Help w/ my 50mm f1.2 L, whats wrong with this pic?

[jim_larson1]

<p>All I know is that I have wrecked one or two filters in my day.<br>

Hoods on many lenses these days tend to be big, wide, shallow, flower pedal things which look like they provide little to no protection.<br>

And while there are many places where I remove my filters for shots, there are also many places where I much rather be wiping ambient <em>crap</em> with my sleeve off a filter (salt, snow, sand) than off a front element</p>

[saskphotog]

<p>I have filters that I use in "dangerous" territory for only my wide lenses because sometimes wide lenses get very close to the action. With that said........</p>

<p>In 45 years of taking pictures I have never had anything happen to a lens that a filter would have prevented. In that time I have seen many obvious examples of instances where a filter caused a problem with the picture quality. I have also never seen anyone give an example of where a filter saved a lens from damage that was conclusive, and could not be attributed to just luck. If stuff gets on my lenses, I clean them off. Never had a problem with that process.</p>

<p>Filters cannot improve image quality. Many times they make no visible difference. Sometimes they cause real problems. Good ones are quite expensive. Lenses are designed and built to work without them. I don't want to stick an afterthought piece of glass on a well designed lens for every shot it takes just in case something might happen to it one day that might be thwarted by a filter. </p>

<p>It just doesn't make sense to me except for those filters that have specific photographic effects like ND or Polarizers, or when faced with real and present dangers.</p>

[hjoseph7]

<p>"In 45 years of taking pictures I have never had anything happen to a lens that a filter would have prevented. In that time I have seen many obvious examples of instances where a filter caused a problem with the picture quality.<br>

I use filters for protection or special effects, but I know when to take them off. if i'm shooting close-ups, I usually take the filter OFF. At night OFF it goes, at a wedding ON it goes, sorry but with all that food and grease around aroung I don't take any chances, Beach ON, rain ON, out in nature (no rain OFF). At the Auto repair ON it goes. Doctors office OFF it goes again.<br>

The picture above obviously suffers form Ghosting . That's when yo use a filter on your lens at night or in dim light no expensive lens, or filter would have prevented that.</p>

[chrisjb]

<p>Hmm, so filters degrade as they can`t improve a photo? I thought polarizers reduced reflections, and UV reduced haze in some circumstances? Never seen 2 pics taken with and without a Good clean filter, demonstrating this huge amount of degrading. Deep recessed front elements such as the ef50 f1.4 is bound to reflect some light at angles. I have not seen a ef50 1.2L so don`t know how deep the front is. Rarely ever see probs in niteclubs with 50 f1.8. I use Hoya `Skylights` (for warmer skin tones) and hoods on all lenses all indoors at nite in all situations including stage, The hoods made a huge difference specially contrast with reduced side reflections, Some times as you may be lookin up, the angle may contribute to an unavoidable reflection/flare.</p>

<p>I had a strap break droppin a T90 metz 60 and 28 85 f4, hit concrete on the run. the filter smashed ok as the rig landes on the rim. 50$ and a new filter cheaper than 300 for an element and the wait. Also had filters damaged by patrons and swinging trays from waiters, corners of tables and grog thrown around. Sometimes they are necessary. Folks are set in their ways with these things, but its just another accessory to be used when needed. For the OP I`d at least have the hood on :) be interesting if you see any difference which ever way you go...cheers</p>

[unangelino]

<p>I nominate Sarah Fox as the most informative, well reasoned & level headed thread-to-thread contributor on Photo.net. What a breath of fresh air. However, I have found myself drifting away (rapidly) from protective filters, even good ones. I know that Sarah is technically correct but I just don't like glass in front of my glass. I have an especially strong knee-jerk reaction to using such filters on the mediocre lenses that I own. What could be worse that stacking OK glass in front of a bunch of marginal glass? I have chosen to fear potentially compromised optics more than a damaged front element. Call me a daredevil.</p>

[angel_bocanegra]

<p>Thanks you all Sarah and Harry Joseph. I found your comments to be the most helpful. Although all were good comments too. I'll be a wise man and learn from the experience of others, in this case about 45 years from Harry :). I am also a daredevil and have taken off my german made flat glass so well coated that a drop of water just slides off with minimal almost zero friction and shoot with the hood on. I'll put it back on just in case I am shooting in extreme conditions. </p>

[unangelino]

<p>Way to go, Angel.<br>

Say, adios to fear & join me on the tightrope.</p>