Protective Filter Preference

[StanleyBeck]

<p>Whatever goes through the lens has to go through the filter first. If the filter glass isn't as good as the glass in the lens, why pay for the lens quality? I use filters only for a desired effect, and only rarely.</p>

[ty_mickan]

Heliopan or B+W, they're the best, and filters are cheap, so that's what I get. But I don't use protective filters as a

general rule....the lens cap came free with lens, and it's much stronger than a filter. If you're shooting film at altitude,

the the UV filter may help with you're pics however.

[lex_jenkins]

<p>I'm satisfied with the Hoya multicoated UV and skylight filters - they've worked as well as the Nikon L37c for me. Even the less expensive Kenko UV filters have been fine - I've used one for years on my 28/3.5 PC-Nikkor when conditions warrant (blowing grit, tree sap, etc.), no problems with flare or image degradation that I can see.</p>

[michael_kuhne]

<p>As to the eternal question- you can always remove it for fussier shooting. Using one HAS saved a lens front element from accidental damage for me on rare occasion, and I was glad I had one on. The lens cap was cracked and the filter destroyed, but the lens was ok. Hoya HMC or super HMC are fine. Of course it is true that more glass in front will mean a greater chance of flare occuring under conditions that make it more likely, and other possible undesirable influances, but those filters will have very minimal negative effect. </p>

[scott_ditzel1]

<p>For those wanting to use filters, be aware of the fact that just because a brand of filter costs more, it doesn't always means that it's better...Most filter manufacturers offer several lines of the same product (like any other industry eg: autos for example)...While not dealing with UV filters, here's a link to tests done on polarizing filters...The results may suprise you...</p>

<p>http://www.lenstip.com/115.4-article-Polarizing_filters_test_Results_and_summary.html</p>

[Matt Laur]

<p>Here's why I use filters when I'm in the field. Those B+W filters are <em>tough</em>, man.</p><div></div>

[alex_zepeda]

<p>Hey, at least that's not Dick Cheney.</p>

[Matt Laur]

<p>Hey, I've been hit by birdshot (in the face) more than once, and no politicians were involved. My grandfather lived the last forty years of his life with some birdshot buried in his scalp (delivered by a good friend - a very familiar story!). If you photograph around events like these, there's a great deal of trust involved.<br /><br />And all humor aside, I carry cameras - in a hurry, and with uncapped lenses - through walls of thorn bushes, past horses and dogs kicking up gravel and mud, and a dozen things just as bad or worse. I'm a lot happier cleaning gritty partidge poop off of a filter than I am cleaning it off the front element on a $1500 lens! That's a factor for me in choosing a filter: how easily does it clean? That's one of the reasons I like the B+W coatings over some of the others.</p>

[greg_kowalczewski]

<p>Hoya UV, highest quality available.</p>

[chris_leck]

<p>I've had flawless performance with Nikon & B+W filters. 'Flawless' does not include performance degradation (reflections) with high-contrast point-source lighting visible.</p>

<p>I generally keep filters on for protective reasons. However, I recommend filters off when shooting unless absolutely needed. Even the best introduce flare and ghosting in certain circumstances. If you're outside in the elements, use the best filters (not the best that you can 'afford,' use the best). Otherwise, try to avoid.</p>

[chris_leck]

<blockquote>

<p>Hoya UV, highest quality available.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Ha! Maybe one of the newer models, not specified here. One of the older Hoya UV filters was the only filter I've ever had that decided to divorce its coating.</p>

<p>Also to say that Hoya is the "highest quality available" seems to ignore B+W, et al. Sort of a Hyundai vs. Lexus comparison, IMO.</p>

[Richard Williams]

<p>Anyone try the Hoya HD range? Supposedly tougher glass than their other filters (they make a big deal about how they withstand impact from dropped ball bearings) and new oil and water resistant coatings that sound like they might address the main problem I have with their otherwise excellent Pro1 range - they're difficult to clean (especially fingerprints, etc.). If this works as advertised, it would bring Hoya HD more in line with B+W MRC, which are easier to clean than Hoya Pro1, but are similarly non-reflective. So, hype or a genuine improvement?</p>

[ShunCheung]

<blockquote>

<p>Also to say that Hoya is the "highest quality available" seems to ignore B+W, et al. Sort of a Hyundai vs. Lexus comparison, IMO.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Sorry, I don't think that is a good anaolgy. Hoya has been around for a long time. When I was a kid getting my first SLR back in the 1970's, I used Hoya filters, and they have been making fine filters for decades. Even back then, Hoya had multi-coated filters. Today, Hoya owns Pentax, which makes fine optics.</p>

<p>I think a better anaolgy is that the German B+W is like BMW and Hoya is like Lexus. As I said before, a protection filter is just a flat piece of glass. A lot of companies can make fine ones, just like a lot of us have good experience with Sigma, Tokina, and Tamron lenses today. I tested Tamron's 70-300 Di VC last year and was shocked how good a $400 zoom can be optically.</p>

<p>As I said I added two Nikon 77mm NC filters recently to the one I already had plus a bunch of L37c filters. They are $55 each. B+W and Hoya have multi-coated UV filters around that same price, but if something that costs over $100 makes you feel better, by all means go for it. I once stacked 3 L37c together and at least I cannot see any image degradation at all, so Nikon filters are good enough for me: <a href="../nikon-camera-forum/00UNFa">http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00UNFa</a></p>

[carlos_smith2]

<p>If the lens is not too expensive it could be better to not use a filter. No sense putting an expensive filter to protect a cheap lens.<br>

<br /> For example, I don´t use a filter on my 50mm f1.8 ($100), but I do use one (sometimes) on my 18-200mm ($500). If I owned a $1,500+ lens, then I would use one all the time.</p>

<p>Also... I don´t worry too much about scratching a lens after I read this article: <a href="http://www.lensrentals.com/news/2008.10.30/front-element-scratches" target="_blank">http://www.lensrentals.com/news/2008.10.30/front-element-scratches</a></p>

[matt_smith24]

<p>Anyone try the Hoya HD range?<br>

Yes, in fact the Hoya HD Protector is the only filter I use apart from the excellent Marumi CPL. If you dropped your lens onto concrete it would be destroyed before the Hoya HD filter shattered. They're multi coated but crystal clear and I haven't been able to determine any IQ degradation by pixel peeping at 200x.<br>

I can attest to the HD filter's resistance to grease as I was in a photography chain retail store showing the salesman my new 85 f/1.4 (which had the Hoya HD on it) when he suddenly started taping his fingertip quite forcibly on the filter. Stunned, I asked him what he was doing and he said, " what do you mean"? After retrieving my lens and checking it later I was surprised to find that there wasn't any finger prints on the filter. I even tried to put some on there myself but couldn't.<br>

However, I only use these Hoya HD filters when there is a chance that there is a risk of damage as they're too expensive to have them on every lens I own and not necessary in most situations anyway.</p>

<p> </p>

[eric_arnold]

<p><em>For example, I don´t use a filter on my 50mm f1.8 ($100), but I do use one (sometimes) on my 18-200mm ($500). If I owned a $1,500+ lens, then I would use one all the time.</em></p>

<p>i put UV filters on all my lenses. every single one of them, even the 50/1.8. i frequently photograph in conditions where beer spray, roaming hands, spray paint, spittle, drool, or contact with objects and surfaces could result in a splotch or even a nasty gash. i'd rather move a smudge or fingerprint from a filter than a front element . if i was just shooting landscape in mild conditions or studio, then filters wouldnt be such a big deal. you can always take a filter off for better flare resistence. but you can't apply a filter after the fact, once a scratch has occurred. preserves the resale value, too. i've twice cracked filters instead of lenses, so even a $10 filter can be worth 50 times its price if it saves a $500 lens.</p>

<p>mostly, i use Hoya filters, with a couple of cheap Tiffen single-coated ones scattered about--mainly for lenses that are either inexpensive or dont see a lot of outdoors use or direct sunlight. i do have a Hoya slim 77mm UV for my 12-24, and a nikon 77mm CPL for the pro zooms, which is tied for my most expensive filter purchase at $149, with the Genus multi-GND i just picked up. i tend to get CPLs in common focal lengths and step-up rings for uncommon FLs. Thusfar i have resisted buying any lens with 82mm threads.</p>

[mervyn_wilmington]

<p>Eric Arnold raises a valid point about scratches to lenses and value. I have said in an earlier posting that all my lenses are protected by top quality uv filters.</p>

<p>It is generally accepted that a small scratch on the front element is unlikely to have an adverse effect on images. It will, however, cause a major difference in the resale value of the lens. Mention a scratch, and most potential buyers will run away very quickly. </p>

<p>A few years ago, I bought from a dealer a 35-70mm f2.8D. It was near mint apart from a tiny scratch: you had to look very carefully to see it. Yet the dealer had had to discount by almost 50% to move it. It continues to perform perfectly.......</p>

<p>Cleaning a lens or a filter entails risks however carefully that is done, especially in adverse conditions. I know which I would prefer to be cleaning in that sort of situation.</p>

<p> </p>