filters

[john_wallace2]

I have a number of lens for a 35 mm camera. Each lens has a uv filter

to mainly protect the lens from dirt and scratches. So I have a 400

dollar lens protected by a 18 dollar piece of glass. I started

thinking about the optical effects that filter is having on my

photographs. Any thoughts.

[alexznidarsic]

Worrywort, nothing to fret about as long as filter is clean clear glass it will not affect anything (at least nothing that you can detect with your eyes). What is more important - surface of the lens or slight loss of light which is negligable?!

[skipd]

Look at this web site for the answer to your question: http://www.photo.net/mjohnston/column66/

 

You would be MUCH better off using no filter and making sure you are always using a properly designed lens hood for each lens. Hoods not only shield the lens from stray light sources that can cause flare, but they act as a mechanical "bumper" protecting the lens from day-to-day impact with all sorts of things. They will also keep your fingers off the front lens element.

 

The only time I would suggest that someone consider a filter for protection is when you expect the lens to be impacted with blowing sand, salt water, etc.

 

It is easy to clean normal dust and dirt off a lens. 90% of the time, all you need is a squeeze-bulb blower and for the remaining cleanings (a few times a year) a pack of lens tissues and little bottle of lens cleaning fluid is all you'll need.

[ivan_dzo]

John, I've got dozens of lenses that I've used for decades. I'd have wasted thousands of dollars on good quality UV protection filters over these years for NOTHING. I'venever scratched a lens over this period.

 

But on Sunday I dropped my "pride and joy" new 200mm f2.8 onto concrete, nose first. I had a metal lens hood fitted, that has been buckled and is now reasonably straightened. The lens is fine. That's protection. A UV filter would have smashed and the shards of glass scratched the front of the lens. Not a great help. Save your money for film/lenses/booze!

[skipd]

I didn't write it in my previous post, but I have never used filters for protection in my 40 years plus as a photographer and none of my lenses have any damage to the glass (though the paint is badly worn on many of my old Nikon lenses).

 

I dropped a Nikon F with a 28mm lens onto concrete in 1967. Like the previous poster, the lens hood buckled in and absorbed the shock. The body took a cosmetic ding on one bottom corner. Except for replacing the lens hood (for cosmetic reasons) I never had to have the body or lens repaired. Both work fine today.

 

Had I taken the approach of a lot of amatuers today that a filter alone is the best protection, my lens and possibly the body would likely have been destroyed.

[tito sobrinho]

I've been photographing since 1956 and have never used a "protection" filter. Could you imagine protection filters for all my LF lenses? Older and newer ones?

 

Protection filters, were a gimmick used by the over the counter seller in order to make a few extra "bucks" when selling a lens! The idea caught on.

[john_wallace2]

Thanks folks I appreciate your words. I can't help but believe that light passing through a piece of glass shifts a little and has some slight impact on the final product. Thanks again for the words I have just taken all the filters off my lens. I like Ivan's advise film/lenses/booze. I have the film and lenses now I have to re-stock my bar. till next time