Urnst Loc: Brownsville, Texas

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

An ounce of prevention is worth more than a three pounds of hope.

azted Loc: Las Vegas, NV.

With a camera like an RX-10, you should definitely have a clear filter to protect the lens. Your only problem was buying a cheap filter. However, leave it on there until you get a new one! Do not take the chance that you may damage that beautiful Zeiss glass!

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

Sometimes it is difficult to cut through the confusion. When it comes to the ever-present "protection" filter question there is so much uninformed information, so please allow me to sort it out.

The Ultra Violet and "Skyliigh" filters, originally, were not necessarily intended for lens protection. They were designed to FILTER the UV part of the spectrum that causes a bluish cast or color shift with colr films. This issue was very prevalent when the main lighht source was a skylight, open shade, and somewhat overcast weather. The problems also occurred when many color films were exposed to electronic flash, which has a high UV content. Wedding and fashion photograher often experienced distinct bluish or cyan cast ultra-white weddingg gowns and veils and other garments because of UV brightness in the fabric and would incorporate a UV filter on the lens and an additional UV filter on the flash head. Some manufacturers of transparency film recommend the use of a UV-16 with electronic flash. Flash equipment manufacturers made flash tubes in a UV-absorbent envelope. Since the UV filter was basically colorless many photogher used it for lens protection.

Digital sensors do not react to UV light the same as their film predecessors. Many photographers still use their UV and skylight filters for lens protection. My experience is thathe are mostly colorless and the stronger models like the UV-16 have a slight warming effect-similar to an 81A. Nowadays, of course, CLEAR protection filters are available from the major makers and suppliers.

Confusion? So, folks insist they do not need a UV filter since they are not shooting film. They might however need one, or a clear filter if they are working in certain hazardous conditions. They say "I haven't used a UV or skylight filter since..." and that is fine as long as they do not need to worry about lens damage,
they do work in conditions where lens damage is a distinct possibility, or they don't care about protecting their lenses and still refuse the use any filters, that's their right. prerogative, and privilege but they should not necessarily advise others to take that risk.

Here's my protocol. In my portrat studio, since going to digital, I no longer use any protective filters. I keep my lenses clean with compressed air and gently remove and smug with recommended tissues, etc. It's the same with in-studio product shots, the occasion fash shoot, etc.

Location work is another issue. I do a lotsof commercial and industrial work in factories, commercial manufacturing kitchens, restaurant kitchens in rather confined spaces, and demolition and construction sites. These can be the equivalent, for your lenses, of working in a jungle, dangerous bush, or in a war zone. There is steam, splatter, airborne particles, sparks, fumes, the aftermath of explosive usage, and harmful substances in use such as super-aggressive adhesives. sprayed on lacquers, paints and solvents, extremely viscose lubricants, and abrasives. If even a little of this stuff lands on your lens it will cause irreparable damage to the front element. I have had to discard more than a few protection filters.

It's like the literature that comes with your prescription medications and outlines the side effects. It says your doctor has weiged the risks against the benefits and thus has prescribed this medication. In this case, YOU are the doctor. It is a fact that anythig you place on a lens has the potential for image degradation. The well-crafted, coated, top-of-the-line filters will minimize this potential to the degree that any aberration or defect will only be detectable by precise instrumentation and will usually be infinitesimal.

There are certain situations where I will avoid a filter. Even my best-coated filter can increase the potential of flare, especially in backlighted scenarios. This is simply a problem of adding more glass surfaces to the light path. This can occur in out-of-doors location portraiture or many industrial situations- so probably out of paranoia, I nix the filter. Oftentimes, I know in advance that certain of my images will end up in extremely large prints or display screens, so I might opt to go without the protection even in hazardous conditions. I have, on the other hand, had certain images, unexpectedly end up on photomurals, billboards, or made into sizable display portraots- filter in use and no IQ issues! Again, on the other hand, if I need a CPL to increase saturation or negate certain reflect or use and ND to prolong exposure time or reduce DOP, I have to make a compromise decision. Y'all should consider the same approach and with the benefits against th side effects.

Speak of flare- let's talk lens shades or hoods. Since a filter can invite a bit more flare it is best, when using any filter, clear, UV, CPL, or ND, to use a good and as deep as possible lens shade or hood. It is a good practice, even without filters in use. I have the appropriate shads for all my lenses as well as several bellows or compendium shades that can be adjusted within a few millimeters before they cause vignetting- this is for some serious backlighting situations.

There is some mythology about lens shades for protection. Yes, some will prove protection against accidental finger smudging while handling the camera and may deflect some perils like scratching the lenses with twigs, or other sharp protuberances in the bush, hhey will not, however, protect from head-on contact with any such hazard, nor will effectively deflect against any airborne gases, fumes, abrasive or adhesive particles, steam, salt air or water. What is worse, even the best filter will not do much good in a significant direct impact- the filter ain't bulletproof and will only shatter and exacerbate any lens damage from anything that can perforate and break the filter. In the event of a serious accidental impact, a large lens shade can also worsen the damage to a lens while adding additional leverage to any knock, jolt, or smack that may be inflicted on the lens or filter mount. This is why some folks prefer rubber or flexible shades.

Equipment, especially fine lenses are costly and the prices are increasing steadily. Lessee is becoming more complex and sophisticated and can no longer be easily repaired or even cleaned by small independent shops- if you can find one or if your favorite repair guy can even get the parts. Ever send a lens back to Zeiss, Hasselblad, Leitz, Nikon, Canon, etc for reconditioning? It is easy to mistake the invoice amount for the international phone number including the extension.

So, remember YOU are the doctor and you have to use common sense, get tal facts, and make your own decisions.

I am sorry if this has gone the way off the OP's topic If his problem was caused by a filter, it had to be made the bottom of a soft drink bottle to cause that much of a mess. Even a filter that is designed to cause internal blur, a soft-focus effect, or a misty look would not introduce such blur.

These DIY tests can be misleading- there's no control. At least use a dece test target or a flat newsprint item. Light the target evenly and expose it properly, Make cert the came and test targets are parallel, and use a tripod and cable reald or electron trigger device. focus carefully and do not, at first. don't microscopy examine the image or enlarge a tiny section. First, view it under normal conditions and introduce magnifications later, to analyze and verify your results.

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

Your filter is not noted for top quality.
Hoya makes some of the best filters available, frequently superior to B+H and others.

But here on UHH it seems to be that everyone does NOT use a UV/Clear filter unless they have a gun to their head.
So why are you even using a UV filter to begin with? Is there an environment that is dangerous for the lens? If so then fine it will have value. Modern coatings, unless really abused, are pretty indestructible and are easily cleaned.
PS, no perceptible blur is acceptable for me.

bwana Loc: Bergen, Alberta, Canada

Agreed! I have a couple of Vivitar filters and lens; all bottom end!

bwa

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

This is exactly why you - AND - everyone else should be using NO filter I also recommend a good rubber hood because of the possibility of hitting a hard plastic or metal lens hood and damaging the seemingly fragile large ratio zoom lens of the RX10m3 !

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

- I can't believe this is even up for discussion !

Spirit Vision Photography Loc: Behind a Camera.

Do not go through Amazon or E-bay for filters or cards. Also, the Marumi Super DHG filters are very good too.

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

Wow, I wonder what the total on that bill is ! ?

Spirit Vision Photography Loc: Behind a Camera.

It's been proven many times, that a very high quality filter will have no visible affect on our images. HIGH quality is the operative choice here.

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

That's good .... YOU make the operative choice and pay the operative price ...

IDguy Loc: Idaho

None. Dump the UV.

photoman43

There is no universal answer that will apply to all photographers and all shooting situations. Just do what is best for each particular situation.

Adverse situations in the wild may require filters and hoods as conditions may be wet and cold. I still remember when I saw a 24-70 f2.8 or a 70-200 f2.8 lens get hit with snow geese poop when the temp was about 10 degrees F. The lens had no filter and the hot poop cracked the front element of the lens. The snow geese were taking off in early morning at Bosque del Apache and flew directly at at photographers with cameras pointed at the snow geese. My camera survived but you should have seen all of the bird poop on the hood of my SUV. Some of the poop patties were 2-3 inches in diameter.

larryepage Loc: North Texas area

There is nothing that requires that a good quality filter degrade an image AT ALL. But there are a lot of little thoughtless things that can cause it to happen. For instance, if you see a spot of contamination on the front of your filter and wipe it off with your shirt or with your handkerchief (or any other item of clothing) and fabric softener was used in the washer of a dryer sheet was used in the dryer, you will now have a greasy area on your filter. If you had done the same thing to the front element of a lens without a filter, exactly the same thing would have happened. Some eyeglass cleaners will do the same thing, because they contain additives to make your glasses repel water.

If your psyche requires that you not put a filter on the front of your lens, then don't put a filter on the front of your lens. If, like me, you have had a couple of experiences that suggest that some level of protection is likely to save you some money and a great deal of heartache, then keep a good quality fiter installed.

But what is not at all needed is a bunch of pontificating of made up stuff to try to make a claim that your way is the only way, and everyone else must be an idiot. Photography doesn't need it, as mostly old people our blood pressure doesn't need it, and, quite frankly, this site doesn't even need it.