To Filter or not to Filter

[will_heikoop]

<p>Hello<br>

I have recently bought some Canon L-series lenses as I am stepping up my photography (but I am still very much a beginner).<br>

As you know, they are supposed to be great lenses, great glass, etc.<br>

So my question is this;<br>

Do I want to put a UV filter on them at all times to protect the lens?<br>

I see it going two ways (thanks to a photographer friend who swears against using a UV filter at all times to protect the lens)<br>

On one hand, I don't want to get the lens scratched or too dirty or dusty and the filter will see to that<br>

On the other, as my friend says, you've paid for very good optics, do you really want to stick some cheaper glass over those optics? He likens it to the idea of sticking cling wrap over an already cheap lens. It will protect it but you're covering the good glass with something of inferior quality.<br>

Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated. <br>

It's not a cost thing - I can pay for the filters<br>

It's about image quality and keeping the lens in good condition<br>

Thank You!</p>

[yann1]

<p>B+W filters are what you want if you're willing to pay the price.</p>

[akshun]

<p>I use filters for effect only , not to protect the lens.<br>

basically, they are priced high for a reason, they are built well and weather sealed fairly good, dust will eventually make its way inside, but you can do your best to keep it in a clean area when not in use.<br>

I agree with your friend, you pay for the best glass, why put an object in front of it that will slightly hinder the performance?<br>

when you are out and shooting, just be careful, try to keep the cap on when possible and when walking with it, you can place your hand over the end to protect the element.<br>

good luck.</p>

[nathan_meador]

<p>I do not use UV filters at all, but will sometimes use a circular polarizer. ND and grad ND filters could be useful if you shoot landscapes. As for using filters for protection, I wouldn't recommend it unless you are in a wet/muddy environment or windy beach or sandy environment. I do suggest always using your lens hood, both to shade the lens and the bit of protection it offers.</p>

[jim_j2]

<p>There was a time when I thought that the UV filter's for protection was a good idea. But as I acquired better lenses I started noticing the "image degrading." I even went the "extra" for B+W's and still have them. I may someday again use them in extreme conditions, such as on a Beach or some of the Motocross events I shoot.</p>

<p>Otherwise, I always use the lens hood's. Not only to avoid flaring, but also for the front element protection. I also keep a blower, lenspen or brush handy.</p>

<p>I concern myself more with having all the necessary lens caps when changing the lenses!</p>

 

[py-photography]

<p>I say use a lens hood for protection.<br>

Sandy and dusty conditions are times to use a filter. otherwise I leave the filters at home.<br>

I can see the difference when I've used the filter and when I haven't.. The images just a little softer, sure not much but still softer. Also more chance for lens flare and other image problems.<br>

Having said all that... If you feel better with a filter on the lens, then by all means use one. Because at the end of the day, its all about you and your gear and how comfortable you are when using it.<br>

Filters are a very personal choice IMO... My choice is leave them off most of the time.</p>

[paddler4]

<p>If you do a search on this site, you will find that this topic has been argued endlessly. For what it is worth, I have been using UV filters to protect lenses for decades. Lens hoods don't protect against everything, and I would rather throw out a filter than have to send in a lens for a new front element. Here is my take on the evidence:</p>

<p>--If the light source is in front of the lens, even a good filter is likely to degrade the image, sometimes a lot. In those cases, I take the filter off.</p>

<p>--With the light behind you, a good UV filter does not affect the image much. Take a look at the two pictures of a bookshelf here: http://dkoretz.smugmug.com/Other/test-shots/9295844_q6Paq#738396106_UFTXp. Both were taken with a 50D and a Canon EF-S 60mm macro lens. (I wanted a really sharp lens for the test.) One has a Hoya multicoated UV filter on, while the other doesn't. See if you can tell which is which. You can even blow them up to full size and pixel peep if you are bored. I can't recall which is which, and I don't think I can figure it out. If there is a difference, it is trivial.</p>

<p>--If you are going to use filters, use good ones. I generally use Hoya S-HMC multicoated ones.</p>

<p>Others on this site, including people with a lot more experience than I have, argue against using them. My preference is to have one less thing to worry about, but to each his or her own.</p>

<p> </p>

[Spearhead]

<p>Where are you shooting? It's more about hazards for the lenses than anything else. I shoot in environments with blood, sweat, and booze flying. It makes a lot of sense to use a filter on the lens in this environment for protection. I rarely shoot in placid environments with no hazards, so it's easy enough just to leave them on. I don't use UV filters though, I use high quality clear filters.</p>

[craig_shearman1]

<p>Depends on what you shoot and under what conditions. I spent many years shooting news photos and could end up just about anywhere on a moment's notice. Sand and salt spray at the beach, Water and soot and ash at a fire. Snow, rain, hail, sleet. Dust blowing off farm fields. Highway grit and dirt at car accidents. Little kids in a classroom flicking finger paint. Dust at baseball games and mud at football and sweat and spilled drinks at basketball. Smudges from fingerprints and lens being licked by a dog. Getting jostled around and bashing the front of the lens into a sharp object -- better to scratch or shatter the filter than the lens. The list goes on and on.When I buy a lens I buy a clear or UV filter with it and it only comes off to put on another filter. You'll notice that rental lenses always come with a filter for protection. Also, in news photography days where everybody used prime lenses instead of zooms and therefore changed lenses more often, many people didn't both with lens caps in order not to be slowed down changing lenses. The filter served the purpose of protecting the lens even in the camera bag. In my book, keep a filter on the lens for protection. If you are in a situation where sharpness is critical and there's nothing to threaten the front element, you can always take it off.</p>

[will_heikoop]

<p>Thank you all for the wonderful tips and responses<br>

I do have some quality Neutral Density and Circular Polarizers for certain effects (thanks for the tips)<br>

Reading these responses - it does make sense to have a good filter (I will look further into the B&W filters and the Hoya S-HMC) just on hand for if the conditions take a turn.<br>

My work is beginning to move in two directions in terms of personal interest and recent gallery representation<br>

On one hand is nature/landscape photography (where the UV/clear filter may really come in handy with desert sand or ocean spray)<br>

And documentary/street photography that is really for me, as someone mentioned, in placid environments instead of hazardous environments (where the filter may be omitted I suppose).</p>

<p>I thank you all.<br>

As I am stepping up my gear as I take (and others take) my work more seriously, it seemed a Catch 22 to me.<br>

I want to protect the quality optics, but to do so would compromise the quality that I wanted...<br>

This is some great feedback (and I do apologize for repeating what is sure to be/is a common question, I appreciate the personal feedback)</p>

<p> </p>

[steve_levine]

<p>It is really a matter of the shooting environment, and how careful you are.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>For critical shooting (yes, I know, for <em>some</em> all shooting is 'critical') I always take off the 'protection' filter, but when I am walking around the State Fair and some kid shoves his iced milk into my lens (his dad wanted me to buy the kid a new one) it's really nice to have the protection. A lens hood is good regardless of the filter question.</p>

<p>I have often posted pictures of a little filter that gave its all to protect a Canon lens in an Exakta (technically Prismat) mount. The camera and the filter were all dented, but the lens was pristine.</p>

<p>B+W filters are very good indeed. However, I have repeatedly challenged people to do a 'double-blind' test of results with decent filters like Hoya, much less B+W, to show the much repeated "degradation" of image quality.</p>

<p>I'm sure that the filter makers have tested them. If the results of the good ones are so much better than the cheaper ones, why don't the 'good' ones post such tests?</p>

<p>On the other hand, I admit, if there is no effect on IQ at all from the filters, why don't <strong>any</strong> of them post tests showing that?</p>

<p> </p>

[philip_tam]

<blockquote>

<p> I always take off the 'protection' filter, but when I am walking around the State Fair and some kid shoves his iced milk into my lens (his dad wanted me to buy the kid a new one) it's really nice to have the protection.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Wow. What a jerk. I'd have said: "Sure I'll buy your kid a new one... after you buy me a new lens."</p>

[steve_levine]

<p>Many years ago (when we still shot MF film at weddings), my ex boss set down his hooded, 60MM Hasselblad lens. And someone mistaking it for an ashtray, put out their cigarette on it's from element! The poor man cried for months. Hasselblad obliged him and repaired it for free. Of course it took a few months for the lens element to be replaced at their factory in Sweden!</p>

[expfc_wintergreen]

<p>Jeff Spirer wrote:<br>

"I shoot in environments with blood, sweat, and booze flying."</p>

<p>So you cover Congress?</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>Actually, Philip, I said something almost exactly to that effect and I work out a lot and was quite a lot bigger than he was, so little more was said .....</p>

[dan_south]

<p>I have a couple of UV filters collecting dust in a closet. I can't remember the last time I shot through one of them. I would dig them out if I were going to the Sahara and expected sandstorms. Most of the time I use no filter. In blowing sand I'll sometimes shoot through the clear end of one of my ND grad filters.</p>

[levon_monte]

<p>so even a multi-coated B+W UV filter can degrade a picture? I use a Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 and I'm concerned with it getting dirty often and having to clean it often, thus chancing scratching it or something. I always see on the advertisements that the UV filter is supposed to cut haze and make more contrast. Is this the case in real life, or just marketing? I really want to error on the side of safety and protect my lens so I just have to clean the filter constantly, not my front element, but I don't want my picture quality to suffer. I have found B+W UV Filters for $50 a piece which I'm willing to pay if it's worth it. THanks.</p>

[t._masp]

<p>Bob Atkins did several tests of UV filters that may be worth checking out: http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/technical/filters.html</p>

<p>Also he mentions that UV generally isn't a big deal at sea level. "There is some (that's what gives you a suntan or a sunburn) but most of it is scattered by the atmosphere. However as you gain altitude, for example by going up a mountain, the amount of UV increases. Under these conditions a UV filter can prevent a blue cast in photographs."</p>

<p>Also, DSLRs generally already have a filter built in to block UV and IR light, so I would guess that an additional UV filter on the lens is probably not needed in most situations.</p>

[howie1]

<p>I have UV filters on all three of the lenses I have and this is mainly because if I scratch a lens I simply cannot afford to replace it straight away. Also I am fairly rough with my dslr and lenses as I just put them in my backpack and jump on my mountain bike and away we go. It is pretty much just a financial thing for me and not a filtering thing.</p>