To use a protective filter or not?

<p>Hi Everyone,<br>

In short, just wonder how many out there use a good (high-end) multicoated UV/NC filter on ALL their lens' for protection? My point....is it really worth it? Thom Hogan claims using UV/NC filters for protection as a gimmick. Are front elements expensive to replace? Myself, I've dropped a good amount of money on NC and UV filters for protection over the years. I believe filters have an application. I'm starting to second guess myself. I've heard scuttle about IQ degradation using filters UV protection, others claim it doesn't degrade anything or if it does it's too insignificant. I've read others claim that keeping the lens hood attached and using caution is all that's needed. My two cherished workers are the nikon 24-70 2.8, and after months of saving, and selling my VR I, I finally got the 70-200 VRII. For the most part, I do people shoots in and outdoors, really nothing in harsh conditions, however, for me these lens' were big investments as I don't make my living with photog. I did some closely controlled comparisons using UV/NC filters on my 24-70 2.8, and the 70-200 VRII both on and off. To be honest, the results were slight (close raw crops in NX2 and LR3). Oh well, decisions, decisions....to attach and leave on or not to attach.....jeeeeezzzz!!</p>

<p>I have UV filters, either Nikon of B+W, on all my lenses and have for the past forty years; they stay there. I have never had a scratched front element. On the other hand, I have never had a scratched filter either.</p>

<p><br />But I am certain that Murphy is alive and well, and the moment I take the filters off a violent sand storm will pit all my lenses. <grin></p>

<p>I use filters when I put down or carry my cameras. When I shoot, I take them off:)</p>

<p>No rules.<br>

If you are visiting a place where there is substances that may affect your glasses, use a filter.<br>

If ther eis a situation that the filter could affect the images and the images are improtant to you, why would you use a filter at all/</p>

<p>Use your common sense!<br>

Eric</p>

 

<p>Greg I'm sure you know there are pages of this debate around. Personally I think it's whatever works for you. I have some older Nikon lenses that have never seen a filter and often my daily lenses didn't even have caps, and they are still all perfect after countless cleanings with chamois and a huff of breath. So, there is a lot of hype about all this to consider. Currently out of my regularly used line up I have filters on three out of 10 lenses. My Nikkor 85 1.8 AF which I use a real lot and tend to bang around has a Tiffen Haze and big metal hood all the time. My 20+ year old Tamron 28-80 SP which also gets heavy use and is well worn in has a B+W K1.5 on it and my Hasselblad 50mm CF-fle has a Hasselblad UV on it, I just don't want a bunch of dirt and junk around the moving front element. Other than that I don't own any other Sky or UV filters.</p>

Greg, i have both of those lenses as well and i will agree its a hefty investment.

My experience has been that if your shooting in dusty,salty, windy or wet environments, then yes, put on

a filter that will protect the element from possible damage or debris.

The IQ is still the same so why not.

I use the B+W brand of filters and love the quality of the products they make.

<p>I shoot with Nikon F3HP and F2A film bodies. Film has less problems with filters than digital. All my lenses have protective filters on them. Image degradation with filters is infinitesimal, and I never look at my photos through a microscope.</p>

<p>Personal choice. I don't use them. I used to use them, but unless I know I am going someplace with wind blown sand, I don't. Just anther air/glass surface to cause issues. I do, however, always have lens hoods on my lenses. Otherwise, I go commando including no protective cover for the lcd screen.</p>

<p>Buy an expensive lens. Don't put a filter on it and take some photos. Put a filter on it and take some photos. Check out the difference and see what you think. I personally don't think a filter, cheap or expensive makes any difference at all except it protects you from stupid mistakes which I make a lot of because I like shooting in bad weather.</p>

<p>I use protective filters all the time, with very few exceptions, wind blown sand or not. Imagine a world where you never had to clean your windows or car windshield. The fact is there is plenty of dirt suspended in the air and that dirt is abrasive. Clearly, windy days increase the amount of particulates in the air and high humidity levels increase that dirt's ability to adhere to the soft coated surface of your lens. Speaking of humidity, I can recall countless times walking from a cold to warm environment and having my glasses and the front filter on my camera fog up. With a filter on it's a quick wipe (often with my t shirt), something I wouldn't consider doing to the front element of a lens unless I was just about to miss the shot proving aliens had decended from the heavens and were mutilating cattle while meeting with heads of State.</p>

 

<p>I keep filters on all my lens: I'd rather clean my fingerprints off a filter. That just me.</p>

<p>The only instance I've seen of it effecting a picture is night shots with strong light sources: a uv filter tends to increase the chance of stray light reflections.</p>

<p>This question pops up about once a month. Here's my experience. I once had a polarizer on my Nikon 80-400mm lens while setting it on a tripod. Wind blew it over and it landed "face" down on the lens. The filter shattered and gouged the lens element badly. My lens was damaged by a filter! Filters are very flimsy and when they break they can easily scratch up your lens. I now use a lens cap whenever not taking a shot. It is tough, almost bullet proof. I also use the lens hood to help keep stuff from hitting the lens. I am an outdoor "adventure" photographer and shoot almost daily in all the weather the Dakotas can throw at me. Lately I've been shooting in heavy dust and grit photo'ing corn harvesting and tractors disking fields. No problems at all without using fitlers. I never use UV filters. They have ruined a number of shots by introducing flare. Yes, even the very best Hoya SMC and B+W mrc coated filters still cause problems. I have very expensive Nikon f2.8 zooms like you do, don't ever use so-called "protection" filters, and all of my lenses are absolutely perfect. The way I look at it, a filter introduces more risk to my lenses than what it solves. Also, to buy a quality filter for EACH of my lenses would end up costing MORE than a repair! What's the sense in that? None. The purpose of filters is to pump up the profits of camera stores and nothing more. Modern lens coatings are now tougher than glass. The only thing that can easily scratch it are pieces from broken glass--such as a shattered filter.<br /><a href="http://www.luminous-landscape.com/columns/sm-feb-05.shtml">http://www.luminous-landscape.com/columns/sm-feb-05.shtml</a></p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

<p>You can always e-mail Nikon for a quote on the replacement cost of a front element for any Nikkor lens. If that cost exceeds the price of a filter, that would be a lesson learned in how not to save money...</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I use a lens hood to protect my lens when the camera is out. I put on the lens cap when I am not shooting, and take it off when I am. I feel this is the best protection and compromise.</p>

<p>I only use a filter when there is a creative effect that can't be done in post processing, such as a polarizer to eliminate reflections and/or darken a blue sky. Otherwise considering the conditions that I often shoot in, a "protection" filter is just an unnecessary expense, both in terms of to the wallet and to the image.</p>

 

<p>Googling on {+filters +protection +lens +site:photo.net} turned up over 2800 hits on this exact topic, just on photo.net. I'm not sure anything more can be added to that discussion.</p>

<p>Tom M</p>

 

 

<blockquote>

<p>I use filters when I put down or carry my cameras. When I shoot, I take them off:)</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br /><br />Lens caps would be cheaper (or free).</p>

<p>Yep....This question comes up often; too often.</p>

<p>Basic physics at work here.</p>

<p>1)Light entering a lens with a filter on must pass thru several mediums; all of which effect image quality. How much depends on filter quality.</p>

<p>AIR-GLASS-AIR-GLASS= refraction<br>

AIR-GLASS only= Less Refraction</p>

<p>2) Snapping or screwing on a lens filter assumes the lens mount is parallel to the primary external objective. I doubt many are.</p>

<p>Perhaps I've been lucky; I have never used a UV filter for it's imaginary protective attributes.</p>

<p>When I was a teenager, I worked at a 'mart' type store in their camera department. As a demo to show how durable the coating was on their lenses, a Pentax salesman that was visiting the store put his cigarette out on the lens, then cleaned it - the lens was unaffected.</p>

<p>Putting an inexpensive piece of glass (filter) on an expensive piece of glass (lens) just doesn't make sense to me. After 40+ years of doing photography, I have yet to damage a camera or lens. I never use filters for lens protection.</p>

 

<p>I would say I always have a filter. Except:<br />

<br />

I don't have one for my 8mm Peleng fish-eye, because it (obviously) won't take one. I have accidentally put it in the palm of my hand without having a cap on it (brain dead moment), which required some scrubbing with a lens cloth.<br />

<br />

I don't have one on my 14-24, because it won't take one. I got splashes from Niagara on it, which required professional cleaning, so I'd have been happier if there was a filter in the way.<br />

<br />

I don't have one on my 200 f/2, because it won't take one. Although it does have an integrated protective element. I've not done anything to it yet, fortunately.<br />

<br />

I don't have one on my 90mm Tamron, because the front element is - for a reason I can't really understand - literally centimetres behind the filter thread, so a UV is much more likely to flare than the lens itself. The protection seemed unnecessary.<br />

<br />

I *do* have one on my 28-200, but I keep forgetting to remove it when using a polariser - this is the only lens I have for which stacked filters vignette.<br />

<br />

Otherwise, I'd always use a filter to protect the lens. I wouldn't put a $100 filter on a $150 lens, but there are budget options. If there's a detectable image issue, I can always remove it. HTH.</p>

<p>@Tom Mann -- true, but then what would we do? :-)</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I once had a polarizer on my Nikon 80-400mm lens while setting it on a tripod. Wind blew it over and it landed "face" down on the lens. The filter shattered and gouged the lens element badly. My lens was damaged by a filter! Filters are very flimsy and when they break they can easily scratch up your lens.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Kent, I always find your logic on this topic convoluted. Filters are made from optical glass and so are lens elements. They are all fragile.</p>

<p>If the filter wasn't there, the impact would have shattered your front element instead. Who is to say that your broken front element wouldn't have scratched the element below it? Instead of appreciating the filter lessening the damage on your lens, you blame it. And where was your lens hood?</p>

<p>Last year I did the same stupid thing as Kent did: I left my 70-200mm/f2.8 AF-S VR attached to my D700 on my Gitzo under windy conditions. In no time the wind blew the whole thing over. The hood on the 70-200 saved the lens; there was not even a scratch on the filter in front. I only have my own carelessness to blame.</p>

<p>Protection filters are there to protect lenses from dust, mist, liquid spray, etc. etc. When they get dirty, I clean them with my shirt in the field so that my optical path is always clean and I get better images. Filters are made from glass; nobody should ever expect them to protect the lens from impacts.</p>

<p>By the way, Nikon clearly recommends using protective filters. They automatically include them on big lenses in these days. When I first bought my 200-400mm/f4 AF-S VR, I didn't even know that Nikon had shipped it with a clear filter attached; I only found out a few weeks later.</p><div></div>

<p>I rented a 180mm f2.8 one time which had a nick in the front element. Didn't cause a problem. Nothing visible in any of the images taken with that lens. BTW, I shoot with the Nikkor 24-70 and 70-200 VRII. Not inexpensive. My suggestion is still to do what you think best.</p>

<p>I second to; . . . "Thom Hogan claims using UV/NC filters for protection as a gimmick."</p>

<p>. . . "I have UV filters, either Nikon of B+W, on all my lenses and have for the past forty years; they stay there. I have never had a scratched front element. On the other hand, I have never had a scratched filter either."</p>

<p>Yes, he is right! . . . I have ben in a photo trip with my friend, ex camera store owner and become photographer. This subject come up, talking to a third person about this subject. I said; To day, the UV filter absolutely not necessary, and as a protection filter is a camera salesman's invention to sell you more gadget and make profit. You do not need a filter in the lens anymore if you using a DSLR camera, because it is on the sensor all ready! (more explanation exist, other places) Then; You so called protection filter do more harm then protecting you lens front elements. I personally witnessed, when a person getting up to the bus and the camera swigged, hit the doorframe a "little", and the front protector filter shuttered, scratching the front element of the lens. In an other case, the damaged filter do not wanted to come of the lend, and the person was not able to use this lens in the trip. Then as I see all the time, People, specially amateurs, keep cleaning the filter all the time, with the microfiber cleaning cloth, they using year after year, collecting all the microscopic dust particles and polishing, scratching they so called "protection filters". The real protection for you front element, always, . . . THE HOOD! . . . The hood protecting you lens not only for the sun or unwanted light to hit the front of you lens, it protecting you lens more then uniting else! Unfortunately most of the amateurs, and some of the advanced amateurs too, do not know this, because the gather they knowledge from a camera salesman, or and other unskilled photographer. And the camera salesperson don't going to tell you all this, and as my friend listen this story, he laughed laud, agreeing with me, and even repeated all this, calling all those people suckers. The misconception of amateurs, you has to clean you lens all the time is wrong! A blower of air just enough if you see visible dust, or any other stuff on you lens. A couple of fine dust particle never going to ruin technically your image, you bad handling of you camera, lens, etc, etc will do! The only time you has to clean you front element, if you left a fingerprint on you lens, because you clumsy handling of it. But then, use a disposable lens cleaning, or a fresh microfiber material, "after you blown of the fine dust of the lens with a good air blower"! . . . Yes, the so called protection filter is a GIMIC as Tom Hogan put it in the right way. With the protection filter, you protecting the camera store profit, not your lens. Period. Please excuse my poor English.</p>

<p>I always use a UV filter on my lenses. They are a lifesaver if you get sloppy and do not put lenses away properly. Last year, I was shooting pictures and I decided to change lenses and put m Nikon 105mm/F2.8 on the back seat of the car and got my 35 out of the camera case and continued shooting. I forgot about the 105 and when I got home I pulled the camera bag out of the back seat and pulled the 105 with it. The lens hit the concrete from about 2 feet + off the ground and rolled. When I picked it up, I saw that the filter rim was bent and the filter cracked, but the lens was not damaged. The filter was good insurance. Now I make sure all the lenses are secure in the bag before I move it.</p>

<p>Shun--<br>

My point was more that if I had NO filter on but had been using the lens cap as I should, there would have been no damage to the front element. The damage was caused by a filter being there instead of a lens cap. As it was I had to pay for both a repair AND a new expensive filter. In my own experience, filters just don't really protect anything. I shoot in truly nasty conditions with all kinds of stuff blowing around, and yet the glass on my lenses is perfect. I am very careful to always use lens hoods and lens caps. If a lens cap is on, nothing will get past it. I've seen many amateur photographers stick lenses in their pockets where their filters get all scratched up from other junk in the pocket (e.g. keys, pocket knife, etc.) and say, "I'm glad I had a filter on--it took all the scratches!" To me this is ridiculous. They ended up replacing expensive filters. If they were using lenscaps there would have been no damage at all. I am careful to not put lenses into pockets that have metal objects in them in the first place. I think that filters provide a sense of false security and may even encourage such careless handling.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>