cjc2 Loc: Hellertown PA

You are NOT listening (or understanding) Mr. Williams, whom I agree with completely. You compare apples and oranges and obviously don't have much experience. Like Mr. Williams, over my career, a clear filter has saved my butt! Best of luck.

gwilliams6

You cant shoot with the caps on. Of course we all can use caps when not shooting.

gwilliams6

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

Get a hood and skip the filter unless dire circumstances and logic suggest a clear protective version. Dire circumstances may require several changes of a "protective" filter - so you may need several.

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

No filter is necessary for everyday photography. Don't waste your money on a clear or UV filter. There are extremely rare instances where a UV filter can be a positive for image quality... but clear filters serve no purpose other than some mythical "protection". In fact, it is even possible for a broken filter to do damage to a lens! And a filter is just a thin piece of glass in an light, aluminum frame!

Someone actually tested the effectiveness of "protection" filters. Take ten minutes and watch this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P0CLPTd6Bds Spoiler alert... A piece of paper "out-performs" one of the filters! And in another case the filter held up, but the lens was destroyed anyway. D'oh!

Instead spend your money on the matching lens hood. That will give much better physical "protection" than some thin piece of glass ever could. And a lens hood... matched to the lens proper size and correctly fitted... often can enhance images (that's not always the case with filters). When storing the lens, reverse the hood and fit the lens cap for good protection. (Note: You will need the hood and cap even more whenever a filter is fitted to your lens... to protect the filter!)

You didn't specify which of the Canon EF-S 18-135mm lenses you got. They've made three different ones. The first has IS but uses a micro motor to focus (doesn't have "STM" or "USM" imprinted anywhere on it). This is a lower priced, slower and more noisily focusing model. The EF-S 18-135mm IS STM was improved a little optically and got a faster, quieter "stepper motor" to drive the autofocus. The final version and the only one still being made is the EF-S 18-135mm IS USM, which seems to be the same as the STM optically, but has an even faster focus drive. In most cases USM or "ultrasonic" focus drive is fast but a little noisy. However, the EF-S 18-135mm IS USM was one of the first lenses where Canon introduced their new "Nano USM", which is not only faster, it's also quiet like STM (which can be important in some situations, such as shooting video).

Why is this important? Even though all three of the EF-S 18-135mm lenses use the same 67mm filter size, they use two different lens hoods. I am pretty sure the first two versions (micro motor and STM) use an EW-73B hood, while the USM uses an EW-73D hood. You should confirm this, when you go to buy a hood. The Canon OEM hoods tend to be rather pricey. There are also cheaper "clones" made by various companies, such as the Vello hoods that B&H Photo sells. These 3rd party hoods may not be quite as nicely finished as the Canon hoods, but they do the job and are often about half the price of the Canon hoods.

A much more useful filter you might want to consider is a circular polarizer. It can be used to reduce reflections and glare, increase the color saturation of foliage and other objects, deepen the blue of the sky, make white clouds "pop", and more. Even so, it's a filter that should only be used when actually serving a purpose because there's some reduction in light with it installed... one to two stops, approx., depending upon the adjustment of the filter, how strong it's effects are set. There also are times when reflections are important in an image, so you don't want the filter to remove them. And, if you ever find yourself photographing a rainbow, a circular polarizer would cause it to disappear. It also is generally not a good idea to use a filter when directly photographing a sunrise or sunset. Especially C-Pol because they are multi-layered filters, with more air/glass boundaries for light rays to traverse than a single layer filter. When directly photographing a strong light source, it can lead to ghost and veiling flare in images. Also, when shooting directly at the sun, a polarizing filter has no effect. It's effect is strongest at 90 degrees from the light source, gradually reduced as you approach either 0 or 180 degrees. Shooting directly at a sunrise or sunset, or even with them just slightly outside the image area, is as close to zero degrees and zero polarizing effect as you can get!

Any filter you buy should be high quality and multi-coated. It will have significant effect on every image shot through it. You spent a lot of money on a nice lens and camera, so don't stick a cheap piece of glass between you and your subject! There are a lot of filter manufacturers making high quality, multi-coated filters. And with the more common types of filters, such as C-Pol, some of them make several grades at different price points (Hoya makes five or six grades, then changes the names of them every couple years! Very confusing!).

When it comes to C-Pol in particular, in the past I've recommended B+W top two grades, which were known as "F-Pro" and "XS-Pro". They use high quality, German "Schott" glass in all their filters and these two are multi-coated (the F-Pro have 8-layer and the XS-Pro have 16-layer that's more resistant to water, fingerprints, easier to clean). There are features found on the best filters, yet B+W C-Pol were significantly less expensive than other brands with similar specs (Heliopan, for example). This wasn't the case with other B+W filters.. their UV and Neutral Density, for example, sell for about the same as top tier filters from other makers.

However, UNFORTUNATELY B+W has revamped them recently, now offers "MRC Basic" and "Master" filters instead, which are higher priced ("MRC" stands for "multi-coated" in B+W lingo)... They now cost a lot closer to what other manufacturers charge for theirs. (FWIW, B+W filters is a subsidiary of Schneider-Kreuznach, a "legendary" lens maker. F-Pro and XS-Pro are still in stock some places, or can be found used.)

I've been experimenting with a Chinese brand called K&F Concepts and am pretty impressed by them. I've got a couple different sizes of their top of the line C-Pol (18-layer multi-coated, German "Schott" class). Optically they seem great. The rotating movement was a little stiff at first, but seems to be loosening nicely with some use. Fit and finish are nice, and K&F filters are SIGNIFICANTLY lower priced than most other manufactures. I bought direct from their "Kent Faith" store in Hong Kong, but I see they are starting to be sold by some US retailers, too (B&H Photo has some).

There are other high quality manufacturers: Heliopan, Rodenstock & Zeiss (two more well-known lens makers), Breakthrough Photography (X4 series is top of the line), Formatt HiTech Firecrest, Hoya (HD3 is top of the line... they also have several low quality lines, though), and others. In the 67mm size needed for your lens, B&H Photo lists 36 different multi-coated C-Pol to choose among! https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/products/Polarizer/ci/115/N/4026728357?sort=PRICE_HIGH_TO_LOW&filters=fct_circular-sizes_27%3A67mm%2Cfct_design_2321%3Amulti-coated%2Cfct_polarizer-combinations_2322%3Aplain-polarizers Prices range from as high as $179 to as low as $17! (Personally I'd avoid both extremes!)

Back to the clear or UV filter for "protection".... after all the above! I have them in the various sizes needed for my lenses. I don't leave them on my lenses, only fit them in situations where they might actually serve a purpose. That really isn't very often, though. The most common, but still very infrequent, is when I go shoot at the seashore. "Salt air" gets on everything and is nasty to have to clean off and a filter is easier to rinse it off. I might also use them if out shooting in a sand storm or at a paint ball battle.... both very rare occurrences for me. So these "protection" filters were very low priority. A C-Pol and some Neutral Density (very specialized) were much more important and the C-Pol in particular see a whole lot more use.

Finally, with autofocus cameras as well as some metering systems a "Circular" polarizer is required. The old style linear polarizers will interfere with AF and sometimes with through-the-lens metering. Today there are two types of C-Pol commonly found. There is a darker, more traditional type that "costs" roughly 1.25 to 2.25 stops of light. And then there are lighter gray "high transmissive" the reduce light by roughly .75 to 1.5 stops. I have some of both types... haven't really compared all that closely and it's hard to say, but the new "HT" type might not have quite as strong effect. I wouldn't worry too much either way. Both have done what I needed them to do.

Hope this helps. Enjoy your new lens!

P.S.



Surprisingly, not everyone does. I've seen it here on UHH and on other forums, where some people "brag" that they never use the caps. They just put a filter on their lens so they're "always ready" to shoot.

P.S.S... or is it P.P.S.?

Before anyone accuses me of not shooting in tough enough situations... I've taken around a million images at equestrian events....

Which sometimes involve dust:


Small stones and kicked up debris:


And at times can be quite up close and personal:


Even without a filter, but with it's hood, my 24-70mm survived being chewed upon. No optical or functional issues. My 300/2.8 cannot be fitted with a protection filter but has easily survived a lot of ring side action (the 6 inch deep hood really helps). Sometimes I'm right in the arena... haven't been stepped on either (yet!).

olemikey Loc: 6 mile creek, Spacecoast Florida

A "Bad Idea" filter would really be superb!!!!

Canisdirus

Oh...I understand...I thought it was for walk around protection.

My advice to anyone who puts their equipment is such hazards as to need protection to front glass...

Don't do it. Not unless your coin is guaranteed by doing so.

No hobbyist shot...is worth it.

That being said...the front glass is dang durable...and can take a LOT of abuse...and never show up in any images.

It takes less than a second to take off my cap...and no...I won't take it off in a sandstorm...to get a shot...unless someone is writing a check.

Bill_de Loc: US

When I lived on Long Island we spent many days, all year long, photographing on ocean beaches. If you think a combination of fine sand and strong winds doesn't take its toll on a front element you haven't tried it. No hazzard involved.

---



---

User ID

Software glitch aborted post. He clearly meant "dont go cheap". Do get a really good filter.

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

As I noted in my earlier post, that's one place I almost always install a filter... though often it's a C-Pol or an ND instead of a "protection" filter.

brentrh Loc: Deltona, FL

Filters are not needed for digital cameras. They were necessary for film. For lens protection use lens hood that came with your lens.

Miker999

It's really not needed. In over 40 years of shooting (several shooting sports) I never needed a filter. A lens hood will give you more protection. My hoods have plenty of marks on them. However, if you want to use a filter, don't get an inexpensive one.
Remember, if a filter gets damaged, it can also scratch your front element and damage the threads.

JeffinMass Loc: MA

It will be expensive, and necessary, as with that wide focal length you will need a wideangle UV filter. Try KEH or B&H for a pre-owned filter. I would recommend B&W. Brass rings and exceptional German glass.

E.L.. Shapiro Loc: Ottawa, Ontario Canada

The FILTER controversy lives on. I have noticed that some folks remark, when someone revives an old thread, and call it a "zombie" topic. This goes beyond that- after all, zombies come back from the dead of their own volition. Arguing these old talking points is "grave robbing"!

Of course, technically speaking, ANYTHIG, such as a filter, that is placed n the light path of a lens has the POTENTIAL for reduction of image quality, the introduction of flare, and a host of other abberations and distortions.

The use of a high-quality, optical glass, anti-flare coated, well-crafted filter in a stable and durable frame or rim, will MINIMIZE the potential for image degradation to the point where it is undetectable even at higher degrees of magnification or enlargement. A good rim or frame will prevent jamming, and/or cross-threading to the filter mout.

In my own experience, I do not use protection filters in my portrat studio work and most architectural and interior assignments. I do use them when shooting on industrial and construction sites where there are airborne abrasive particles, dust, smoke, splatter, welding sparks, excessive moisture, etc. I use protection filters in my food and beverage work where I am operating kitchens and manufacturing facilities where there is splatter from frying, many oils and viscose thickeners in use, live steam, etc.

So many folks will balk at the cost of spare batteries, editing software licensing, and many incidentals. Y'all do not want to get a bill for the replacement of the front element of a costly lens. It happened to me once. It was a Hasselbald 100mm Macro-Plannnr that was damaged on an industrial job. I had to send it back to Zeiss in Germany- NOT GOOD!

Many of the industrial shots I do will end up in print publications, annual reports, brochures, investment prospectuses, etc. I am not worried about losing image quality in this kind of, relatively small, reproduction. One of my clients decided to have me produce photomurals for a trade show display from the same shots I made with filters. 60x80 and 80x100 (inch) prints were produced- you could count the rivits in the girders and see the dust and read the logos on the worker's helmets- no flare no loss of contrast.

Filter application usage goes back a long way. In film photography, before the digital age of post-processing filters were employed in both black and white and color work to alter panchromatic renditions, enable tonal contrast, and dark skyscapes, and do all sorts of color. correction, conversion, and tweaking of color films. The so-called skylight filter was used to mitigate bluish color shits in color film, especially transparency materials. Certain fabrics with UV brighteners would be flourless under certain daylight conditions and with electric flash causing a blue or cyan cast. The use of that filter by many photographers became the standard operating procedure. Since the skylight filter had no intrinsic color shifts, it became popular as a protection filter. I have not experienced any of these UV issues with my digital gear and most color correction issues are easily resolved with the camera's white balance adjustments and minor tweaking in post-processing.

Nowadays my in-service filter inventory is limited to polarizers, a few neutral density strengths, special purpose and inferred filters, and the clear protection fl filter for those dirty jobs. Dozens of CC and numerous Wratten filters languish away in a drawer among the hundreds of Gel filter packs required for the chromes.

PS- I have four of my only"souvenirs" from Viet Nam. The GIANT filters made by Boush and Lomb for the aerial cameras I used during my tour. There were discarded after being salvaged from our downed helicopter (don't ask) and were about to be destroyed weh I picked them out of the garbage can! We used them in all our reconnaissance and cartography runs and the images were razor-sharp, flare-free, and incredibly well-detailed.

Lens shades? They MIGHT offer some protection from damage but they will not help against a direct frontal hit from flying particles etc. They will not stop a projectile and neither will a filter. A shattered filter will not do your lens any good either. If a long lens shade is impacted sideways, it will create more leverage for lens/filter mount damage- I like rubber ones! If you do employ filters for any reason, a good lens shade will definitely prevent flare. I realize that those big compendium (bellows) shads are kind of old school but they work wonders with back and side lighting, especially when filters are used.

If you decide to use filters, purchase good ones. Mine are mostly from Zeiss, Schneider, B+W, and Hoya. Never had an issue with those brands.