Filters on Lenses?

[Ianfp]

I am going to buy a 17-40L followed possibly by a 200 2.8L but I am not sure if fitting a filter will compromise IQ or whether it is better to suffer some loss in IQ but protect the front optic of the lens?

What do others do?

[SkipD]

I am going to buy a 17-40L followed possibly by a 200 2.8L but I am not sure if fitting a filter will compromise IQ or whether it is better to suffer some loss in IQ but protect the front optic of the lens?

What do others do?You could do a search, but here's the truth about image quality risk: http://www.photo.net/mjohnston/column66/

Many folks have been convinced that they "need" a filter for protection all the time. For them, the best recommendation is to buy the absolute best quality multicoated filters that are available to help prevent flare.

I have never found the need for a protective filter in over 40 years of using SLR's. However, I don't take my camera out into sandstorms or to paintball ranges. In those cases, a filter makes sense for protection.

My personal rule is to ALWAYS use a good, properly designed, lens hood on every lens that I have on my cameras. A lens hood will help to prevent flare from strong off-axis light sources. A hood will also provide a significant amount of mechanical protection, helping to avoid all sorts of problems. It will help keep your fingers off the lens. It will act as a bumper to keep the lens safe when you brush the camera up against people, walls, etc., while moving around. A properly designed hood will also provide MUCH better crash protection than a filter can provide in the event of dropping the lens on its nose (even with the camera connected to the back end). I have personal experience with this.

The sale of filters provides a significant profit margin for those selling them. Thus, salespeople push them religiously. That, in my opinion, has a lot to do with the reason that so many people are convinced that they "need" a protective filter all the time. Some do, because of the environment they shoot in, but most don't.

[MJP]

i met this sport photographer and asked him about filter and he told me that he never use any filter as long as you have a hood....i use filter one of my lens just becase i use it for motorcross...

[Buggbairn]

I only use filters for effect (ND Grads & Circ Polarizers)

I look after my lenses so I see no need to protect them to this extent.

[ijohnson]

SKIPD,

You said it all. I was ready to write a long note exactly like yours.

My lenses always wear lens hoods and never protection filters. After wondering why the hell I had them on all my lenses, someone like you, maybe it was you, convinced me to take them off. Best advice ever. ESPECIALLY on that wonderful L glass.

And also, my lens hoods have taken some serious beatings and I have never worried about the glass.

[Ianfp]

Thanks for your comments! I have read that the 17-40L requires a filter to give it full hermetic sealing, but as I will use it in everyday conditions, it shouldn't matter.

[Jack W.]

http://www.kenandchristine.com/gallery/1054387

[Jon, The Elder]

Got to agree with SkipD again - except that I shoot horse events and I have been hit with flying stones (and other less fun stuff) enough times that my 70/200 2.8 always wears a very good Tiffen UV on the front of the glass. ALWAYS with a hood.

[steved110]

I'll put in a vote for filters! I use UV Hoya multicoated pro filters - not cheap but easier to clean than a lens, and I live ina windy seaside town as well. I've already had cause to be grateful my lens was wearing one!
I'm careful with my gear, especially this fancy L stuff - but even so it's real easy to jam your thumb onto the front element accidentally. they reckon there is an acid in sweat in fingerprints that eventually can permanently etch the glass - I'm not sure how true that is, but I can remember a frustrating time with my first ever SLR , inexpertly trying to clean a smudge off the lens, before i learnt about filters. I'd much rather clean a filter than a lens, period.

[malla1962]

http://www.kenandchristine.com/gallery/1054387That seems to be a good report,I allways use filters on my lenses(hoya Pro1) with no efect in IQ.A mate of mine got a new 24-70L and wanted me to test it for him,so I tested it against my copy,I forgot about my filter he had no filter and the shots were identical in colour and contrast.:D

[ed rader]

naw, you don't need no stinkin' filter, just ask this guy.

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1029&message=18508275

ed rader

[20DNewbie]

I've got one on every lens I have, I'm an idiot and know I'll screw it up some how if I don't.:lol:

[evandavies]

I have Hoya Pro's on all my lenses. Bit more money but good multi coatings and very slim to reduce vignetting.

Initially I did tests to see if they compromised image quality and I didn't see any affect the image at all.

As for flare I don't know but as everyone previously mentioned using the hood should eliminate that problem.

So, why not have em as an extra precaution for little expense.

my 2 pence,
E:- D

[ijohnson]

It just seems a tragedy to put some flat piece of glass, uncrafted and un-specified for use with a specific lens, in front of the beautiful and carefully designed glass of an expensive lens. Just look in to the front of a nice Canon L and watch the beautiful arcs and lines of colorful prisms and strange, seemingly supernatural colors come back at you. It is hard for me to put some random piece of glass in front of that, unless it creates an effect that I am looking for.

I may eat my words someday.

[evandavies]

I agree totally that you can't stick any old crap on the end of your pride and joy ;)

But I think a good quality UV filter can only be beneficial in protecting the beautifully crafted glass of the lens. (and keeping in those coloured spirits that live within)

I hate to even think of exposing my lenses to the elements.

It may be silly but its not doing any harm and one day may save the lens from who knows what unexpected event. Thats the point... it only takes one unforeseen freak incident to ruin that precious glass and waste £100's or £1000's for the lack of a piece of glass at a fraction of that cost.

Each to their own... :)
E:¬D

[Jack W.]

I've also been considering filters. While I agree that a hood will add protection, some lenses use hoods that are quite shallow.
Examples are the EF-S 10-22, the EF-S 17-85 and the EF-S 17-55. The petal type hoods on these lenses don't inspire confidence in me as far as protecting the lens goes. There's a whole lot of glass on those lenses just kinda hangin' out there, even with the hoods.
I'm going to buy a 77mm B+W, as it will fit the 10-22, the 17-55 and the 300f/4L IS.
I'll try it out on those lenses and see what I shall see, I guess. :-)

Jack

[ed rader]

I've also been considering filters. While I agree that a hood will add protection, some lenses use hoods that are quite shallow.
Examples are the EF-S 10-22, the EF-S 17-85 and the EF-S 17-55. The petal type hoods on these lenses don't inspire confidence in me as far as protecting the lens goes. There's a whole lot of glass on those lenses just kinda hangin' out there, even with the hoods.
I'm going to buy a 77mm B+W, as it will fit the 10-22, the 17-55 and the 300f/4L IS.
I'll try it out on those lenses and see what I shall see, I guess. :-)

Jack

i'll bet you don't see a thing different.

please let us know :cool: .

ed rader

[Jack W.]

i'll bet you don't see a thing different.

please let us know :cool: .

ed rader

Will do. :-)

Jack

[Double Negative]

If you stick with high quality filters you won't suffer any image degradation...

In high flare situations, it's true that a filter will add to the problem - but the lens will likely also flare to a degree at this point. In this case, simply remove the filter and/or recompose slightly. ;)

Stick with Heliopan, B+W or Hoya/Kenko Pro 1 and make sure they're multicoated.

I have Heliopan SH-PMC UV filters on all my glass and have no problems.

[steved110]

My Hoya pro 1 filters are certainly not random bits of glass. they too are beautifully crafted articles that perform a valuable task for me. And lord knows, on a $ per ounce basis, they cost a LOT more than L glass.
If you pixel peep, you might see a difference, but I sure don't notice anything on my images that makes feel they should come off.

[Double Negative]

If you pixel peep, you might see a difference, but I sure don't notice anything on my images that makes feel they should come off.
It's a myth that's perpetuated ad nauseum on this site (and others) that ANYTHING in front of the lens can only be bad, bad juju. If in doubt, look at page one of this thread. ;)

If that's the case, then you might as well throw out your ND, ND Grad and CPL filters, too. While you're at it, remove the front lens element on those big honkin' 500/600mm lenses too since they're only there for protection and not part of the optical formula...

It is a FACT that installing a UV (or other clear) filter on the front of your weathersealed L lens completes the sealing. It's stated in the manual.

Over 23+ years, I've got a couple of filters that managed to get some tiny scratches or nicks in them. It can't be avoided some times no matter how careful you are. I'd rather that happen to a filter than my expensive lens. Besides, why clean your lens more than necessary?

:rolleyes:

[BottomBracket]

Personally, I don't want to mess up the optical pathway as much as possible. No filters on my 17-40, and I always use a hood.

[Mr. Clean]

I've also been considering filters. While I agree that a hood will add protection, some lenses use hoods that are quite shallow.
Examples are the EF-S 10-22, the EF-S 17-85 and the EF-S 17-55. The petal type hoods on these lenses don't inspire confidence in me as far as protecting the lens goes. There's a whole lot of glass on those lenses just kinda hangin' out there, even with the hoods.
I'm going to buy a 77mm B+W, as it will fit the 10-22, the 17-55 and the 300f/4L IS.
I'll try it out on those lenses and see what I shall see, I guess. :-)

Jack
Try an S&W filter on ebay. Americaneagle is the seller if I remember, 10 bucks or so and they work great for me so far. Then you can judge whether it's right for you or not for protection.
Anyhoo, the filter/no filter arguement is a long drawn out beating of the dead horse...For hardly any money though, it might work for you.

[Pognig]

Would this warrent a poll?

I just bought my first L glass and i dont want to wreck it. Whether that means buying a filter or not seams like a debateable question.

[jedwards]

Like anything else in SLR-land - it depends on the conditions. If you are shooting in an environment which merits protection, use protection. Just like an effect filter IMO.
If you are shooting nightscapes, filters can create strange reflections - some are less prone than others, but none are less prone than no filter at all.
Snow tires will give you better traction in the snow, but in the summer take them off.