Lens protector

[figo]

Just bought 17-40mm lens and looking for a filter to protect the lens. What would you recommended? Do I really need to buy a filter?

[Livinthalife]

You don't NEED a filter. If you get one, get a simple UV one...I would guess Hoya.

I think the hood is enough for protection.

[SkipD]

Just bought 17-40mm lens and looking for a filter to protect the lens. What would you recommended? Do I really need to buy a filter?Whether or not you "need" to buy a filter depends on the conditions in which you take photos. I would absolutely recommend a lens hood - that gets used every time the lens is on the camera - but I have not used filters for "protection" in over 40 years of shooting and have never had a lens damaged. However, I don't go out shooting in blowing sandstorms or other similar conditions.

Read this article to see why it isn't a good idea to leave a filter on a lens: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/columns/sm-feb-05.shtml

Here's a thread in POTN with some more examples: http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=64805

If you insist on using a UV filter for "protection", make sure it's the best quality multicoated filter than you can find.

A good quality, properly designed (for the lens in question) rigid lens hood can provide protection not only from stray light but also from the daily bangs and dings the front of a lens will experience as well as keeping your fingers off the lens. The hood can also provide very significant crash protection.

[Livinthalife]

Good read skip, I didn't know how much a UV filter could affect your photos.

[Lester Wareham]

Just bought 17-40mm lens and looking for a filter to protect the lens. What would you recommended? Do I really need to buy a filter?

Whether or not you "need" to buy a filter depends on the conditions in which you take photos. I would absolutely recommend a lens hood - that gets used every time the lens is on the camera - but I have not used filters for "protection" in over 40 years of shooting and have never had a lens damaged. However, I don't go out shooting in blowing sandstorms or other similar conditions.

Read this article to see why it isn't a good idea to leave a filter on a lens: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/columns/sm-feb-05.shtml

Here's a thread in POTN with some more examples: http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=64805

If you insist on using a UV filter for "protection", make sure it's the best quality multicoated filter than you can find.

A good quality, properly designed (for the lens in question) rigid lens hood can provide protection not only from stray light but also from the daily bangs and dings the front of a lens will experience as well as keeping your fingers off the lens. The hood can also provide very significant crash protection.

I agree with all you say here Skip in principle but the luminous-landscape link bugs me a bit because the author has used shots from another photographer and says look, filter flare but never shows a shot without the filter for comparisson.

It is worth pointing out that the second link shows a good with and without case example but apparently using a Tiffen filter which my understanding is not one of the better ones. Despite that I was surprised it did so well, having a light source in the frame is a tough test.

I have been using UV protection filters for over 25 years and not had issues with it and would only worry if working with strong light sources in frame. These days I use Hoya HMC pro1 UV filters.

I did a load of tests recently (http://www.zen20934.zen.co.uk/photography/LensTests/Flare/index.htm), you can get filter flare, but very often it is no worse than flare from the lens.

[René Damkot]

A photographer I work for used to have a B+W multicoated UV filter on his 70-200L. One day we ran into some flare, and removing the filter did the trick. Now the filter is off the lens when shooting...

[MagicallyDelicious]

I always buy a simple uv or skylight filter for all my lenses. id rather scratch one of those rather than the lens glass.

[crn3371]

The filter/no filter debate seems to be very polarizing. Both sides are able to make compelling arguments, pro and con. If you go the filter as protection route, make sure you get a high grade filter. Makes no sense to put a $20 piece of glass in front of a L.

[Nick_C]

Some will say dont use them as they degrade image quality which makes a lot of sense, but I firmly believe in using them to protect the front element, ive done lots of tests after reading that they can degrade quality & at 100% pixel peeping I cant see any difference whatsoever.

I use the hood to shield the lens from the sun's glare, but it provides no protection against sea spray or anything like that, I mean it is ONLY a hood, it cant protect the front element that much, a filter makes a lot of sense, especially on expensive lenses.

I put one on my Sigma 17-70 as soon as I got it, its never been off since, I took it off the other day when testing to see if it made any difference with or without & was happy to see not even a speck of dust on the lens, where as the filter could do with a good clean, greasy specs, dust, you name it.

I also use a polarizing filter & the Cokin P Series Grad filter, the Cokin Grad isnt even glass, its plastic & even that makes no change to the optical quality, its surprising to find so many people not using a simple protection filter & yet they use Cokin filters & polarizers.

If I were you I would buy one straight away, I have the Hoya G series UV, its the cheapest that Hoya make & its perfect, if you shoot in situations where a lot of glare might be a problem, then get a multicoated Hoya, although ive never had any lack of contrast or glare problems unless I point almost up at the sun!

If on the other hand you find that lens conflicts somehow with the filter, which I doubt it, then just take it off, try it & see.

Nick :-)

[rklepper]

First, there really are only certain instances you need a filter. Either for creative effect of in harsh environments that might damage the front element. But do not try to compare with and without a fileter with some cheap Tiffen or Hoya filter. Obviously they will degreade the image quality.

[Nick_C]

First, there really are only certain instances you need a filter. Either for creative effect of in harsh environments that might damage the front element. But do not try to compare with and without a fileter with some cheap Tiffen or Hoya filter. Obviously they will degreade the image quality.

I havent found that at all, I have the cheapest that Hoya make, after loads of tests there was no difference in the images, with or without..

You only get a little more flare if you point the camera so the sun is almost in the shot, like at the top right of your photo, I even did some tests with that, without the filter the lens flare was about a 3mm patch on the image, with the filter it was about an 8mm patch with a slight loss of contrast, but either shot I wouldnt have wanted to keep!

A lens hood does more for reducing glare than taking the filter off anyway, its bad practice to get glare in your shot anyway.

Under everyday shooting conditions they dont effect your images, try it out & see for yourself.

If you dont want to use one, then dont, but I dont like going out without one on, its just added protection, people have used them for years now..

Nick :-)