Advice for a lens filter (Page 4): I am a practical person when it comes to photography and if I can protect an expensive lens from dust, scratches, etc. I think an accessory like a...

f32clubmember Loc: Maple Valley, WA

I am a practical person when it comes to photography and if I can protect an expensive lens from dust, scratches, etc. I think an accessory like a filter, that does not noticeably effect the quality of the image is worth the cost of that filter. If a situation comes up where I am shooting in a sterile environment I can simply remove the filter and shoot without it.
I used to shoot NHRA events where I worked in and around the starting line and when a fuel dragster or funny car does a strong burnout it produces clouds of smoke that include tiny bits of sticky rubber to adhere to everything, clothes, skin and camera equipment. In this case a filter is much easier to clean than a lens. The same was true when shooting off-road racing where one is constantly getting covered with drifting clouds of dust.

cjc2 Loc: Hellertown PA

CHG_CANON wrote:

B+W MRC XS-PRO Clear - not the most expensive, but simply the best.

ABSOLUTELY!!!!!!

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

cjc2 wrote:

ABSOLUTELY!!!!!!

Some choices.

https://www.amazon.com/s?k=B%2BW+MRC+XS-PRO+Clear&crid=KJYHTO20WQGB&sprefix=b%2Bw+mrc+xs-pro+clear%2Caps%2C472&ref=nb_sb_noss_2

gwilliams6

rmorrison1116 wrote:

I'm guessing you are using a digital camera. You don't need a filter for everyday photography. If you want a filter to protect the lens, the lens cap and hood will do a much better job than a really thin piece of glass.

Not true, sorry. You dont shoot with a lens cap on (when not shooting, yes I do keep my lens caps on) , and a lens hood (which I do use always) will NOT protect from direct intrusion from blowing sand, grit, rocks and worse. In reality I have had filters shatter from direct impacts, but that took the hit rather than the front element of my lenses. Just the reality and worth the protection.

I have over 50 years of real-world pro experience, shooting all subjects in all conditions around the world including war conflict, to back up my comments.

Cheers and best to you.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

Obviously, we all look at things through the filter of our own experiences.

gwilliams6

CHG_CANON wrote:

Obviously, we all look at things through the filter of our own experiences.

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

cjc2 wrote:

ABSOLUTELY!!!!!!

Except the XS-PRO series is no longer manufactured. It was replaced by the B+W Master series.

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

davidrb wrote:

Have never heard of a filter titled “for everyday” anything. If you desire to protect the front element a lens hood is a much better choice. A filter of any type will degrade your image, a fact of life. Hoods are designed for this purpose while filters are not. The ONLY “everyday” anything in photography is the weather and that is also a fact.

Prove it degrades that any human can tell.
If you use a polarizer or a nd filter by your definition those photos are also garbage and not worth taking or showing.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

Successful photographers understand the difference in 0.3% transmission of light.

aflundi Loc: Albuquerque, NM

I've almost always used B+W clear filters for lens protection in the past, but recently tried the Blue Armor Pro X UV 1.1 filter sold by Blue Frog Filters out of curiosity. It is supposedly up to 5 times stronger than conventional filters, and does appear to have high quality glass and coatings as well as a non-aluminum frame ("strong copper alloy"). I bought the same size you'll need, 67mm, for $60.50 so I saved a little money. I have not yet found anything bad to say about it compared to the B+W filters I'm used to.

BTW, if you have a protective filter on your lens, you can always take it off for important shots if you feel the need, while having coating protection against fingerprint oils and light brushes and scrapes the rest of the time.

wdross Loc: Castle Rock, Colorado

Ioannis wrote:

I just received my new lens Canon EF-S 18-135 mm and I need advice for a lens filter for everyday photography.

The only working filter needed would be a polarizer. Using the lens hood, UV filter, Skylight filter, or clear glass filter are other optional filters. The only other working filter that one might want would be a neutral density filter.

You will find there is a lot of various opinions as to the use of UV filter, Skylight filter, or clear glass filter and/or lens hood for lens protection. A clear filter is at least advisable in harsh environments (weld shop, steel mill, etc.).

leftj Loc: Texas

therwol wrote:

I can see where this might go. The debate will never end. I personally use filters on my lenses for protection. Others say they're unnecessary and degrade your images. I think that there are circumstances where both opinions can be right.

I do use clear filters primarily to help with protection. UV filters no. They are only for film, not digital.

Canisdirus

I don't want another piece of glass unless I have to.

You ALWAYS keep your lens hood on...always. Any drop without it...and Murphy will land that lens right on the filter threads. A lens hood prevents that from occurring...99% of the time. Clutzy folks ruin stats.

So...lens hood on...no real need for otherwise useless filter.

I go one step further and use these...work very well...come off in a flash...padded sides...hard protective flat cap.

best part...goes over my lens hoods...that way...you get it all.

EDIT: Just ran across this on Amazon...Pelican brand...never used them...but on sale right now...I just bought two...why not.

The image below is what I use currently.

https://www.amazon.com/Pelican-Outdoor-Silicone-Weather-Sealing/dp/B093QKN98P/ref=sr_1_3?keywords=polar%2Bpro%2Blens%2Bcap&sr=8-3&th=1

gwilliams6

Canisdirus wrote:

I don't want another piece of glass unless I have ... (show quote)

I guess you just dont shoot enough in enough situations. NO lens hood can protect from direct intrusion from flying debris, grit, sand, etc. that can scratch and/or etch your unprotected front lens element, even fully coated front lens elements.

I know this from decades of real-world experience. I use both my lens hoods and my protective filters, far more effective than just lens hoods alone. Just a fact.

Dont believe the reality, then take your camera and unprotected lens with its lens hood on outside and toss or blow some grit or sand or other fine debris directly at it and see if that lens hoods stops all of it from reaching your front lens element.

Cheers and best to you.

Canisdirus

gwilliams6 wrote:

I guess you just dont shoot enough in enough situations. NO lens hood can protect from direct intrusion from flying debris, grit, sand, etc. that can scratch and/or etch your unprotected front lens element, even fully coated front lens elements.

I know this from decades of real-world experience. I use both my lens hoods and my protective filters, far more effective than just lens hoods alone. Just a fact.

Cheers and best to you.

Why I use the caps I posted...no glass...full protection.