Bach1955

I'm new to the photography world. I was wondering if lens filters are a must?

boberic Loc: Quiet Corner, Connecticut. Ex long Islander

Depends. What kind of filters? Under what circumstances? Need more info to properly answer the question.

Bach1955

It's a Tamron 70-200mm. Shooting outside in bright day light and at night under stadium lights.

davidrb Loc: Half way there on the 45th Parallel

Filters are a part of photography that causes the user to know what they want. Filters change the image before it reaches the sensor. There are many different types of filters, and there are many types of usage. None are mandatory, if you want the type of image that requires none. That statement will make sense once you have learned the ins and outs of filters. The filter that most novice photographers learn of first is the circular polarizer filter (CPL). This filter will help filter out the harsh glare of some sunlight. It is used more often to cause the sky to be a deep blue and clouds to sort of "pop" in color and contrast. It is also used to remove glare on water. The use of this filter is such that new shooters have need for it. Like all other filters the CPL has uses and applications that the user must learn. Remember, filters are just as their name implies, adjustments to the image. The use and application can enhance photos and can ruin photos. The decision is in the mind of the photographer. What do you want in this image?

Bach1955

What kind I can't answer. That's where I need direction.

Bach1955

Thanks

f8lee Loc: New Mexico

@Davidrb gave an excellent answer - I can only add that, unlike most other filters, the effects of a CPL cannot really be created in post processing - so making the clouds "pop" against a bluer sky or reducing glare from windows and water are things you will likely want to do while taking the photo (i.e. - have that filter on the camera). THe only other filter type that, down the road, you may find interesting to use is the neutral density (ND) type filter - this reduces all wavelengths of light equally in order to enable you to achieve a shallower depth of field (from using a wider aperture) or purposeful motion blur (from using a slower shutter speed). For example, if you wanted to take a shot of a dog running across a beach a noon using a slow shutter speed to blur the background while panning with the dog's motion, chances are the sunlight would be so bright that even at your smallest aperture and lowest ISO setting you will still need to use 1/125th of a second to get a proper exposure. Using an ND filter that cuts out 4 stops of light (that is, allows only 1/32nd of the light through) will afford you a shutter speed of 1/8th second, which might get you the effect you desire. Again, this is not something you can do in "post", so someday it might be of use to know about.

The "religious war" on the topic of filters is about using clear filters (like UV) to protect the front element of the lens... and if you ask this (or look it up here, there are already oodles of 'debates' about it already) - and my only suggestion is to keep out of that mess of stupidity. Personally, I stopped doing it decades ago, but others firmly feel that the extra piece of glass will protect their more-costly front lens element if water or mud or whatever splashes on the camera, or if it bumps into a doorjamb, or whatever. Be aware that filters and such accessories are where camera retailers make their largest profit margins, so if you ask the clerk in a store you will usually be "sold" on buying a UV filter "for protection". I care not if you do or don't - that's like convincing someone here in Southern California they should or shouldn't buy earthquake insurance - you'll never hear the end of it - just follow your gut on that one.

But CPL and ND filters do things that really cannot be replicated in Photoshop and the like, so if you want those effects you need to consider them at least.

lighthouse Loc: No Fixed Abode

No, they are not a must.
But they definitely can be used to improve a large proportion of photos.
And they can provide protection for the lens in certain situations as well.
Some Canon lenses are not fully weatherproof unless they have protective glass over the front.

My advice for someone who has no filters at all yet - a polariser for every lens, a protective glass for every lens and a Lee ND grad kit for any ultrawide lenses if you are a landscape photographer.
You don't have to buy it all right now. You can take some time deciding if that is the path for you.
But I would get the polarisers now - not cheap ones.
Buy cheap, buy twice.

Mr PC Loc: Austin, TX

I've seen several pros that rarely use a filter, a lens hood is all the protection they feel they need. I would use one to get an effect you can't get in post, but protection seems to be a money maker for the stores, as described above so well by f8lee.

Rongnongno Loc: FL

For the average photographer filters make no sense at all.

For specialized photographer they are a must.

Everybody else falls in between, this is the best answer you will get for such a generic question.

Other comment:
Filters for scratch protection, breakage or water sealing? BS out of some magazine paid to sell crap to uninformed folks.
UV filters? Same as above. Every modern lens is UV coated unless specifically build w/o coating for whatever reason and then why purchase a UV filter? This makes no sense.

Bach1955

Thanks for the input!

boberic Loc: Quiet Corner, Connecticut. Ex long Islander

I disagree in one respect only. If at the beach or any other sandy place and especially if it is windy a protective filter is a must.

topcat Loc: Alameda, CA

People say that putting a $10 piece of glass on a lens costing several hundred will degrade the image. Others say that they would rather ruin a $10 piece of glass that a lens costing several hundred.

Personally, I don't think that it matters. If you use a good quality piece of glass it will not degrade the image noticeably. If you don't use the glass, the image, I believe, won't be noticeably better.

But if you feel strongly either way, you can get the data that will prove you are fight. So do what you think is right. People will argue about this forever.

joer Loc: Colorado/Illinois

The short answer is no. Just about any filter can be duplicated in post processing.

You may want to consider a protective filter but if so get a good one, otherwise image quality could suffer under some circumstances.

camerapapi Loc: Miami, Fl.

Other comment:
Filters for scratch protection, breakage or water sealing? BS out of some magazine paid to sell crap to uninformed folks.
UV filters? Same as above. Every modern lens is UV coated unless specifically build w/o coating for whatever reason and then why purchase a UV filter? This makes no sense.[/quote]

+ 1.
A good polarizer is all you need...and not for "protection."