFA150-450 and DA55-300 come with a much deeper lens hood. These hoods offer much better protection than the hoods of the above mentioned lenses.

At the end the decision if you use a protective lens filter depends strongly on your own charakter. Are you a more risk taking person or someone who tries to avoid such in any case? - Many grey tones in between ... which is your "risk grey tone" and for which lens?

Be aware that if you use one or more screw-in filters it may introduce additional vignetting at some apertures depending on the lenses image circle / design.

Thank you.

---------- Post added 04-07-21 at 05:08 AM ----------

This. Precisely.

Thank you.

---------- Post added 04-07-21 at 05:09 AM ----------

Thank You!
Common Sense will always win


Hang up and DRIVE!

Thank you.

---------- Post added 04-07-21 at 05:10 AM ----------

I use UV filters on all my lenses. I live in Colorado and out here in the west, ie NM, CO, WY, NV, AZ the wind even when slight has high levels of abrasive particles. I would rather replace a filter from being pitted from abrasive particles than have the front element of expensive lens damage. I always use a lens hood to reduce flare issues. I know this is not unique to where I live as other semi-arid and desert areas will have similar issues. If not for that I would not use UV filters. I do use a wide array of filters with my film cameras and use ND, Polarizer with my digital cameras.

Thank you.

---------- Post added 04-07-21 at 05:11 AM ----------

If that were really a problem, how does one explain all the shiny cars and clear windows? Tons more exposure than a lens, and no anti scratch coatings on those.

After analysis, it appears that protective filters for general use are simply expensive insurance with little coverage. Lots of testing is available on youtube showing that things that easily destroy filters do not hurt lenses. By the time the force is great enough to damage the front element, the lens's mechanisms have been damaged anyway, with or without a filter. Usually front elements can be replaced and filter threads can be repaired for much less than the cost of a lens.

Thank you.

---------- Post added 04-07-21 at 05:11 AM ----------

I never use filters for protection, only if I need certain effects (i.e. either ND or polariser).

My reasoning is that if I buy an expensive lens I don't want to ruin the image quality by adding a cheap filter. So, if I want to add a filter it would have to a good one - which means an expensive one. If I were to add an expensive filter to each of my lenses It'd quickly add up to more than buying a new lens. In my case I'd rather take that extra risk and buy a new lens should I manage to riun one. So far I haven't and I've saved $$ by not byuing filters.

I always use a hood if I have one, and I always put on a lens cap when stowing a lens (with or without camera attached) in the bag.

Of course, if not adding a filter makes you hesitant of using the lens out of fear of ruining it, add a filter. Not using the lens is the poorest value of all, in every way.

Thank you.

---------- Post added 04-07-21 at 05:12 AM ----------

No that’s not really sandblasting...... I don’t think.... hmmm......


Hang up and DRIVE!

Thank you.

[photogem]

@clockwork:
Just a hint:

Instead of quoting each person individually to thank them

just click on the "thumbs-up" (like) sign, that way each person knows what you mean
but the thread is not filled up like this now.
One scrolls down kind of hoping some information (concerning the theme) would come,
but there is nothing.

[UncleVanya]

@clockwork:
Just a hint:

Instead of quoting each person individually to thank them

just click on the "thumbs-up" (like) sign, that way each person knows what you mean
but the thread is not filled up like this now.
One scrolls down kind of hoping some information (concerning the theme) would come,
but there is nothing.

Except that likes don’t tell them who liked it. They don’t convey thanks in the same way. A generic thank you message without quotes also isn’t as personal.

[35mmfilmfan]

Except that likes don’t tell them who liked it. They don’t convey thanks in the same way. A generic thank you message without quotes also isn’t as personal.

However, left-clicking on the list of 'likes' to the right of the date of the post :

28th Mar 2021, 20:49 - 1 Like

does let you know who has liked that post.

[UncleVanya]

However, left-clicking on the list of 'likes' to the right of the date of the post :

28th Mar 2021, 20:49 - 1 Like

does let you know who has liked that post.

I’m nearly always on mobile. I had no idea.

[35mmfilmfan]

I’m nearly always on mobile. I had no idea.

Well, your posts have taught me a lot - happy to return the compliment.

[Waffles]

I never use protective filters. I used to but found them far more difficult to clean than the front element of my lenses. The coatings are so good that a rocket blower and a gentle wipe with a soft cloth will remove just about anything, in my experience. Coatings on newer lenses are particularly great at this

[mtkeller]

I never use protective filters. I used to but found them far more difficult to clean than the front element of my lenses. The coatings are so good that a rocket blower and a gentle wipe with a soft cloth will remove just about anything, in my experience. Coatings on newer lenses are particularly great at this

I have amassed quite a collection of protective filters that have come attached to used lenses I’ve bought. I kind of shudder to take an inventory of them all. When I got the 20–40 Ltd, which was my first limited series lens, I stupidly thought maybe I should try protecting it with a filter. (I generally rely on lens hoods for protection, as many in this thread have noted. The “hood” on the 20–40 Ltd is more of a farce than about any other limited lens’s hood.) Turned out that the good quality filter I put on there did some horrible stuff in direct light (magenta flaring might be the best description?), and quickly popping it off got me back to a clean shot.

I will hang onto my arsenal of filters for if I’m out in a sea spray condition or something where an excessive amount of stuff that could scratch the glass could accumulate.

I do have a photojournalist friend (semi-retired) who always uses filters for protection, but he also doesn’t believe in lens caps or lens hoods in most situations.

[cgchang]

Only lens I have a clear filter on is the 20-40 Limited as the lens hood is so small.

[LuK5]

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.