Ritz

I saw that this past week we had rehashed the old controversial question about to UV filter or not to protect our expensive lenses. I felt compelled to ask my go to person, who I highly respect. If you’re interested, below is the question and the response, for what it’s worth.

My (Ritz) Filter/Lens Protector Question:
I had a question about camera lens protection, which I have
heard has been debated to adnauseam, also on the Ugly Hedgehog 
web site. I have Canon "L" lenses and the question is, should high
grade UV or Clear filters be used to add additional protection to the lens
or no filter at all? Maybe just rely on a lens hood for lens protection.
And of cause the issue of filter interference with exposure quality
comes up as well.

Scott’s Response:
In my opinion there should be no UV lens in front of the cameras glass. 
My reasons are as follows...
The glass on the lens is expensive and made at the sharpest quality possible. 
The lenses are well treated with anti glare products at the factory for best use. 
If you were to hit something with the camera lens, a filter would certainly break and scratch the element of the camera for possibly double the damage. 
Image quality.. Unless there is some haze you are looking to clear up a UV filter is basically useless and can even add glare and ghosting from the double pain of glass at the front of the camera.

So, I am against the UV filter. Everything quality wise and filter wise can be done on computer anyway. Hope that helps!!

Creatively Yours,
Scott
Master Photographer
Master Craftsman
President of PPGNY
Canon Ambassador
Wildlife Photographer Contributor to National Geographic

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

I'm not.
A customer had a lens that had a squished filter with broken glass.
Filter wrenches removed the filter, lens mount was fine, front element was fine.
New filter and he was on his way.

I really doubt that anyone looking at an image or print taken with a lens that has a filter is discernible.
It only bothers the photographer because he knows it's there.
"Logically" yes, discernible, no.
No one can say "Oh, he used a filter on the front of his lens."...

Now I would not buy a dollar-two-ninety-eight "We be Filters" brand.

-Longshadow
Engineer.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

If not using a quality filter will make you a better photographer by 0.3%, that's certainly your decision.

If not using a filter and your lens front is damaged and someone else will pay for the repair, that's certainly your decision.

If you've never tried to sell a damaged lens, wait until you find out the impact of your life's decisions.

If you'd rather clean the fingerprints, dust, and miscellaneous gunk off the filter glass rather than the lens surface, use a high-quality Clear or UV filter. If you don't care, don't use a filter. It's your lens; it's your decision.

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

Since you’ve heard it has been debated adnauseam what did you think you were adding to the conversation ? Did you think this Scott fellow had some new, never thought of before insight? Or were you just trying to stir up some old worn out crap?

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

I think he meant it as a "definitive" answer.
I mean "Scott" has to be the authority on them...

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

I fear this Scott person is an embarrassment to every organization he claims to represent ... He's ignoring Canon's own documentation explains some of their lens designs require a front filter to complete the moisture resistance scheme, as well as forgetting that the Great White L's all have drop-in filters that are part of the optical design.

Maybe he was responding to Ritz Camera branded filters?

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

Bill_de Loc: US

Is this a rehash of the rehash, or should we add a few more rehashes?

Whose turn is it to bring it up next week to tell us what his or her friend told them???




----

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

I use Instagram filters on all my shots.

Strodav Loc: Houston, Tx

Again? Aren't the hogs tired of this topic?

There are good arguments on both sides of this so it comes down to personal choice.

johngault007 Loc: Florida Panhandle

OOHHHHHH...My favorite topic to troll in. It's been a while.

Quixdraw Loc: x

This a you are in or aren't in question. Not much middle ground. Have been using protective filters since the late '60's. Have gotten a lot of good photos down all those years, and the front element of every lens I've bought new is pristine. Much easier to clean a filter and cheaper replace as needed than is a lens.

Ritz

In the past I have asked and answered questions on this site and the responses have been respectful. Sorry all for bringing up the topic. You all have taught me a lesson. I guess some of you needed an outlet because of the virus.
I won't take up any more of your time.
Ritz

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

I've had multiple accidents with my digital lenses - and in 4 out of 5 the filter was sacrificial, shattering into pieces, but no harm done to the lens mount, lens or front element. I use Hoya filters which are decent quality and have little to "contribute" optically. I do have one filter on one lens that just doesn't work well. It messes up bokeh, so I don't use it. Given that it is an 82mm - it's not going to fit on anything else I have. Money wasted. But the other filters certainly saved me $$$ and down time.

Most lens front elements are designed to be somewhat sacrificial as well - not terribly expensive to replace. But there is nothing that can be done about the down time.

Since 1965, I have never had a filter shatter and scratch the front element. That's a lot of years. But everyone's mileage will likely differ. No debate here, just telling you my story.

Bill_de Loc: US

Had you made this opinion an addition to the ongoing thread, it might have had a better reception. Your tread title To UV filter or not to adnauseam was a good indication that we didn't need a new thread.

---