folkus

I have a very good glass and have heard conflicting views on the value of filters to protect lenses. This is N O T a question of the value of filters in creating certain effects or enhancing certain features, or even eliminating glare, etc. It is ONLY speaking to the normal, general, everyday use if filters for lens protection. What are the pros and cons and do professionals use them when there is no aesthetic requirement. Thanks so much - and I apologize in advance if this subject has been beat to death before. Folkus. ( I don't regularly shoot in salt water waves on in Saharan dust storms...)

ggttc Loc: TN

You will get varying opinions on this...but if your just looking for lens protection I use a lens hood and no filters

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

I consider eminent flying debris as the ONLY reason for having/using a protective filter. Otherwise I keep my lenshood on and in the taking position 24/7 and cap it when not in use.

Keldon Loc: Yukon, B.C.

I just use the lens hood and don't bother with a filter.

MW

There are a few zero density filters (technically that's an oxymoron) that will have almost no affect on image quality. Nikon NC, B+W Clear MRC, and Hoya HD Protector filters use very high quality glass and coatings. They are all expensive. The Hoya HD claims that neither dust or fingerprints will adhere and my personal experience largely confirms.

I think the only real protection against impact damage it to avoid the impact. The filters just mentioned are intended to protect from dust, oil and fingerprints.

rgrenaderphoto Loc: Hollywood, CA

This question will be on par with Nikon vs Canon, JPG vs RAW, Coke vs Pepsi.

A 72 mm Tiffen Daylight filter costs $29.75. I found a web link from 2010 of $550 to replace a scratched front element on a Nikkor 24-70mm. Assuming inflation is constant, that could cost well over $600 today. So do the math, $30 vs $600. Accidents happen, no matter how careful you are. Is it really worth taking the chance?

wdross Loc: Castle Rock, Colorado

The reason this subject is "beat to death" is because there is no one clear answer that applies to everyone and every situation. Some pros shoot with filters on and some don't. And some shoot with filters only when the situation calls for it. All filters will affect the image in some way unless the filter is an actual part of the lense design. The better and thinner the filter (and usually more costly), the less the affect is on the image. My opinion is using a good thin filter will add some protection while affecting the image quality very little. I also believe that a lense hood provides about the same similar level of protection. I prefer to use a lense hood over the use of a protective filter. If I am not using a lense hood, then I use an A1 filter or polarizer if the situation calls for the possible need of extra protection. Now you will have to figure out what meets your photographic needs and style.

Jim Bob

Not again.

John_F Loc: Minneapolis, MN

The extent to which any filter affects an image depends on the specifics of the filter. All glasses are mixtures of silicates each of which has its own index of refraction, so the mixture has to be as homogeneous as possible. The glass composition must have the lowest possible index of refraction as possible. The front and rear surfaces have to be as perfecty flat and perfectly parallel as possible. The filter mount must position the filter surfaces as perfectly perpendicular to the lense axis as possible. All of the 'as possible' requirements spell 'money.' Against that cost is the cost of the lens and the 'subjective' value of the image. It comes down to personal preference for the most part.

twr25 Loc: New Jersey

I think a high quality protective filter is a must for active shooting as opposed to studio shooting. In a studio, the environment is controlled and has very few chances of collision damage, projectiles, and debris. Sport shooting can be hazardous to lenses. Bumps, bending or lying down to get a shot, fences, baseballs or Lacrosse balls can all damage lenses. Dust and debris are a constant. Wiping off the lens even with the softest cloth can cause abrasion and damage to lens coatings over time. I think under those conditions a filter is a must to protect your lens.

OddJobber Loc: Portland, OR

I have one protective filter, a 77 mm B+W F-Pro MRC, $60, that stays on a Nikon 24-120 lens. That's the lens I use for indoor events and bar shoots when I will not be changing lenses and the filter protects against flying beer, fingerprints and casual boomps.

All other times I rely on lens hoods instead. The only time I've dropped a lens was when changing and a $23 plastic hood with breakaway slots sacrificed itself to save a $1K lens.

bdk Loc: Sanibel Fl.

My first instructor MADE us go out and but a UV filter to protect our lenses. He chimed on and on about how great they were and how they protect the lens should you ever drop it. ( sounded good to me so I bought one) . I was on occasion getting lens flare
Turns out when I removed the filter , the flare was gone, ( i learned that here on UHH) seems that from a certain angle to the sun, the filter was causing the flare.
So now I just use a hood.

Mac Loc: Pittsburgh, Philadelphia now Hernando Co. Fl.

There have been many discussions on this subject. If you use the "Search" function at the top of the page you can find all of them.

rmorrison1116 Loc: Near Valley Forge, Pennsylvania

I don't understand why some folks get "upset" when someone asks a legit question or brings up a legit subject even though its been discussed before. So what if its been discussed before, isn't one of the purposes of social media to communicate and share information and well, be social. If you don't care to participate in the conversation, don't.

As for the filter issue, I personally use UV filters like lens caps. The cap and filter come off and the hood goes on. When I'm done with the lens, the hood comes off, the lens is cleaned and the filter and cap go back on, followed by the reversed hood then into a protective case. I've had experience with dropping a lens and warding off fairly expensive repair because the cheap filter absorbed the shock and spared the front of the lens. I dropped my Tamron SP 70-200 f/2.8 on concrete steps. The lens was in its neoprene case with filter and cap in place. The cap came off and the filter broke and bent and spared the threads on the front of the lens. As for protecting the actual front element, well, the front element of any good lens is going to be a whole lot more robust than a cheapo filter. You almost have to try to damage the front glass. If you're concerned about sea spray or sand, don't take a non weather sealed lens onto a beach, that's just tempting fate.

Mac Loc: Pittsburgh, Philadelphia now Hernando Co. Fl.

If this is directed at me for suggesting the "Search" function, I don't know why you think I am "upset". The fact is that there have been a multitude of threads on this very subject. Many opinions pro and con and many reasons for having those opinions have been expressed in those threads. By suggesting the use of "Search" that would allow the OP access to all those opinions and reasons. To think that everyone who has posted on this subject (or any other subject) previously will again post every time a question is repeated is unrealistic. The reason the "Search function exists is for for just that.