OnTheFly Loc: Tennessee

I think both of those schools are correct. It will protect your lens but it has to degrade the image some. I guess you have to ask yourself "what price am I willing to pay to protect my lens". I do use one just for that. I honestly see no affect as far as removing UV from the photo. I understand that this is more pronounced at higher altitudes and along the ocean. I too only use a polorizer and nd filters other than my uv (for protection)

blackmtnman

Something my late dad often said, and it sunk in.

"You buy cheap, you get cheap."

He always researched everything too.

One example, he wanted a new BBQ grill. Decided on a Ducane. He waited a year before he found a discontinued model, and paid half price.

I inherited the thing. Almost 30 years old, and still like new.

After you research, pick the best, then research for bargains.

Kestrel1029 Loc: Philadelphia, PA

I use my Neutral Density filter when I'm shooting moving water. The filter allows me to slow down my shutter speed so I get the silky water effect that I'm after.

OnTheFly Loc: Tennessee

I agree with your dad.At least when it comes to this. I bought several of the cheaper brands and ended up spending more money to upgrade to better quality. A friend of mine has Tiffen and I use Hi Tech filters in a coken holder. These are not top of line. But, we did a shoot side by side of the same subjects and you could tell a difference. With Hi Tech being better than Tiffen

RPMustang Loc: The Great State of Texas

I went cheap and bought a "Rocketfish" CPL filter from Best Buy. I noticed a weird discoloration in my images and after inspecting the filter, their were blotches in the glass that cleaning did not remove. I returned it and bought a B+W CPL filter on ebay. Excellent construction, perfect glass, and my images come out great. I do believe you get what you pay for with filters.

BigD Loc: The LEFT Coast

The question was is there a difference between low cost and high cost filters? The answer is simple, yes!

That question inevitably leads to "do I need a filter on my lens to protect it"? That answer is simple, yes!

OK alright before everyone starts down the "you don't need a UV filter on a digital camera" or "why put a cheap piece of glass in front of your expensive lens" let me just put my two cents in and then run and hide.

I shoot for a living, and because of that I use very expensive lenses to get the best possible images I can for my customers. I use them every day and in some not so nice places sometimes so they get dirty. I clean them with all the usual stuff (Rocket Blower, Brush, Lens Tissues) and no matter how careful you are this process eventually involves wiping crud that includes microscopic grit off the glass. That process "is" scratching your glass even though it is at a very very fine level and it will eventually take its toll on the coatings of a front element. So bottom line is I am wiping this crud off of my B+W Filters not my expensive front elements.

I read one post that said why put a hundred dollar filter on a lens that cost hundreds? Well I do because my lenses cost thousands and a hundred bucks is cheap long term insurance. I have used many different filter brands over the years and I have found that B+W is about as good a balance of quality and cost and yes I have done many many test and I would dare you to tell the difference with and without the filter in place. If you value your lenses you should think about this and if your in the filter degrades the lens camp think about those fine scratches. When they become noticeable I replace the filter and I'm back in the game while your looking at a new lens. If you shoot a couple hundred images a year I wouldn't worry about it but if your out and about all the time that "wear and tear" adds up and most people don't think about it until they see a hole worn through the coatings :-(

jwegge11 Loc: Stillwater, MN

BigD!! Thanks for the reply. Since I am a bargain guy---with all of the responses...B&W it is---I have a knack for finding barely used top of the line stuff @ good prices. Plenty of people out there selling stuff I want/need.

And there is NO reason for you to run and hide...lol. Appreciate you taking the time for a thoughtful response.

Warm Regards....Jeff

Dale Fiorillo Loc: Seattle

An ND filter allows slower shutter speeds for those billowy water falls. Cheap filters will not have sealed edges and liquid lens cleaners can seep in.

OnTheFly Loc: Tennessee

Agree with you completley Big D. But if it was the statement I made you are refering to... What I said was why put a $20.00 filter in front of the expensive lens. The jest was that you spent a lot on the lens don't put a cheap filter in front of it. Buy quality.

BigD Loc: The LEFT Coast

There you go, yes if you buy good filters you won't notice them. One of the big lens rental houses did a not so scientific test about filter quality. They took a bunch of high dollar UV's and a bunch of cheap ones and screwed them together into two groups of like fifty filters. Then they took a picture through each "pile" and the high buck one was not too bad. Still was noticeable but not too much. The cheap pile was almost totally black so it was a goofy way of seeing if the expensive ones were really better, they are.

BBNC

Go to www.2filter.com. They not only have a good selection of brand name filters, they have tutorials on the whys and wherefores of quality filter selection. And their prices aren't bad, either.

OnTheFly Loc: Tennessee

As unscientific as that may be, It works for me.

pdwoodswood Loc: Lewisville, NC

Eugene mentioned that some photographers did not use UV/ haze filters due to potential image degradation. I suppose this also applies to a clear flat
glass lens protector. I agree with Eugene and have wondered about this since my first film camera, eons ago, hence do not use any filters except to accomplish a particular objective. I still do not use any filter 100%; irregardless of the recommended practice. Perhaps the newer coated filters do reduce surface reflections. I have been around coated optics most of my life and actually looked for coated filters long ago in the past......Just makes sense and way overdue. Likely they were available
and professional photographers were aware of this.
Would like to hear from others on this subject.

OnTheFly Loc: Tennessee

As Big D said it is cheap insurance. I would rather take a cloth to a $50 dollar filter instead of taking it to a $500 dollar lens.You never know when you might scratch the surface. Lot cheaper to change filter.But, some very serious photographers will not put the filter on due to degredation. I do understand their point. But I like to protect the lens and haven't noticed it to be a big deal. I have shot with and without and can't tell the difference. Now, if you were to blow it up to the size of a bill board there may be a difference. I don't plan on my photographs being blown up to that point. And yes that does apply to clear glass.

JackKLE Loc: Missouri , USA, St. Louis Metro

Lumicon is a company that produces high quality filters for Astro-photography. These are Broad & Narrow Band-Pass & Interference filters. However, there IS one that does wonders for UV Blocking - much better than a UV filter & that is a "Minus-Violet" filter. It's ALMOST clear like a UV, but has just a hint of Yellow. It's VERY effective at blocking Violet, which will degrade your images.