fantom Loc: Colorado

:thumbup:

Jim Bob

:thumbup:

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

I have "protective" filters for all my lenses. They are stored separately, off the lens, in my camera bag, ready to be used on those rather rare occasions when they might actually serve a purpose.

IMO, it's rather silly to expect a thin piece of glass to provide much actual "protection". In fact, I've seen several lenses scratched by broken filters! (Not my lenses, thankfully.)

A lens hood when shooting... or a lens cap when storing provide much better protection than a filter ever could.

Although any filter will reduce image quality to some extent, under ideal conditions with a high quality, multi-coated filter it will be very, very little loss. Almost imperceptible. Under more demanding lighting conditions, even good quality filters can be more of a problem. But cheap filters with poor quality glass and only single coated or uncoated are likely to cause image problems in a lot more conditions... image blur, loss of detail, increased chromatic aberrations, more of various types of flare and ghosting, even focus problems.

If you're looking to produce the best images possible with your cameras and lenses, leave the filter off most of the time. Only use filters when they serve a "real" purpose that will improve the image (such as a circular polarizer can do). On the other hand, if it's more important to you to feel like your gear is protected... if that's what's necessary to make you more comfortable getting out and shooting with it... go ahead and use a protective filter. Just avoid too cheap filters that can cost a lot of image quality. And don't put too much faith in that filter... In fact it's even more important to use the lens hood when shooting and cap when storing, whenever you're using a filter!

The whole concept of "protective" filters probably got started with pros who, back in the days of film, frequently fitted their lenses with UV or Sky filters. But, the reason they did so is because slide films typically were overly sensitive to UV light... Not using the filter as some form of physical "protection". When I was shooting slides I did that. I also used mild warming filters (81A, 81B) a lot, both to reduce UV and make images even warmer. There also were (still are, actually) combination filters... polarizers that also provide slight warming.

Folks saw this being done, especially with UV/Sky filters, and mistakenly thought it was for some sort of "protection" and that they'd better do it too, even though the filters served little purpose when shooting with color neg film. Camera stores were only too happy to sell high profit margin accessories whether they serve any purpose or not. Fast forward to today... DSLRs do not have issues with UV light. In fact, most have some built-in UV filtration. And White Balance can easily be custom set at the time of the shot... or changed in post-processing to give the same effect as a warming filter.

So today I still carry UV filters... though they aren't on my lenses all the time. There are still some situations such as haze in a scenic shot where a UV filter can serve more than just for questionable "protection".

Other filters I still carry include C-Pol (the most useful by far... a lot it can do can't be well replicated in post processing). I also carry some portrait-specific softening filters. And Neutral Density.

I no longer carry color conversion and color correction filters... had dozens of those when I shot film. And more recently I've stopped carrying Graduated Neutral Density, since I've learned I can get the same effects with much more precision using post-processing techniques.

Bultaco Loc: Aiken, SC

Well said, the subject has been gone over to many times in the past.

DJO

The purpose of a lens hood is to block unwanted light. Period. You should have one on your lens at all times, indoors or out. I shouldn't have to explain why. Try this experiment: drop your camera and your most expensive lens on to a terrazzo floor from a distance of about five feet. Your lens hood will go flying across the room. The glass of your UV (or whatever) filter will shatter and its rim will have a dent in it preventing it from being unscrewed. Does this mean it was a bad idea to have used a filter? Quite the opposite. The rim of your LENS is not dented, which would prevent you from ever using a filter again. Same for some types of lens hoods. The glass in your LENS is non cracked or chipped. Take out your swiss army knife and use the can opener to straighten the filter ring enough to unscrew it, carefully remove any
broken glass remaining from the filter, put the lens hood back on and finish the job.

Some pros use filters, some don't. The PROFESSIONAL shooters you mention usually have assistants to take care of their equipment for them. If you think a filter is degrading your image you need a better one, or you're not using lens shade or using it properly, or you're nuts. In my very experienced PROFESSIONAL opinion, use both, at all times. I' sure this debate will go on forever.

photoman022 Loc: Manchester CT USA

:thumbup:

dickwilber Loc: Indiana (currently)

I worked in a camera store for a short period of time a generation or so back. I got into difficulty with the owner at one time for not pressing the sale of a UV filter with all new camera or lens purchases. The reason: the unconscionably high profit margin he realized on UV filters; helping offset his minuscule profit margin on many cameras and lenses. For this reason, new photographers have almost always been led to believe they are getting more protection from these bits of cheap glass than they actually are.

In extreme conditions like a sand storm, they will provide protection for the front element of the lens, but then the entire camera system is probably being exposed to conditions it is not designed for. Impact protection? Some, but your hood is better (though DJO is correct about the purpose of the hood).

It's OK to use a protective filter, but make sure it is of good quality, and very clean. And always keep your hood on, and always have your primary lens front element protection in place, its lens cap, when not actually taking a picture. And to DJO's test of dropping the lens on a terrazzo floor from five feet, I'd advise to then send the lens to the factory to check against internal damage and alignment problems.

Jackdoor Loc: Huddersfield, Yorkshire.

At last! True knowledge and common sense rather than hordes of people who are simply demonstrating what statisticians call 'Confirmation bias'.

DJO

Hello dickwilber-
The terrazzo floor test is a true story. Of course a fall like that can put the mount or a glass element out of alignment and I did send it to Nikon. I don't recall what the damage was or if there was any at all other than a few scratches on the lens barrel. They sent me a loaner to use while they checked it out. My point is that the lens wasn't ruined. The type of problems you mentioned can be fixed. My lens came back to me as good as new. As I mentioned before, at impact the lens shade immediately went flying across the room, It was the filter that saved my bacon. If people (including myself) remember to call it a lens SHADE instead of a lens hood, it might remind them that it's not a lens PROTECTOR and what its real purpose is.

Marionsho Loc: Kansas

Makes a lot of sense. Not sure if you can convince many others of it though. :lol:

imagesintime Loc: small town, mid-America

As you can see, it really is a personal choice. Keep in mind that some lens manufacturers do not consider the climate protection of a lens completed until you place a filter on the front.

Reinaldokool Loc: San Rafael, CA

:thumbup: :thumbup:

That's my attitude. I only use high quality, multi-coated, thin UV filters and I can detect no degradation (Though I have a friend who says all my photos are degraded. ;-)

I haven't bought a $15 filter. Is that like Vivitar or Neewar? I only use Kenko Hoya. (Tiffen used to be top quality, but now not so much) B+W is good according to reports. I don't know who makes Canon's filters but they claim to be made in Japan and I know that the quality is good.

NormPR

I was setting up for a starry sky shot on a mountaintop and it was pitch black out, took the hood off my 10/24 lens and put it on the tripod. I turned around with my flashlight to get my cable release out of my back pack and I heard a sudden crash, I turned around and the camera was flat on it's face. All I could see all around it was broken plastic and glass, some dumbass, (me) forgot to tighten one of the sections of the tripod legs. I figured I would have to use a different lens for my shoot, after I picked it up I found the lens cap had shattered and the uv filter was shattered but the lens was fine no damage whatsoever, I will always keep the filter on all my lenses. That was so close to loosing a $500 lens.

anotherview Loc: California

Accidents happen anyway. A lens filter can protect the lens face from expensive damage. I've that experience twice, with the filter protecting the lens face.

lamiaceae Loc: San Luis Obispo County, CA

I'm having a hard time buying that. Why can't I get human snot off used lens elements then. I do believe quartz (sand) Mohs Hardness scale 7, is harder than glass 5.5. Feldspars (dirt) is harder than glass as well. A common iron nail is not as hard as quartz or glass. Hardness is deceptive to the general public. Many scales too.