Epiphany Report, or Am I doing the right thing by ditching filters for good?

[blanston]

<p>I have lots of nice Nikon glass, including two recent acquisitions, an 85mm f/1.4D AF Nikkor, and a Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8G ED AF-S Nikkor. I am enjoying both lenses immensely.</p>

<p>Shortly after I purchased the lenses, I dutifully purchased two 77mm Nikon Protection filters to "protect" them.</p>

<p>Last week, I was having a conversation with a professional photographer, who told me that I should take the filters off all of my lenses, as even the very good filters (B+W, Nikon, etc.) aren't as good for your images as no filter at all.</p>

<p>I took what he said to heart and, since I use hoods on most of my lenses & can't imagine how anything could damage my front element anyway, removed the filters from all of my lenses. I have decided to sell every filter I own.</p>

<p>It's too late to return the two 77mm filters, unfortunately, but I just put up a Craigslist posting with no less than 31 (thirty-one) Nikon, Hoya, and Tiffen filters of various types and diameters, and I am considering putting the two recent Nikon 77s up for sale on Amazon (as "used").</p>

<p>Comments, or advice? By the way, I am an eclectic, enthusiastic, and experienced (though not necessarily good) shooter. I use a D700 body with all that glass, and do all my post with Lightroom, so I can't imagine why I will ever need a filter again, except possibly a circular polarizer.</p>

<p>Thanks in advance for your comments.</p>

<p> </p>

[JDMvW]

<p>You've been a member for a long time, Robert, but I'm guessing you haven't spent a lot of time browsing here recently?<br /> Anyhow, here's one long discussion of the topic of protection filters, or not or what kind..... (<a href="../nature-photography-forum/00UMiU">link</a> ). If you Google™ just Photo.net for "are filters worth it" and similar phrases in quotes, you will find much discussion, nearly all the same, time after time after time.....</p>

<p>You don't say what kind of filters you're selling. If they are all UV filters or some such, that's one thing, but there are things like special effects filters and polarizers that can produce results very difficult to duplicate even in Photoshop, much less the restricted editing features in Lightroom.</p>

<p>By the way, my favorite personal event was my apotheosis, rather than my epiphany ;)</p>

[Spearhead]

<blockquote>

<p>Last week, I was having a conversation with a professional photographer, who told me that I should take the filters off all of my lenses...I took what he said to heart</p>

</blockquote>

<p>So one person told you that filters shouldn't be on lenses and you are selling off what you have?<br /><br>

I see that as bad advice. It depends on whether or not you need them. My camera (and me) got sprayed with blood on Saturday night shooting professional fights. I shot the next day at the beach. I have been sprayed with - in addition to blood - sweat, beer and champagne while shooting. </p>

<p>There is no way that someone could tell me that, I would stop thinking about what I shoot, and sell off my protective filters. Think about what you are doing first, and then about what people are telling you. You're never going to shoot in a situation where you need them? If that pro is paying for his own equipment, do you really think he would go into a situation with flying liquids without a filter?</p>

[SCL]

<p>If somebody (say a professional skydiver or bungee expert) told you to jump off a bridge would you do it? No, you say? Then why on earth would you take such an extreme position on your filters, just because somebody commented about taking the filters off your lenses? You have too much experience to fall for that trick! You may eventually decide to sell off your filters over time because you use them less than you used to...but to just junk them without thinking thru the issues is not really an intelligent decision. I hope we've convinced you to reconsider a decision made without thinking through the issues.</p>

[blanston]

<p>JDM, limited time doesn't permit much browsing. Jeff, blood wouldn't damage any of the lenses I use, and I can get blood off the front element in seconds with a lenspen.</p>

[Spearhead]

<p>I don't have time to get blood off the lens. I have to keep shooting. Maybe you never shoot in a challenging environment, that's what it sounds like.<br>

<br /> It also sounds like you've made your decision no matter what anyone says, so why bother asking the question? Just call it "Epiphany Report" on a blog somewhere.</p>

[blanston]

<p>Jeff, you just helped me remember why I don't "browse" here much . . .</p>

[mendel_leisk]

<p>How about this:</p>

<p>Choose your least valuable, beater lens, presumably it has a filter as well. Take the filter off and have a good close look at it's pristine front element. Leave the filter off. For maybe a month of regular use. Now check it again. Maybe it will look about the same, albeit a bit dustier. If you're like me, it will have collected a fingerprint or two.</p>

<p>At this point it's up to you to decide if you want your other lens to look like this. It's not do-or-die, really depends on your mindset. Personally I couldn't go that route. I know I'm a bit irrational about it, but am resigned to it, works for me ;)</p>

[Matt Laur]

<p>This spring, I was out doing what I sometimes do (photographing dogs competing in the field). I was crouched down low, getting a pheasant's eye view of a Griffon racing down a hedgerow with his handler and judges hot on his heels. One of the judges' horses worked past me at a trot, took a quick turn, and almost lost her footing. I got a horseshoe full of gravel flung at me - caught some of in my face (ah, polycarbonate eye protection!), and a couple of pieces traveled very happily right past the hood on my 70-200/2.8, and smacked the B+W filter I had mounted. Two pieces of gravel, two good chips in the filter's multicoating.<br /><br />Frustrating to have to spend another $60 or so to replace it... but not nearly as frustrating as having to spend the rest of the day shooting through a chipped front lens element, and then spend the non-trivial dollars to make the lens whole again (not to mention being without the lens while it's at the spa).<br /><br />If I'm using that same lens while shooting into direct sun, or perhaps in a more portrait-ish scenario ... then off comes the filter. But what I don't do is <em>sell</em> the filters, and then buy another when it's time to get back out around flying gravel, gritty mud, freezing rain, etc. Just too useful to have them around.</p>

[JDMvW]

<blockquote>

<p>limited time doesn't permit much browsing<br>

you just helped me remember why I don't "browse" here much . . .</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Hmmm...,<br>

I'm presuming you could follow a link home. My point is that you ask for opinions and I tell you where essentially the same issue was "opinionated" to death. And that isn't the only thread here on the topic. And you just blow me off in response. Jeff seems to have nailed it down pretty accurately, given your response in return.<br>

Maybe <em>you</em> are showing why <em>you</em> get responses that keep you off the site. If you just want confirmation of your own "epiphany" then maybe this isn't the best place to ask. Whatever P.net may be, it's not an echo chamber.</p>

 

[blanston]

<p>@JDM:<br>

Not really.<br /> I just manage to encounter enough of what I call "unnecessary roughness" on Photo.net that it's likely a trend and not an anomaly (and I have noticed that most of that behavior seems to come from people who appear to spend most of their waking hours on this forum, which I personally find strange & sad).</p>

[dhbebb]

<p>Would suggest that, before you sell a single filter, you take some test shots with and without filters and see if you can see any sharpness loss caused by filters. If you can't, this will be a clear verdict in favor of the filters. I personally use filters all the time, they have saved me an awful lot of damage to my lenses, and I've never noticed any sharpness loss.</p>

[jeff_livacich]

<p>Normally I don't use filters to protect lenses. However, there are times when it makes sense.</p><p>A week ago I was at an airshow where it's possible to get within 40 feet of the taxiway and end of the runway. Normally, planes taxi slowly around, line up with the runway, then nail the throttle. By standing off to the side I could avoid the air blast and still get good 3/4 shots. That worked great until the guy in the P-51 Mustang decided to nail it early while he was still turning and headed straight down the runway without pausing. I got blasted with everything from fine silt to 3/8" gravel.</p><p>Fortunately I had UV filters on the lenses of the cameras I was carrying. The one on the telephoto I was using at the time is now toast.</p><p>Btw, I don't think anyone was being particularly snotty to you. You <em>did</em> ask for comments. Heck, the thread title asks if you're doing the right thing by ditching your filters. So you got some answers. Then you return a perceived lack of gentility by showing a considerable lack yourself.</p><p>Anyway, I think the Pro did you a disservice by not suggesting that there are times when a protective filter is a good idea. Your lens pen isn't going to help you keep shooting when your lens is covered with grit, but a spare filter will. And how much blood can your lens pen remove when it's liquid? What if it's mud? A quick swipe with the lens pen isn't going to do it and you'll end up with a filthy lens pen and maybe a scratched lens.</p><p>Like I said, I normally don't use filters, but there are times when it makes sense. It's just a whole lot easier to clean or replace a filter than a front element, and when you're shooting in situations where you're likely to get dust or crud or seaspray on the lens, the foreign matter will degrade the image more than any decent filter will.</p>

[blanston]

<p>@Jeff: Thanks, noted, and received. Good stuff.</p>

[ben_goren]

<p>I think we could sum this whole thing up pretty simply.</p>

 

<p>Filters provide protection against certain kinds of hazards — especially liquids and gravel

sprayed directly at the front of the camera. If your photography places you in a situation where you

can reasonably expect to be exposed to such hazards — such as ringside at a judo match,

low-angle action shots of a rodeo, or closeups of surf pounding against a seawall — then a

filter is a wise choice.</p>

 

<p>In other words, if you photograph scenes where you find yourself reflexively blinking to protect

your own eyes, use a filter.</p>

 

<p>However, most photographers <em>don’t</em> photograph such things. And, therefore,

for most photographers, filters provide protection against non-existant hazards at the cost of

degraded image quality.</p>

 

<p>Cheers,</p>

 

<p>b&</p>

[frank uhlig]

<p>Did you ask, you might have, so please don't blow up at me now, ... , how often he or she replaces her or his lenses/cameras anyway... and who pays for that? Maybe the mag he works for or the camera company that sponsors him or her slips him new versions every couple of months ... Why preserve them in that case ... and the manufacturers might want the equipment worn out anyway as part of the deal, to look for weaknesses ... .</p>

<p>I personally have some old lenses with known "soft coatings". Can you see a reason for me to keep filters on them? Or should I - in your expert opinion - ditch these and wear down the lens coatings? Then replace them by what....</p>

<p>To end my silly post: may I suggest to you, Robert, to always think of the context some advice is given from, to consider other reasons than the idea of the day, in order to comprehend why we are so intolerant of intolerance around here. You apparently feel you need to shun us just because we consider wider reasons than one person's unquestioned authority. This is a sign of immaturity, of a person and mind that flaps with the wind, with the idea of the day. Live up, stand up to advice now, stand up into the wind of opinion. You can do it, judge and value advice by yourself and mature. Have fun on phnet by all means without being or feeling mean.</p>

[a.sparks]

<p>This is the best forum in a long time. Who knew I would get psychology lessons from a question about filters?<br>

As to the idea of selling filters, it depends on need. Unlike many, I'm going to actually assume Robert was bright enough to consider his shooting environments before deciding whether to sell off his protective filters. Maybe I'm misreading his post, but my original impression was it concerned "effect" filters as opposed to protective. If that's the case and the results from Lightroom are equivalent or better than the filters, then sell them. If not, don't.</p>

[indraneel]

<p>I wished I had a 40.5mm filter on my E-P1 lens at yellowstone. Thankfully, the acid (or whatever) came off with distilled water and probably didn't damage the lens coating. A lens hood might not always be enough protection.</p>

[blanston]

<p>This is very useful advice, thanks to all.<br /> <br /> Alan Sparks, yes, that's exactly what I was thinking initially, that the protection/image quality balance favored ditching filters, but the much of the advice pointed out some things I hadn't considered.<br /> <br /> Ben, I am going to remember your "blink test"--brilliant. I plan to keep a filter or two around for such conditions.<br /> <br /> Frank Uhlig, is your use of "we" and "us" because you are our elected Photo.net spokesman? I would think at least a subscription would be a prerequisite for that!<br>

;>)<br /> <br /> But thanks for your advice as well.</p>

[frank uhlig]

<p>I thank you for your suggestions as well, Richard. I just hate those lauditory icons, just to let you know ... And you have had access to the complete donor list? Wow, you impress me.<br>

The we and us refer to the "mood" you describe at phnet feeling. You feel it is a them(= we from my viewpoint)-against-you, did you not express that clearly?</p>

<p>What do you actually know? Actually know about filters I mean (to come back to photography): Why did you ever use them in the first place? What effects, reasons ... And Lightroom will do all that for you now, are you sure? Good luck then! I gave up filters a long way back, too, except for those UVs. Even polarizing filters lie dormant in the drawer now for me. I enjoy that freedom from manipulations, too.</p>

[stephen_asprey2]

<p>1962....that's when I started shooting, and thats when I started using UV filters. You would have to be some gaa gaa pixel peeper to notice the miniscule light falloff. Its about a 10th of a stop. And the Nikon protective filters are clear anyway.<br>

I have used filters...the cheapest to the most expensive, right though my time as a news shooter. We all had one rule. Clean the naked lens once and the inside of the filter once, put the filter on and never take it off. Wear out the coating or surface on the filter if you have to, and replace it, but once you touch the coatings on these ED lenses, you are asking for trouble...even with a brush. People think that glass is hard. NO! Optical glass is very soft, let alone the coatings. I thought back and I had a 35-70 2.8 for years. I must have cleaned the filter face on that maybe 10 times a day...that's 3-4000 times a year, for years. I shudder to think what that would have done to the raw front element. I literally wore that lens out. I replaced the filter maybe three times a year and I was careful too...air brushes, never a hankie, maybe a lens tissue with fluid.<br>

Doing this, when it comes time to upgrade your lenses, they will be pristine. Its not an image quality issue at all, its an investment protection one.</p>

[danielleetaylor]

<p>The best Hoya UV filters, labeled S-HMC, cause no visible degradation to the image. Every time I've tested this, both in terms of detail and contrast/flare, I've been satisfied that they made no visible difference even when pixel peeping at 200%. I've heard the same about B+W, but I have not personally tested those.</p>

<p>Every time I hear someone complain about image degradation with UV protective filters I find that they are using either Canon/Nikon filters, or cheap 3rd party filters. (Beware, Hoya also makes some of the cheapest filters.)</p>

<p>Hoya S-HMC filters live on my lenses and have protected them from bumps, sea spray, sand, countless wipe downs and cleanings, etc. I wouldn't consider shooting without them.</p>

<p>I have to say, selling everything you have because of one comment from one individual who may not have adequately tested his belief seems rather foolish.</p>

[jack_baxter]

<p>Maybe these things should never have been called filters in the first place. I think of them as lens protection that doesn't "filter" anything. If you wear glasses, how filthy do they get on a daily basis? Your unprotected lens would be no different. Obviously I've always used protective filters on all my lenses, cheap or expensive. But that's just me. Do what you want, it's your equipment after all.</p>

[craig_gillette]

<p>I use them when the situation calls for them. Like at Moro Rock last year when the wind was gusting upwards of 50 mph. The wind, salt and sand made it painful to face into the wind. I didn't feel that it was going to do anything positive for the front lens elements to be exposed to that. </p>

[cc_chang2]

<blockquote>

<p>so I can't imagine why I will ever need a filter again,</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You don't have young children at home, do you?</p>