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

[Andy Collins]

<p>Canon states that the weather sealed L lenses aren't fully sealed until you have a filter on them. I do it simply because a couple of years ago I almost lost the front element of my 28-135 but because I had a filter on it, the filter was what got completely shattered instead of the front element. Convinced me.</p>

<p>Puppy Face--I always thought it was the N90 vs. A2 debate. I took part in that debate too many times to count.</p>

[craig_meddaugh]

<p>I think this debate continues on as no one is interested in actual facts. </p>

<p>First, we have people who assume that a busted filter = busted front element sans filter. Not necessarily true. </p>

<p>Second, busted/scratched front element=dead lens. Only true if the lens in question is no longer serviced. Typically, a front lens/group can be replaced for not unreasonable amount of money. </p>

<p>Third, scratch=end of shoot. While there are many lies on ebay, the line about a scratch not affecting a shot is usually true. The only thing a scratch typically affects is resale value... which is fine by me as it means that ebay is full of bargains. </p>

<p>All that being said, protective filters are certainly rational when the risk of damage is high or you are going to be constantly wiping down your gear. For the typical photog though, the money could be more rationally allocated in other directions. Of course, if going sans filter is going to make you use your gear less, then by all means get one. </p>

<p>However, please don't be the person that has a high-quality filter on each of their lenses while not having insurance on your gear. That is just plain stupid. </p>

[gadge]

<p><Why put a filter on your lens? What am I am missing...?><br>

Common sense.</p>

[jakob_lagerstedt]

<p>Thanks Craig - that makes sense. Since I shoot in a pretty controlled environment, I see no reason to use filters. To each his own I guess. </p>

[david_henderson]

<p>What are you missing?</p>

<p>You're missing the fact that some people use cameras in difficult environments. A few people have alluded to examples that may or may not apply to you. For me I photograph a lot on beaches in spray , rain and transient light. At the very least the use of a filter gets me double the number of shots before I have to stop and clean stuff. </p>

<p>You're missing the fact that the "why put a $50 filter on a $1000 lens " mantra might make a good sound-byte but in general its not true. In the vast majority of cases putting a clean decently coated filter on a lens will not have any visible reduction in image quality at all. There is a slight probability that at certain angle, the piece if flat glass on the front of the lens might lead to more flare. However thats only going to happen in circumstances where the photographer should be aware of the risk of flare in any case, and if he sees it, then taking the filter off might occasioanally solve the problem. Its not right to keep any filter on the lens in all circumstances without checking out what effect its producing.</p>

<p>You are missing the fact that prevention is better than cure. If I damage a lens and get a replacement from my insurer, thats not as good as not damaging the lens and getting on with my photography. Its better also than having a debate with the insurer over whether the policy entitles me to a replacement for a scratch or mark, rather than a repair. </p>

<p>You are missing the fact that human beings differ in their attitude to risk. I have come across people who would dream of taking a camera out without a filter, a hood and a lenscap, and who never let their camera out of their sight except at home. </p>

<p>Descending into the land of opinion, you are missing the the likelihood that most people who keep a filter on a lens all the time started doing so for reasons that aren't just to do with protection. It was (may still be) common to keep a UV filter or Skylight filter on all the time and lens protection was a secondary benefit. Camera shops have long sought to sell people accessories of minor impact on their pictures; the advent of digital and post-hoc control has meant they now have to come up with a different slant on those benefits. </p>

<p>For me, I tend to carry a "benign" filter such as a skylight/UV. I put it on when I'm in tough conditions. I don't have it on all the time since it makes it a pain to take off when I want to use a grad or a polariser. </p>

[gatorpan]

<p>This is amazing! This is an argument that has gone on for years. What I find interesting is that in the days of film … color and B&W we used filters all the time! Nobody said they ruin the great optics of your lens. Does anybody here remember using yellow filters to darken skies and bring out white clouds? What about polarizing? How about green filters to improve facial completions in portraits?<br>

Now all of a sudden filters ruin our great lens. And BTW: I don’t think the few extra bucks camera dealers make the difference between profit and loss! Yikes<br>

Every time you clean a lens your risk damaging the coating. Why not ruin a filter? I guess in studio conditions you would not need that filter but I’m an active photographer. I work with prime lens. I might change a lens and put it in a pocket or camera bag. I cover the back end with a cap but depend on the filter to protect the front element. Think of it as clear lens cap. Oh, in case you ask, I simply bought Nikon or other good filters and stayed about from off brands but still a filter is not a major expense … even the best.</p>

<p >

 

</p>

<p >The crazy thing is that with all the great lab equipment out there, somebody should be able to test this and put this argument to rest once and for all.

 

</p>

<p>

<p> </p>

</p>

[gabriel_l1]

<p>All of the above. Yes, that is contradictory, I'm simply stating that I'm not going to "take a side" on this one. ;-)</p>

<p>However, it's a logical fallacy that adding a $70 filter to a $1500 lens turns it into a $70 optic. That makes zero sense. The lens costs $1500 because it has sophisticated electronics, a dozen groups, and high build quality—not because it's a single $1500 piece of glass.</p>

[craig_meddaugh]

<p>We used filters because we had to. The same reason I still use filters with my film stuff and the reason I still use grads and CPLs for my digital work. And yes, I think lots of people did complain...more about the vignetting due to stacked filters than the IQ... but then again we couldn't pixel peep back then. </p>

<p>Personally, I doubt that good filters compromise IQ in any measurable way... excepting shooting at night with bright light sources. What I'm more concerned about is how much money gets thrown away on the things... especially when people have this idiotic habit of spending hundreds of dollars on UV filters and not spending any money actually insuring their gear. </p>

[lilly_w]

<p>Excuse my response if the specific matter ($0 deduc insurance policy vs. filters) has been addressed but I can't bring myself to reading every response. You point-out: '...they are covered with no deductible in case of loss or breakage.' Which is to say you are paying an appreciably higher premium than if you had a $1,000 deduc. Excepting very hazardous/high-risk shooting conditions, better to have a $1,000 deduc (higher?) and wisely invest what would otherwise be your premium for a real return.<br>

<br>

With only a small handful of exceptions to shooting conditions people cannot tell the difference between images taken with and without a high-quality protective filter. We'd all like to think that after we've finished wringing-out the last iota of quality from our pricey lenses that we'll have an image for the ages. In fact more attention to composition and lighting would serve us better. The 'always' vs 'never' vs. 'Why put a $70 filter on a lens that's over a grand...' are equally poor arguments. Conditions/objectives dictate filter use.</p>

[robertbody]

<p>You can damage the front element of the lens by accident - that's the kind of protection that's real. Either in the bag (depending on the bag) when the lenscap comes off, or hood comes off, or hood breaks, or lens falls, to the ground, you can crack the filter, not the front element.<br /> When the waterfalls are spraying water at your lens, and you're wiping it off, i would much rather wipe off the filter than the lens. Both of my $80 filters now have what appears to be permanent stains from waterfalls, that stuff is not coming off. Could be minerals deposits that I should have washed off the same day, and repeat the next day and day after that, several times a day...<br /> Sandy situations, windy ones, sand/dirt getting where it shouldn't because not all lenses are sealed at the front element, some like 17-40mm need it for "weather proofing".<br /> Accidental scratches during handling, bumping during transport. <br /> I have scratched several filters over the 12 years, no front elements yet, all depends on how long your lens is out of the bag at a time, if you walk with it, slip and fall with it, etc, sometimes a filter is better, sometimes a hood, sometimes both, sometimes none.<br /> Cheap filters are definitely to be avoided. Good stuff like B+W and Heliopan........ sometimes they should be used.</p>

[joe_taylor5]

<p>All the insurance in the world won't replace a scratched lens on a 5 day river trip. If you are in the field far away from a camera store get filters if you are made of money buy and extra lens and save a few bucks on a filter. It is your call. As for me all my lens' have filters and I keep the lens cap on until I am ready to shoot. And I do have a few scratched filters to prove the point, I don't know how they got scratched but I know I am glad the lens did not get the scratch. And with a filter you can smear stuff, like petroleum jelly, on the filter for special effects.</p>

[craig_meddaugh]

<p>All the filters in the world won't replace a lens that goes for a swim on a 5 day river trip. </p>

[leighb]

<blockquote>

<p>Why put a $70 filter on a lens that's over a grand (I have the 35L & 135L)?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>If you bought decent filters rather than house-branded junk, you wouldn't be asking the question.</p>

<p>I always put a GOOD filter on every lens I buy. The filters cost more than most people pay for lenses. They certainly do NOT degrade image quality in any way.</p>

<p>Been doing it this way for over fifty years, and plan to do it for the next fifty.</p>

<p>- Leigh</p>

<p> </p>

[sarah_fox]

<blockquote>

<p>Puppyface, I did. I found nothing regarding the insurance option which prompted my inquiry.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Google "protective filter insurance site:photo.net" Lots there, addressing both protective filters and insurance (with numerous false hits too, of course):<br>

<a href="http://www.google.com/search?q=protective+filter+insurance+site%3Aphoto.net&rls=com.microsoft:en-us&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&startIndex=&startPage=1">http://www.google.com/search?q=protective+filter+insurance+site%3Aphoto.net&rls=com.microsoft:en-us&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&startIndex=&startPage=1</a></p>

<p> </p>

[dan_south]

<p>If you shoot in blowing sand or spraying salt water or flying debris (as with the conditions that Matt Laur described with dogs and horses), a UV filter would be a wise accessory. So what if your insurance policy covers damage? Are they going to send a replacement lens to you in five minutes or less while you're in the middle of a critical shoot?</p>

<p>Not all UV filters are of low quality. If we ran a double-blind test with a high-quality, multi-coated filter, I doubt that anyone could consistently identify which images were shot with the filter and which were shot without. The only impact might be a little vignetting on some lenses at some aperture settings.</p>

<p> </p>

[philip_wilson]

<p>Jakob - I perosnally use filters and lens caps (even with hoods if I can). This is a personal cjoice and is driven by two factors.<br>

1 I started with film 25 years ago and UV / Skylight filters improved image quality visibly<br>

2 I live in the Canadian rockies and my lenses are outdoors a lot in harsh conditions - dust, extreme cold, lots of potential for impact damage<br>

While a filter will not necessarily save the day I can think of two occasions where it saved me from serious damage. I often unscrew the filter with the lens cap so it obviosuly has no impact. While this may sound stupid - to have a $60+ filter on a lens that gets unscrewed with the lens cap it works for me. The filter does save scratches (none of my lenses have scrateches on the front element but many are over 20 years old). Secondly the filter does keep dust out of the lens (if not sealed) and off the front element.<br>

I do not use filters on all of my lenses - it is a question of cost. My Fuji GX680 lenses do not have filters because they tend not to be out in very harsh conditions and the lens caps are much better than the Canon FD and EF ones. Also the Fuji lenses need 82mm or 95mm filters which are very expensive.</p>

[jim_krupnik]

<p>This is a weekly topic, but it is important. I have a nice set of filters to fit all of my lenses, but with the exception of my Canon 17-40 L which specs a filter for weather resistance, and my EF-S 17-55 f/2.8, which my paranoia forces me to keep a filter on just in case the people who claim that the filter keeps the dust out happen to be right, I never use a filter unless it serves a specific optical need at the time. I think using filters as a general lens condom is pretty much a marketing deal, and little more.<br /><br />Does it hurt to use a filter? Probably not, but I'm not comfortable adding glass to a lens unless I really need to do so. Does it really protect a lens? Not very well, but it does make people feel good, so that adds value. I don't remember the last time I used a lens cap, as they are always in the way when I need to take a shot. Lens caps are a PITA. I prefer to use lens hoods at all times. They not only deliver peak lens IQ, but they provide real protection for the the entire lens.<br /><br />Don't get me wrong, as I don't think you suffer much from using high quality filters on your lenses at all. It's just that they are praised as genuine protective devices, and they are really not very good at that job at all. For ocean spray, or shooting mud slinging rally cars, sure, they do a fine job, but those are special situations. Real protection comes in the form of a factory polycarbonate hood. Even if you use a filter, you should become so comfortable using a hood at all times that you feel something is wrong if it isn't present.<br /><br />Just to illustrate the point that permanent filters are OK if they suit your personality, but life goes on perfectly fine without them, here is a front shot of a dozen lenses for Bronica, Canon, and Mamiya mounts ranging from five to about thirty years old. Each has been heavily used over the years. Most have been used on several continents, and their life in the field would likely cause an overly protective owner to have nightmares. None of them have kissed a lens cap as far back as I can remember, other than when posing for a portrait (no glass, no reflections). Only the Canon 17-55 f/2.8 in this group sports a full time filter (it comes off in harsh lighting), and with the exception of the EF-S 60 macro lens in macro duty, they always sport a factory lens hood. Always. <br /><br />The hood keeps dust, fingers, and wet away from the front element better than a filter, and really protects a lens from bangs, bumps, and gravity like nothing else can. Notice that even the bottom row of ancient FD lenses have pristine front elements to this day. The surface dust, and reflection of me holding the shooting camera above the group offer a good peek at the front surface of each lens. They have been cleaned hundreds of times, yet even upon close examination, they are like new. I only clean a front element when it really needs it, and there is no reason to scratch a lens if you clean it properly. Even over decades of use by a demanding owner.<br /><br />So, that is my pitch for saving filter money, and spending it on proper lens hoods. You already own a big camera. Don't try to pretend that no one will notice you if you leave your lens hoods at home. Force yourself to use them for a couple of weeks, and you will feel naked without them..</p>

<p><img src="http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4042/4708598050_5aaee6d027_b.jpg" alt="" width="1024" height="768" /></p>

[g dan mitchell]

<p>I used to reply to the "do I need a UV protective filter" posts with my own thoughts on the issue.</p>

<p>Then I realized, long ago, that I was getting tired of writing the same thing over and over and over... and I began to cut and paste previous material I had written on the subject.</p>

<p>A few years back I decided to write an article on the topic at my blog. For the most part I now just send people there rather than writing a direct reply: <a href="http://www.gdanmitchell.com/2007/12/27/uv-filter-or-not">www.gdanmitchell.com/2007/12/27/uv-filter-or-not</a></p>

<p>Enjoy. Or not.</p>

<p>Dan</p>

 

[bob_mcbob]

<p>I don't have time to search now, but I know I've read about people being dropped by their insurance carrier for making multiple claims on the camera policy linked to their homeowners' policy. It's certainly worth having some insurance in case of theft or loss, but as others pointed out, they're not going to replace a $2000 lens for a little scratch on the front element.</p>

<p>I use filters on all my lenses, except in very specific harsh lighting conditions where I know a filter is likely to increase flare. All my filters are B+W MRC or Hoya SMHC/Pro1. I'm not a pro photographer, but I often shoot in conditions where I'm likely to get something or other misted or sprayed on the front element, and I much prefer cleaning a filter to a $2000 lens. I have scratched one of my B+W filters in general use, and while I was pissed about damaging such an expensive filter, I was a lot happier than I would have been if it were the front element the lens to which it was attached (70-200/2.8 IS). In addition, my 16-35's manual states that a filter is required to complete the weather sealing.</p>

<p>If I'm assisting at a wedding, I can't stop in the middle of something important to properly clean my lens if the front gets slightly fogged or wet. Again, I much prefer to be cleaning the surface of a filter rather than a lens, especially if I'm only giving it a rushed wipe with a microfibre cloth.</p>

[mark_stevens9]

<p>I'm using Rilex and Hoya and have no complaints. I once tried one of those cheap filters from a popular chain store and it had a magenta cast to it I could easily see. I DID see issues with that one, and stopped using it.<br>

The ones I use now have no discernable color tint. I think that in terms of image quality, having a dirty lens or forgetting to use the hood is going to be more of an issue than adding a quality filter to the front.<br>

The bottom line is: if you're gonna use filters, then for goodness sakes get quality ones.</p>

 

[faysal]

<p>Would putting a B+W filter made from schott glass really hurt the iq? I intend to spend the first few months with my L lens in Iraq, so I really am looking for something to cut down on the front element damage. (I would suggest we call this FED for the remainder of this posting, since its used in about every post in some variation)</p>

[mike dixon]

If you're shooting in an environment where the front of the lens is likely to need the protection a filter offers (from sand, spit, heavy dust, etc.), it makes sense to use one. The "debate" is whether there's any point to having a protective filter on your lens all the time.

 

When I'm riding a motorcycle, I always were a helmet--it's the smart thing to do. When I'm not riding, I don't wear one.

[faysal]

<p>Ah, well, I vote for the not wearing a helmet all the time then. What's the point?</p>

[jim_krupnik]

<p>Faysal,<br>

There is plenty of sand at the Jersey Shore too, but it isn't a lens issue unless it's picked up by a wind strong enough to make me stay indoors. The type of filter glass makes little difference. Schott glass, or clear Pepsi bottle glass would work just fine in typical filter thickness applications, build quality for build quality (marketing folks might not agree). The main consideration is that adding a filter to a lens when it's not required also adds two more reflective surfaces to the stack of glass elements. The more elements in a lens, the more surfaces for the additional surfaces of your filter to bounce off of. It's like earning compound interest with light, only it is a bad thing. In sunny Iraq, I would be sure to use a hood to protect my lens, and keep additional layers of glass in my camera bag unless I really needed them.</p>

<p>Helmets tend to keep motorcyclists alive on the road when bad things happen, and bad things happen to motorcyclists on the road all too often. There really isn't a downside to that story, even though I am of the opinion that a helmet is optional gear that is for the rider to choose. A permanent lens filter, on the other hand, is lousy insurance against a calamity that will never likely happen. Filters always subtract from IQ, even if you don't see it. They never add to IQ. Filters are not akin to a helmet on a bikers' head. Filters are the worst option for protecting a lens from physical trauma. Most all of the shots of broken filters, and bent lens rings posted on the net would never have happened if a proper lens hood was in place at the time. Times have changed since the "old days" of metal lens hoods. Modern polycarbonate lens hoods suck up destructive energy like a sponge, and survive intact.</p>

<p>Even in blowing sand, a hood doesn't just take the hit for your front element, it prevents that high velocity sand from ever getting to your front element. Even if you buy into the "protective filter" marketing deal, use a factory issue plastic hood at all times. It will make your shots look their best, and it will protect your lens without complaint, even if you tell everyone that the filter really did all the work....</p>

[faysal]

<p>Jim, let me just link you to a few pictures I took to show you why I intend on protecting my baby. Note it isnt like this all the time, but it happens at least twice a month and it stays like this for at least 3 days or so. I'll be here for another few months too. Anyway:<br /> <a href="http://www.digitalroundabout.net/wp/?p=361">Sand Back Stitch</a><br /> <a href="http://www.digitalroundabout.net/wp/?p=356">Sandstorm</a><br /> <a href="http://www.digitalroundabout.net/wp/?p=353">Sandy Palm</a><br /> The options with how to use the natural lighting is endless in conditions like these, but, its also horrible to be breathing outside. The issue is that you don't just get a small dusting you can use your average compressor to clean, you get a THICK coating of sand on everything.<br /> I'd consider where I'm at to be extreme conditions, we do still get mortar fire and rocket attacks, and that with the sand, well, until I'm back, I think a small piece of glass won't be so bad.</p>

<p>edit: FYI, My lens hoods never leave my lenses. My new lens comes with its own hood.</p>