To Filter or not to Filter that is the Question

[triangle]

Hello, I am new to DSLR. I have a Drebel and two lenses, one of which I have a UV filter for. Now that I am beginning to shoot outdoor shots I was wondering if I should purchase a UV filter for my other lens. My Tamron 75-300mm is what I use most of the time for shooting sports and it is the one without a filter. I was wondering what experience that some of you have had with filters on digital pics and if you use or do not use filters and why. Thanks in advance for the inputs.

[Penguin_101_1]

I always use filters on all of my pics because
a. I don't like editing every picture in photoshop - that makes no sense to me when I could get done right the first time. Again, that is just my opinion.
b. I shoot film

[lomond]

I assume you mean UV for protection.

Two schools of thought.

First school; which I went to. Protect the front element with a GOOD quality filter.
Second school; any glass in front of the lens will degrade the image. Use a lens hood.

I have a UV filter on all my lenses except the 50 1.8. (the filter would cost more than the lens).
I might also use a lens hood.

I can afford very slight degradation of the image.
I can't afford new glass.

[Blackbird]

I use UV filters to protect the front of my lenses and a circular polariser.

[intechpcx]

I use a UV filter all the time to protect the lens. I'd rather scratch a $30 filter than the lens itself.

I use the polarizer fairly regularly when doing outdoor shots.

On my 35mm SLR I did a lot of night time photography with star-5 and star-6 filters. I even did some hobby work taking staged night pictures of a model railroad this way.

[Belmondo]

I us UV filters to protect my lenses. I also use a graduated neutral density filter and circular polarizer.

[Longwatcher]

Try taking IR photos without one 8)

Actually all of my "L" lenses and my 50/1.4 have a UV filter over them. My 28-135 and 75-300 do not (unless I put on the IR or CP filters for some reason).

[Mike Panic]

ill agree w/ lomond on the 2 schools of thought

for the 2nd school... usually these people (and yes im typecasting) are uptight and set in their ways, and very anal. they will tell you that unless you are spending hundreds of dollars on b+w or moose super multi coated filters, you are wasting your money and that those filters are only used in extreme cases, and that a lens hood should be enough to protect the end element. they will also argue that the front element usually only costs a few hundred bux so if you damage it, just replace it. they also will tell you that they have seen both in prints and online loss of sharpness and quality when using ANY uv filter, regardless of price and quality.

im from the other school.. i UV protect everything. someone on iphotoforum.com dropped their 16-35L lens and it landed on the filter and dinged the threading rings to put more filters on. had that filter not been on, it would have ruined the front half of the lens and cost anywhere from $250-500 to replace. so she lost out on $70 for a uv filter... much better option in my eyes. others would argue that a lens hood woulda broke the fall and solved the problem. i dont fully agree w/ that, as ive seen lens hoods pop off at the oddest times, and break as most are only plastic these days... and most are petal style hoods at that.

if anything... id rather keep the dut/dirt/whatever out of my glass by using the uv filter then anything else

[tim]

I use a UV filter on my Tamron walkaround lens, I don't on any of my other lenses. I might get one some time for the 100mm macro, then again I might not.

[Bodryn]

My 35mm film camera lenses always have filters on, UV, and/or a circular polarizer. Will do the same if/when I get a Canon EOS. For now, I usually don't use any filters on the Canon A70 or S1 due to the inconvenience of having to use plastic adapters.

[flyfisher]

I use uv's on all my lenses, also cir polerizer and nd filters when needed to achive apature that I want

[Ikinaa]

The only filters I use are Pol (get rid of reflections, can't be done in pic-prog), ND (to have longer exposure time), IR (for IR photography) and UV (to protect the lens).

For things that can be done in pic-prog I don't use a filter. For one : the filters aren't cheap, second what a filter does to a picture (for example a color filter), can not be undone by pic-prog.

By using filters you limit the usage of a picture, by keeping it neutral, the number of usages is bigger.

[dhbailey]

I don't think this is a fair poll, because it seems to be an always/never answer choice. I use filters only when they are necessary, such as neutral density or circular polarizer, and don't take many pictures which require those. So I answered NO because the preponderance of my pictures are without filters.

I think a better poll would have some other possibilities:
1. Always
2. Sometimes
3. Rarely
4. Never
5. What's a filter

[Andy_T]

Maybe I' m a 'belts and braces man' ... but i use a good multi-coated UV filter (hoya) AND a lens hood, if possible.

Best regards,
Andy

[Olegis]

My Tamron 28-75 f/2.8, Canon 70-200 f/2.8L and Canon 100mm f/2.8 macro are always protected with UV filters. The Canon 50mm f/1.8 MkII is too cheap to protect ( :lol: ) and the Tokina 17mm requires very big and expensive filter (77mm if I remember correctly).

[Mills]

I use multi coated UV filters primarily with protection in mind. And there have been a few occasions where protection was provided.

[Kinger]

I us UV filters to protect my lenses. I also use a graduated neutral density filter and circular polarizer.

I use the exame same setup. But graduated neutral density is just for my wide angle lens.

[CyberDyneSystems]

I think the logic behind NOT using a UV filter is perfectly sound...

Personally I allways strive for the best I can get in my photography,. I shoot RAW and I use the bst lenses I can afford,...

Those that shoot without filters are simply not will to compromise there total image quality.

This is a compromise though that I have remained willing to make Vs. the fear of trashing a lens.

For me anyways.. this remains a very tough call.. and there are times in controlled situations where the filter comes off,...

However,. I have a small collection of scratched up UV filters to prove to myself that it is a NECCESARY Evil... one that I at least should continue to live with ;)

[pierrot]

As I do as almost everyone here, I have nothing to add, except for this:
Wish they made some kind of a "pinch" clipsing system for UV filters, making it possible to remove them as if they were just what I use them for most of the time: front lens protection ;)

[KennyG]

I'm trying to staying out of this argument, other than to state my position. CPL's and ND's are fine, anything else does not improve my photography. After 25 years (26 this year) with Canon cameras/lenses I'm too long in the tooth and experience to change.

Oh, and a passing thought, how do the filter fanatics sleep at night when they own one of the big primes? Can't fit a filter to the front of one of those. Maybe they leave them at home?

[Jon]

Oh, and a passing thought, how do the filter fanatics sleep at night when they own one of the big primes? Can't fit a filter to the front of one of those. Maybe they leave them at home?

If I can, I will. If I can't, there's nothing I can do about it (Sigma 15-30 doesn't cope well with front filters either), but at least Canon puts a sacrificial protective glass element on the front of them.

[Jim_T]

As dhbaily says.. "Do you use filters" is too broad a question. I'm sure the UV filter is the most popular (I use them).. Then there are filters that can't be duplicated in editing.. Polarizers, neutral density, IR and the fancy stuff.. (Star and halo filters for instance).

Color filters are a waste of time and money They're designed for film which has no means of setting a white balance. Unlike film, all the EOS digital cameras have the standard canned basic white balance settings and also have advanced settings such as custom white balance and an adjustable color temperature.

Using the custom settings, you can set up the camera for a particular situation and then save the settings that work. Rather than screwing on a filter for a particular situation, you can just call up your saved settings that duplicate what the colored filter would have done.

[darkdrakon]

I use filters most of the time I droped a 600.00 lens without a filter and chewed up the front element of the lens it cost 275.00 to repair. put a filter on if want one. it all comes down to preferance

[Alan Neilson]

Yes I use filters, I have UV's on all my lens I also have some Cokin filters the ones I main use is my Pola, and ND grads. I still some colour ones from when I shot 35 mm B+W. Only have problems with my wide and zoom on full wide angle as it goes show slightly in the corners even with the "P" size filters, but I ain't changing to the next size up!

[Persian-Rice]

What filter? any filter?

I like to do things right the first time. Saves you time, and if you want to work for any big company, they want to know you are a photographer, not a photoshop expert with an expensive camera. Of course, that's if you are applying to be a photographer.

Sometimes I will shoot without a filter even though I know I need one, just so I can experiment later.

If you are talking about UV, they pretty much have no effect other then to protect the glass, which in itself is a reason to glue one on and never take it off. WARNING: DON'T GLUE YOUR UV TO YOUR LENS

[Twist]

Since the topic of filters is up. I am looking to get a few filters. Does the same rule apply. "You get what you pay for"? I am getting a 28-135 IS lens and want to get some decent filters for it. Since its 72mm the prices are already up but how to know what is a good filter? Price isnt a proving point. I am not afraid to spend the money on decent polarizing or ND filters. But I would also really like to get a Hoya R72 IR 72mm filter. That will set me back 80 bucks alone for just that one. Certain brands to keep an eye on? Or certain shops that have decent prices on good filters?

[kawter2]

oops I said no thinking you were refering to like polarizers, red filters etc

[JeffS]

I use pretty good UV filters (mainly to protect my lenses) and circular polarizers when doing shots outside that I feel it will make a real difference with.

[DionM]

I am a filter fanatic.

All of my lenses have UV filters on them. For my 100-300, 28-105 and 18-55 they have mid-priced UVs. My 50 f1.8 and my 17-40L have super duper Hoya supermulticoat whizz-bang ones one them to minimise any possible problems. I would lie awake at night if I didn't have a filter. Hell, even my G2 has a filter on it :). But that's just me.

Oh - and the inability to fit a filter to front of the 12-24 was a big reason why I didn't buy that lens. I might get it one day as a speciality lens to use now and then when I want superwide, maybe.

[AcuraFan]

i just got some polarizing and ND filters for my 24-70mm, my question is can you stack either of them on top of the UV filter?? Or do i have to take off the UV every time?

[Persian-Rice]

You can stack as much as you want.

[Andy_T]

i just got some polarizing and ND filters for my 24-70mm, my question is can you stack either of them on top of the UV filter?? Or do i have to take off the UV every time?

On the 20D, the 1.6 crop should be sufficient to prevent vignetting .. so you could stack them. Maybe get a thin UV filter.

Best regards,
Andy

[RJSorensen]

I follow the hood rule and leave the filters off . . . unless a filter is needed and or wanted for the shot. Filters are special use not everyday for me.

[Jon]

If you stack, expect to see more image degradation, even with very good filters. Every additional surface and layer will have a cumulative effect. I'd seriously recommend removing the UV before using polarizers and/or ND filters if at all possible.

[Akreager]

Hello, I am new to DSLR. I have a Drebel and two lenses, one of which I have a UV filter for. Now that I am beginning to shoot outdoor shots I was wondering if I should purchase a UV filter for my other lens. My Tamron 75-300mm is what I use most of the time for shooting sports and it is the one without a filter. I was wondering what experience that some of you have had with filters on digital pics and if you use or do not use filters and why. Thanks in advance for the inputs.

I pretty much echo what the others have said. I use a circular polarizor to get those nice blues in the sky and a graduated neutral density filter if the sky is very bright in contrast with the rest of the frame. It is faster than doing it in photoshop and you can shoot jpeg and use them straight from the camera. You can do it all in photoshop especially if you buy a plug in like NIK Filter Effex, but you have to shoot in raw. If you try to process jpegs heavily you get banding. Another way to go is to use a tripod, braket the exposures and blend using layers in PS - typically works well with JPEGS. All sounds like a lot of effort - My wife always tells me after she drops a load on a new hairdo that beauty aint cheap!

[KevC]

I intend to get a filter and/or hood for my more expensive lenses. But for now... I only have my dad's old lens, and the kit lens... and a 50/1.8 coming in... sooo I really don't need to protect those as much :)

[Nic]

I'm just talking about the 17-40mm f/4 lens:
On Page E-1 of it's handbook the following two paragraphs appear:
"(For maximum protection, a filter must also be attached to the front of the lens.)"; and
"Although the lens is dust and water resistant, a filter must also be attached to the front of the lens for complete protection."

[Jon]

The weather-sealed L lenses are a special case. Most of Canon's (and virtually all of anybody else's) lenses lack the gaskets and O rings these lenses have to keep moisture and dust out of the innards. But Canon recommends the filter to seal the front element more completely.

[dobova]

I use UV filter on all my lens, mainly to preserve them from scratch. Sometimes I use polarizer when need fill-flash.

[blackviolet]

i do not use a filter. to me, it seems like there is a noticeable difference between w/ filter and w/out - and that's with b&w, etc. there seems to be a little bit of decreased contrast. i used to swear by them.


as kenny said, cir pols and neutral density have their place and i use them when necessary