JohnH3 Loc: Auburn, AL

Unlike you, I put a filter over every lenses I own. Where I live, the elements can be rough on photography equipment. The less I have to touch or clean a lens, the better to me. What I have discovered is that the thinner and harder the glass on a filter the better. There is a difference in a $20.00 filter and one that costs $60.00 to $90.00. I really have grown to like the Breakthrough filters. They are not inexpensive, but they are reasonable. I have been pleased all around with them.

toxdoc42

I was told to bring a "bean bag."

toxdoc42

Wow. Thank you so much for sharing the video.

I don't know much about his training, but, he did a fantastic job of experimenting about the issues that have been argued for so many years. Perry did a great job convincing me that it is unlikely that a filter will offer much, if any protection from major lens injury. He suggested that there is little advantage to more expensive filters. It was interesting to see that his "index" filter, the one he showed on the lens at the beginning of the video and at other times, was a Tiffen!

I think he is video should put to rest the theory that a filter will prevent serious damage to a lens. I think his "compromise" makes most sense, put a filter on a lens, only one filter, when industry, dirty, windy, wet spray environments, leave it off for all others.

I would add that home owner insurance, aka valuable property insurance, provides coverage for the occasion in which you drop a lens or it gets stolen, lost or otherwise damaged! It costs very little to add this coverage.

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

RWR Loc: La Mesa, CA

Some focus shift is to be expected - the thicker the glass, the greater the shift. Best to focus through the filter if possible.

Silverrails

As Photographer with Experience, I might ask; Is it Practical or Advisable to use 2 filters at the same time, on the same Camera, for example, a Clear filter and polarizing filter, or any other possible, practical combination of Filters? I am a Newbie just learning so have patience with my question. Thank you.

toxdoc42

Don't ever be ashamed for asking a question. The only reason to use a clear filter is to "protect" your lens. The other filter would do that so why bother with the clear? Watch the video, it confirms my feeling that there really is little protection from a clear filter.

JD750 Loc: SoCal

Unlike who? Me?

I will use a clear UV filter over my lens for protection if there is danger of damage or degradation, such as blowing dust or dirt motorcycles flying by flinging up debris. At home or in the studio. No. Just a lens hood.

rgrenaderphoto Loc: Hollywood, CA

Fine Doctor, here is an imaging study done by Breakthrough Photography, manufacturers of said recommended filters:

https://breakthrough.photography/pages/performance-gallery

Please notice the obvious color cast on B+W, Hitech and Lee filters. The difference is in the optical quality coatings Breakthrough uses.

Here's more evidence. I was leaving on a trip, and needed a polarizing filter for a Fuji 18-135 mm lens. Samys had a Heilopan in the correct size, and nothing else. Did not have time to order from Breakthrough.

One additional benefit of Breakthrough is in the width of the bezel, designed not to cause vignetting at wide focal lengths. The att image shows this dramatically. And before you ask, there was no lens hood in use. Another reason to spend on higher-quality filters.

(Download)

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

Tiffen makes both very high end, top quality filters (mostly for the movie industry).... as well as really cheap ones that will probably not be very kind to your images... they probably make some others that are "in between".... I don't know.

Like you, I don't use a UV (or clear) "protection" filter most of the time. I have them stored separate from my lenses in my camera bag and available for those times when one might actually serve a purpose... out in really nasty weather, shooting in a sandstorm, maybe photographing paintball warfare.... But all those are extremely rare. Usually I'm heading for cover when things get nasty and I can't remember the last time I witnessed a paintball battle. More common use for me, although still rare, I use a protection filter at the beach because salt air is hard to clean off optics and I'd rather wash a filter than a lens element.

I did use UV filters a lot back when I shot film... but that was because most film was overly sensitive to UV light, which caused a bluish haze in images. I lived in Colorado and often was shooting at high altitude a lot, too... where UV is even more prevalent. I wasn't using the filters "for protection". Personally I think it's pretty silly to think a thin piece of glass will do very much in the way of protecting a lens. In fact, over the years I've occasionally seen lenses damaged by broken filters. (I use lens hoods and lens caps to protect both the lens AND the filter!)

That said, there are times to use some "protection"... and IMO if the photo is worth taking it's worth using a high quality, multi-coated filter. I think it's a mistake to spend a ton of money on cameras, lenses and on taking a once-in-a-lifetime trip... then stick some cheap piece of glass between your lens and your subject! 8 or 9 out of 10 times a cheap filter may not be a problem... and probably 96 or 98 out of 100 times a high quality, multi-coated filter will be fine.... It's those few shots you take in more challenging lighting conditions when a filter can ruin a shot. (I had to spend hours correcting images a 2nd shooter took at one of my events, when he didn't listen to me when I asked him to remove filters from his lenses!)

I trust B+W MRC, F-Pro and XS-Pro filters. Those are what most of my filters are. They use top quality Schott glass and all their filters are mounted in brass frames to reduce chance of galling and getting stuck on a lens the way aluminum can. MRC and F-Pro are 8-layer multi-coated... XS-Pro are 16-layer "nano" multi-coated, which makes them easier to clean, more resistant to water, dust and finger oils. XS-Pro are also in "slim" frames to reduce chance of vignetting on ultrawide lenses, but their "standard" frames on the MRC/F-Pro series are already pretty low profile. I've never had a problem with them even on my widest lenses (17mm full frame, 10mm APS-C crop). B+W F-Pro and MRC series are basically the same. F-Pro is simply a relatively new series name they've been using. B+W also makes an "SC" series that's not multi-coated, but I wouldn't use those outdoors.

Heliopan, Hoya, Hitech Formatt and Breakthrough Photography all make some very good quality filters too. Heliopan's SH-PMC, Hoya's HD3 and Breakthrough's X4 series are very similar to B+W. Breakthrough makes a lower grade X2. Hoya makes a whole bunch of different series, and seems to change the names of them every few years, making it confusing.

There are other very good brands, too, I'm sure. Benro has recently introduced a series that sound good on paper. Another brand called "K&F" has recently popped up and their specifications sound really good. Cokin has long been known for inexpensive "plastic" filters, recently went through bankruptcy, was acquired and the new owners have introduced a "Nuances" filter series that have very high specifications.

I think most camera/lens makers own brands tend to be very over-priced. But Nikon "II" filters are top-quality and now are multi-coated... Nikon's previous filter series were not multi-coated. Canon's filters are not multi-coated, either. I don't know about Sony, but they are involved with Zeiss, who make some top quality filters. Lens maker Rodenstock has also made top quality filters, although I haven't seen them in stores lately and they seemed pricey last time I noticed them. Of course, B+W that I use and often recommend is actually a subsidiary of Schneider Kreuznach.... a high-end lens makers for over 100 years.

Prices are all over the map. I don't know what size you need, but just for example:

77mm Hoya HD3 UV.... $144
77mm Heliopan UV SH-PMC... $117
77mm Breakthrough Photography X4 UV... $99
77mm Formatt Hitech Skylight 1A... $63
77mm B+W XS-Pro UV.... $63
77mm Tiffen Digital HT UV... $49
77mm B+W MRC (F-Pro) UV... $45

Look for yourself:

https://www.adorama.com/l/Photography/Lens-Filters/Protective-Filters-hyphen-UV-and-Clear?sf=Price&st=de&perPage=60&sel=Coating_Multi-hyphen-Coated%7cCircular-Filter-Size_77mm

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search?Ns=p_PRICE_2%7c1&sortType=default&setIPP=72&ci=112&fct=fct_circular-sizes_27%7c77mm%2bfct_a_features_1266%7cmulti-coated&srtclk=itemspp&ipp=72&N=4026728358

Personally instead of clear I use UV filters for "protection", although digital cameras aren't susceptible to UV light the way film was in the past. The reason I use UV is because in some rare instances they also can be used to slightly reduce bluish haze in scenic shots ("skylight" and "haze" filters can act similarly).

toxdoc42

My last experience with Adorama was less than wonderful, so I will look elsewhere if I want any equipment. There are no readily accepted standards for testing, so we all take advice based on "experience." That may lead to selection bias. Your example of vignetting is interesting, it is a potential problem with any filter, but more so with polarized or variable neutral density so that the user has to be very careful when planning to use any filters on wide angle lenses.

aellman Loc: Boston MA

The wisest reply is above. Do your own test with and without an inexpensive filter in a number of lighting situations. If you can't tell the difference in results, you will have answered the question and saved some money.