Why put a filter on your lens? What am I am missing...?

[jakob_lagerstedt]

<p>So I am often told to put a filter on my lenses for protection. I don't get it. Why put a $70 filter on a lens that's over a grand (I have the 35L & 135L)? For protection I've added my lenses plus my 5D mk2 for 30 bucks to my home owners insurance and they are covered with no deductible in case of loss or breakage. It seems as though a filter can hardly ADD to the IQ, right? Wise ones, fill me in pls.</p>

[swenson]

<p>I don't, If it''s a bright day or harsh environment I use a hood.</p>

[john_deerfield]

<p>http://www.bythom.com/filters.htm</p>

[tom_harvey3]

<p>I believe the "protection filter" stuff got its start in camera stores during the mid 20th century. Sell the people a good body, a couple of really nice lenses, and then trash the image quality with a cheepo UV filter. Usually house branded, higher profit margin. House brand wide angle and telephoto lenses were, and still are, a popular scam in the "3 lens kit for $$$" you see a lot.</p>

<p>Jakob, I agree with your thinking and have for decades. Putting mediocre glass in front of something the likes of a Canon L-series lens ought to be punishable. There was a topic here just a few weeks ago about that same subject, and it included links to actual test results using filters that ran the gamut of house-branded cheapies all the way up to B&W multicoated Schott glass. If I can find the URL I'll post it, or perhaps someone else has the URL?</p>

[mendel_leisk]

<p>No one's forcing you, one way or the other. Personally, I'd like to avoid dealing with thumbprints on my lens. Depends on your priorities.</p>

[PuppyDigs]

<p>I often shoot on the beach during big wave season. My hair is stiff from salt spray in 30 minutes. Afterwards I remove the UV filter, rinse in running water and towel dry (terry mirco fiber). After a busy season, I often toss the filter as the coating is damaged from daily cleaning.</p>

<p>Some of the L designs--17-40 & 16-35--have a moving front element and thus an air space to suck in dust and salt spray. According to Canon, a filter is required to complete the weather seal. Of course if you only shoot in the studio or fair weather, no need. My 17-40 has taken many frontal hits by waves and was fine after being toweled off. I've sure without the filter water would have gotten in the barrel.</p>

[Matt Laur]

<p>I shoot, sometimes, in situations where things like large horses or hunting dogs are flying past me, kicking up gravel and mud, or thrashing branches full of thorns right into me. Sometimes I hear that gravel bouncing off of the filter I put on the lens. It's like music to my ears, because I <em>wasn't</em> hearing it bounce off the front element on a $1,700 70-200/2.8. I likewise find it easier and less risky to wipe dog slobber, kid prints, tree sap, bird poop, splashed Gewurztraminer, and a thousand other event/field-shooting-related substances from a quality filter.<br /><br />In controlled circumstances? Usually no filter. But much of the time, I'm not in controlled circumstances. When I do use one, it's a very good multicoated filter (B+W, usually, which have been terrific for me).</p>

[tdigi]

<p>Why is this even discussed so often on here its a personal choice if you don't want one don't use one. </p>

[mendel_leisk]

<p>Yeah, I don't like to throw out the T-word, but...</p>

[jakob_lagerstedt]

<p>I suggest not reading/posting if you don't care for the discussion. <br /><br />Thanks to all others for your input.</p>

[paulcooklin1]

<p>I agree Jakob and have had this conversation with others before...when I bought my first camera I also had this conversation with the salesman 'surely the glass is as good as the last thing in front of it? In the same way, wearinga plastic bag over an Armani suit'. <br /><br />I do put filters over my lenses and have never done any tests but Im sure you're right, in theory it sounds mad.</p>

[andy_szeto]

For those who haven't dropped a camera with lens hitting the ground first or those who haven't scratched a front lens element before, probably they will never need a filter. Not for me. And why would someone put a cheap filter on an expensive lens and body, that I don't know. I always put a nice (expensive) UV filter to protect my expensive lenses.

[Spearhead]

<p>For me, it keeps blood, sweat and beer off the lens. You really think it would be good to let it get on there? Protection is the word.</p>

[jim_j2]

<p>"Sometimes I do" . . . "Sometimes I don't" . . . seems to be the general consensus!</p>

[tudor_apmadoc]

<p>I have always kept a clear or UV filter on my lenses.</p>

<p>In 40 years of taking pics, twice I've had something happen where the filter got scratched or a stone got throw up by a motorcycle and chipped the filter. Both times I was 100's of miles from a camera store, I would have been out of luck to take more pics.</p>

<p>Once I had somehow gotten a small spec of a stone on my cleaning cloth and scratched the hell out of my UV filter</p>

<p>If not for the filter being on there, I would have had to replace the lens, simple as that. Way cheaper to replace a filter than a $1500 lens</p>

[PuppyDigs]

<p>Jakob, if you crave reading about filters vs no filters, be daring and use the search function. You'll find a rich depository of the same old. Thousands of posts over many years, all beating the same dead horse. Nothing new can be said here. It's all been recited <strong><em >ad nauseam</em></strong>.</p>

[jakob_lagerstedt]

<p>Puppyface, I did. I found nothing regarding the insurance option which prompted my inquiry. Reading/posting are actions of free will. Just ignore it if bothers you so much.</p>

[BrianS1664879711]

<p>After hearing (and reading) this issue discussed over the past 40 years I have a cople of observations to share:</p>

<p>1. Nobody has ever proven, empirically or experientally, that a 'protective' filter degrades IQ.<br>

2. Many stories have been told of dropped lenses where the only damage was to the filter.<br>

3. Many stories have been told of lenses dropped, both with and withut filter, that has been damaged beyond usability or economic repair.<br>

4. Many stories have been told of lenses without filters that have been subjected to harsh conditions with no negative results.<br>

5. Many stories have been told of lenses with filters that have been subjected to harsh conditions with negative results.<br>

6. YMMV, etc, etc, &ct.</p>

<p>I don't quite understand your connection between a protective filter and insurance, though... did the insurance company require a protective filter as terms of insurance?</p>

[jakob_lagerstedt]

<p>Oh no, they didn't. I am somewhat new to photography and I was just curious if there are additional benefits other than protecting the lens since every single photographer I have run into have encouraged me to get filters on my lenses. It just didn't make sense to me personally since they are protected through insurance. </p>

[BrianS1664879711]

<p>Insurance probably won't replace a lens because the coating gets scratched; a protective filter can help prevent that. Any other damage, like busted glass is likely to be reimbursable by insurance... but may be at depreciated values.</p>

<p>I agree with many of the earlier postings that remember the mid-20th century. I remember that era and bought much of my core photo gear then. "Protective filters" were pushed by the retailers. I suspect is was a high mark-up item that generated profit. The cost was low enough taht only a tightwad would say no. All of my lenses from that era, and a few from later, have protective filter. it's more of a habit than anything else.</p>

<p>The best advise that you are getting here is, "do what make you comfortable and don't worry about it unless you see IQ degradation or too many other photographers laugh at you for having a protectie filter."</p>

[jakob_lagerstedt]

<p>Thanks all!</p>

[Matt Laur]

<p>Even if insurance <em>will</em> cover the costs of replacing the front element on an expensive lens, the only insurance that will help you deal with a scratched up or chipped front element in the middle of a shoot is the "self insurance" kind: a backup lens.</p>

[PuppyDigs]

<p>Doesn't bother me one flying frick. I enjoy useless debate and rehashing the same old zoodoo. I do it daily. Keeps my time at work mildly interesting. Kinda miss the N90 vs Elan 7 days. Now that was a friggen dead horse. It bought the farm thousands of times on this forum. I'm merely informing you of the dubious contribution of this thread. Further generations will search ancient digital archives and wonder WTF was the bizarre obsession with filters vs no filters debates.</p>

[Mike D]

<p>I never use lens caps, too clumsy, so I use a filter instead. </p>

[hjoseph7]

There have been countless discussions on this forum about using or not using filters to protect your lens. Sorry but I'm on the side which use filters to protect their valuable lenses. In most cases I don't even notice the filter is there. However, if I'm shooting at night, or taking some critical macro shots, I remove the filter, it's that simple. A filter can produce ghosting at night which is really hard to see on the LCD. Have you ever tried to purchase a used lens from eBay, or any of the other sellers of used camera equipment and the Description reads like this "The lens is in perfect working condition except for a small SCRATCH that won't affect the image".