Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main Photography Discussion
Lens filters or not
Page <prev 2 of 8 next> last>>
Sep 29, 2017 06:35:52   #
par4fore Loc: Bay Shore N.Y.
 
Hank Radt wrote:
Hi all,

Have a new lens on order. The salesman has recommended a UV filter to protect the lens (at a not insignificant price...). I returned home and did some research, and have found that opinions vary. On the one hand, yes, filters protect the lenses. On the other, the filters themselves can become scratched or dirty and degrade image quality. (I could add more, but the opinions seem to fall largely into these two camps.

So, my question to the UHH community is, do you recommend using a filter or not? If so, what (apparently modern digital cameras have UV sensors in front of the screen, so a UV filter is largely redundant on these...)? If I'm going to buy one, I wouldn't want to put an inferior filter in front of good glass.

Thanks for your opinions.
Hi all, br br Have a new lens on order. The sales... (show quote)


Buy the filter, keep it on to protect and avoid dust build up. Take it off when you are shooting anything worth printing. (IMO)

Reply
Sep 29, 2017 06:56:50   #
stevetassi
 
Get a clear filter if you want protection. In the digital world, UV filters are unnecessary.

Reply
Sep 29, 2017 06:58:29   #
Reenie
 
I recently dropped an expensive wide angle lense. The filter cracked, but the lense was protected so I was glad for having the protection.

Reply
 
 
Sep 29, 2017 07:05:47   #
Szalajj Loc: Salem, NH
 
For years I was a firm believer in protective filters on my lenses UNTIL I was trying to shoot a Super Moon rise and ended up with lens flare which was caused by the moon reflecting off the lens and bouncing back onto the filter.

At the time I didn't know what was causing the green dots to show up in my shots and ruining them. A little research revealed that the culprit was my UV filter.

Needless to say, all of those UV filters that I had bought for my lenses are now sitting on a shelf collecting dust.

There is really no need for a "PROTECTIVE" filter on a lens.

Put your money to better use on specialized filters such as a Polarizing filter, a Graduated Neutral Density (GND) filter or into a lens hood.

But these specialized filters are not designed to live on your lens 24/7, they have very specific uses. You put them on, get your shots, then take them off and store them in your bag until they're needed again.

Reply
Sep 29, 2017 07:11:30   #
Szalajj Loc: Salem, NH
 
Reenie wrote:
I recently dropped an expensive wide angle lense. The filter cracked, but the lense was protected so I was glad for having the protection.

Where was your lens hood?

Reply
Sep 29, 2017 07:11:50   #
Feigert
 
I, also, belong to the filter plus lens shade group. Yes, I am paranoid, but having lost a filter due to the front element being chipped, I do not want to experience the same with any of my lenses. I belong to the class that says buy the very best filter you can.

Reply
Sep 29, 2017 07:13:05   #
billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont
 
Hank Radt wrote:
Hi all,

Have a new lens on order. The salesman has recommended a UV filter to protect the lens (at a not insignificant price...). I returned home and did some research, and have found that opinions vary. On the one hand, yes, filters protect the lenses. On the other, the filters themselves can become scratched or dirty and degrade image quality. (I could add more, but the opinions seem to fall largely into these two camps.

So, my question to the UHH community is, do you recommend using a filter or not? If so, what (apparently modern digital cameras have UV sensors in front of the screen, so a UV filter is largely redundant on these...)? If I'm going to buy one, I wouldn't want to put an inferior filter in front of good glass.

Thanks for your opinions.
Hi all, br br Have a new lens on order. The sales... (show quote)


This question keeps popping up from time to time. I have over 35 years of professional photography experience and when I started out I had UV and Haze filters on all my lenses except for my Zeiss T* for my Hasselblad camera's. Now I do not have any PROTECTIVE filters on my lenses. I believe my images are better WITHOUT the protective filters. Most lens manufactures are putting a new surface on the front element that gives the glass better protection especially for cleaning. I myself keep my rocket blaster in my pocket all the time and give my lenses a hosing before and during each session. I also keep my lens hoods attached in case of falls, my lens hoods will take up all the shock. I have two or three older metal lens shades that are bent, I believe the new plastic lens shades are better at taking up the shock of dropping, like the new Nikon lens shade for the 16-80 DX lens, it is almost spring loaded onto the lens and able to take an impact better. But, I get side tracked, my best advice is to use no protective filter, use a lens shade and keep your front element clean with a rocker blaster. https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/541904-REG/Giottos_AA1903_Rocket_Air_Blower.html?sts=pi

Reply
 
 
Sep 29, 2017 07:18:33   #
SonyBug
 
Japakomom wrote:
I think it boils down to what you would rather have - a lens with a little protection or a lens that can preform at it's best abilities.
Personally, I choose the latter. I need all the help I can get :)


Here is my experience. I just bought a new Sony lens. 60 days old. I dropped the lens, in its padded case, and the only damage was to the lens filter. So, I took it off, and delayed buying another one. In that short time, I somehow scratched the front element. The only time I scratched one in 10 years. But, it is now sent off to Sony to see if they can put another piece of glass in to replace the scratched one.

Now the question. Would I put another skylight or UV filter on? You bet. It would have saved me the couple hundred dollar repair bill for the $50 cost of the filter.

Reply
Sep 29, 2017 07:30:02   #
tomcat
 
I keep hearing about image degradation from using filters. Can someone post an example?

Reply
Sep 29, 2017 07:32:44   #
SonyBug
 
I have always had a front filter on and never saw degradation.

Reply
Sep 29, 2017 07:35:12   #
CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City
 
tomcat wrote:
I keep hearing about image degradation from using filters. Can someone post an example?

Here's something recent from June 2017: My Not Quite Complete Protective Filter Article

Reply
 
 
Sep 29, 2017 07:51:19   #
pithydoug Loc: Catskill Mountains, NY
 
Hank Radt wrote:
Hi all,

Have a new lens on order. The salesman has recommended a UV filter to protect the lens (at a not insignificant price...). I returned home and did some research, and have found that opinions vary. On the one hand, yes, filters protect the lenses. On the other, the filters themselves can become scratched or dirty and degrade image quality. (I could add more, but the opinions seem to fall largely into these two camps.

So, my question to the UHH community is, do you recommend using a filter or not? If so, what (apparently modern digital cameras have UV sensors in front of the screen, so a UV filter is largely redundant on these...)? If I'm going to buy one, I wouldn't want to put an inferior filter in front of good glass.

Thanks for your opinions.
Hi all, br br Have a new lens on order. The sales... (show quote)


Lens cap and shade will give you all the protection you need, assuming you always use them. A UV is just a another place to have to clean and worry about scratches, etc.

Reply
Sep 29, 2017 08:00:06   #
lamiaceae Loc: San Luis Obispo County, CA
 
Hank Radt wrote:
Hi all,

Have a new lens on order. The salesman has recommended a UV filter to protect the lens (at a not insignificant price...). I returned home and did some research, and have found that opinions vary. On the one hand, yes, filters protect the lenses. On the other, the filters themselves can become scratched or dirty and degrade image quality. (I could add more, but the opinions seem to fall largely into these two camps.

So, my question to the UHH community is, do you recommend using a filter or not? If so, what (apparently modern digital cameras have UV sensors in front of the screen, so a UV filter is largely redundant on these...)? If I'm going to buy one, I wouldn't want to put an inferior filter in front of good glass.

Thanks for your opinions.
Hi all, br br Have a new lens on order. The sales... (show quote)


It all DEPENDS. Are you talking a bout a long telephoto or a zoom lens with a big and deep lens hood or a "normal", or wide angle prime lens where the front element is perhaps only 8mm from the front flange or only an inch or two deep below a hood say where stuff or dirty fingers can reach the glass. In the latter case I would and do use filters for protection. But you don't really need a UV (0), 1A, or 1B filter because as you said the sensor already has high and low pass filters. But what I also do these days is by only high quality OPTICAL German schott glass filters made by say M+W or Heliopan. Yes, they can cost more but I can see the difference held right in my hand when compared to inferior products. You can find good prices on used filters from B&H and Adorama. I've gotten like-new used 52mm UV filters for $15. Sure 105mm new filters will cost a Bill. They do sell "blank" or clear filters for just digital use protection but I find they cost more than the more common "film" filters (UV, 1A, 1B). I keep filters on my shorter lenses, but I may remove them when shooting indoors in a clean environment. As I see it, am I going to risk a possible 2-5% decrease in quality of an image over a $500 - $1,500 lens. I don't have any $10,000 giant Tele-zooms.

Reply
Sep 29, 2017 08:09:02   #
rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona
 
I use a filter about 95% of the time. There are a few extraordinary situations where I just can't.

Another question is would you rather have your expensive lens front element get scratched, dirty, etc. I'd find it much easier to replace the B+W filters I have than purchase a new lens.
--Bob
Hank Radt wrote:
Hi all,

Have a new lens on order. The salesman has recommended a UV filter to protect the lens (at a not insignificant price...). I returned home and did some research, and have found that opinions vary. On the one hand, yes, filters protect the lenses. On the other, the filters themselves can become scratched or dirty and degrade image quality. (I could add more, but the opinions seem to fall largely into these two camps.

So, my question to the UHH community is, do you recommend using a filter or not? If so, what (apparently modern digital cameras have UV sensors in front of the screen, so a UV filter is largely redundant on these...)? If I'm going to buy one, I wouldn't want to put an inferior filter in front of good glass.

Thanks for your opinions.
Hi all, br br Have a new lens on order. The sales... (show quote)

Reply
Sep 29, 2017 08:18:51   #
lamiaceae Loc: San Luis Obispo County, CA
 
Here we go (from inside an article)

Manufacture Filter Measured % UV /Clear Cost (77mm)


Leica UVA II 99.9 UV $225.00
Nikon Neutral Color NC Filter 99.8 C $70.00
B+W MRC Clear Transparent 99.7 C $45.50
Chiaro 99-UVBTS 99.7 UV $100.00
Heliopan UV SH-PMC Multicoated 99.7 UV $156.00
Marumi Exus Lens Protect 99.7 C $50.00
Canon Protect 99.5 C $60.00
Hoya HMC Multicoated UV(C) 99.5 UV $20.00
Hoya NXT HMC UV 99.5 UV $54.00
Hoya HD Protector 99.5 C $40.00
Zeiss T* UV Filter 99.5 UV $124.00
B+W MRC Nano Clear 99.4 C $48.00
Mefoto Lens Karma 98.7 C $45.00
Tiffen Digital HT Multicoated 98.7 UV $45.00
Chiaro 98-UVAT 98.6 UV $50.00
B+W UV-Haze 97.8 UV $43.00
Heliopan Protection 97.3 C $96.00
Tiffen Clear 91.4 C $33.00
Chiaro 90-UVAT 90.3 UV $10.00
Tiffen Digital Ultra Clear 91 C $43.00

Reply
Page <prev 2 of 8 next> last>>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main Photography Discussion
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.