Why do I have to use filters!!!!!!!

[ijohnson]

So I have some really nice UV filters that I put on my lenses. They are the top of the line B+W filters and I truly believe that they are really nice glass.

Every time I look at my lenses, especially my 70-200 2.8, I want to take the filter off and stare into that beautiful glass. But I don't. That front element has barely ever tasted fresh air.

It is driving me crazy lately. I know that the filter provides protection, but I have had so many lenses and nothing has ever touched the filter and they has served no purpose for me whatsoever. I can't help but think that it is degrading the end result by some totally un-noticeable degree (which is a lot).

Can somebody write back to me and tell me how they don't believe in filters and that they think that they are a waste of time. PLEASE!!!

[DocFrankenstein]

Yes... sell me that 77 BW cheap... it degrades stuff!

[ijohnson]

Yes... sell me that 77 BW cheap... it degrades stuff!

I knew that was going to happen. I have two. If somebody can convince me to take them off, I will sell them to you at retail. I did say that they had never been touched.

[jbradc]

This debate is as old as SLR's :-) Personaly, I do not keep a filter on my lenses. I do always use a lens hood for protection, but I use filters when they are needed for example if I am shoting in dusty or damp coditions I will protect the lens with a filter but not 24/7/365.
That's just me.

[ijohnson]

This debate is as old as SLR's :-) Personaly, I do not keep a filter on my lenses. I do always use a lens hood for protection, but I use filters when they are needed for example if I am shoting in dusty or damp coditions I will protect the lens with a filter but not 24/7/365.
That's just me.

Yeah really. The lens hood on the 70-200 seems like more than enough protection. I am having a harder time justfying the removal of the 17-40 filter. That lens hood would only protect you from walking directly into a wall.

[Nightcrawler]

If you want something to convince you, this might help.
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/columns/sm-feb-05.shtml

[RJSorensen]

I have CP's for all lenses, but NEVER use filters other than as noted. I use HOODS for all lenses, always. Hoods add to the quality of a shot. What does another dirty piece of expensive glass add to your shot? If it is not for 'effect' then get a hood and use it. I might add some ND"s to my filter collection, lol, but not for general use . . .

Strokes for Folks . . .

[ijohnson]

If you want something to convince you, this might help.
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/columns/sm-feb-05.shtml

That was awesome. I always suspected these things were true. Thank you.

Now I have two $150 coasters.

[L Pagan]

That was awesome. I always suspected these things were true. Thank you.

Now I have two $150 coasters.thanks same here but i have three

[mbze430]

I personally don't use those UV or Haze Skylight filters. They are a waste of money. Hood yes. "protection" filters no. I do use color and ND filters.

[Moments]

I guess it depends on how your equipment is used. Even though I take very good care of my equipment, things can happen.

Durring a wedding, I operate in a fast paced and sometimes hectic surroundings. From assistaints that handle MY equipment with little reguard to replacing the cap when they put the lens facing up, back in the bag, to the lovely, soo soo cute, 5 year old that goes to stick his little sticky fingers in my lens while I'm talking to his beeming aunt, the bride, and lets not forget the sometimes popping of a champaign or beer bottle which always seems to spray towards us, and please, let us not forget what it's like to be in a crowd of drunk people.
I like to have just a little extra protection on all of my lens that each range from a $350 lens for my Canon, to $3000 for a Hassy lens. And if anything does happen to the filter, I can take it off and still use the lens while the assistaint cleans or gets another filter.
Since a filter is now part of the lens optics , I would not buy the cheapest one to save a few bucks.
My 2 cents for what it's worth.

Pete
http://www.memorablemoments.net

[Michaelmjc]

I keep a filter on my lense, The main purpose is to keep the lense protected.

The filter costs about 20 bucks, and the lense costs over 300. If the filter gets scratched, wrecked, etc... I'm out 20 or so bucks, but if that happens to my lense, I'm screwed.

If it doesn't make any difference, why would you want to take it off? Wouldn't you rather be confident that your lense wont get scratched?

Ok.. Lets say you do take it off, what if the lense gets scratched? Now you have a scratched lense, and will have to get a new one. Big waste of money when the little filter is hardly even noticable.

I say.. Keep it on, dont risk ruining your lense.

Mike

[DocFrankenstein]

Why do u have to get a new lens when an old one gets scratched?

[dhbailey]

I keep a filter on my lense, The main purpose is to keep the lense protected.

The filter costs about 20 bucks, and the lense costs over 300. If the filter gets scratched, wrecked, etc... I'm out 20 or so bucks, but if that happens to my lense, I'm screwed.

If it doesn't make any difference, why would you want to take it off? Wouldn't you rather be confident that your lense wont get scratched?

Ok.. Lets say you do take it off, what if the lense gets scratched? Now you have a scratched lense, and will have to get a new one. Big waste of money when the little filter is hardly even noticable.

I say.. Keep it on, dont risk ruining your lense.

Mike


My reply to anybody who asks about keeping filters on their lenses is to tell them to take the same picture with and without the filter on the lens. If they can see a difference, then decide which one they like better and go with that decision. If they can't see any difference at all, then they should keep the filter on. If they can see a slight difference in only certain very specific situations, they need to balance the protection issue against the fact that in those situations they won't get the pictures they want unless they remove the filter.

Take some pictures with and without the filter shooting fairly directly into a light, to see if there is any filter-generated flare (such as the examples at the link posted in an earlier message in this thread) and take some with flash and take some outdoors in daylight at various angles to the sun including shooting directly away from the sun.

I gave up using filters when I wondered why I was less than thrilled with the pictures on my Sony Mavica CD300. I had been keeping the filter on, as I had been dutifully instructed over the years with my Canon AE1 film camera. One day in frustration I removed the filter and shot a bunch of pictures with the Sony and they started looking vibrant again.

Since then I only put a filter on when I have a specific photographic need or desire to get the effect the filter offers.

Protection against damaging your lens? Learn to be careful!

Protection against taking the best pictures your camera and lens are capable of? Keep the filter on.

[Anders Östberg]

Well... generally speaking I prefer the extra protection and have not seen any quality degradation whatsoever for the type of shooting I do. I might take the filter off for really dark night shots as that seems to be one situation where you can get visible internal reflections.

Here's an example where I definitely would *not* shoot without filters... after a day at this race track I and my camera gear was literally grey with dust. I'd much rather wipe this off the filter than off the front element.

http://www.andersostberg.com/fotogalleri/albums/userpics/Folkrace_20040808/JH5Q0892.jpg

[René Damkot]

Well, I (still) don't use filters. Once a glass of beer got tipped into my camera bag, All lenses' hoods filled up with it... :( After cleaning and drying everything seemed okay, but a few days later I discovered some of it got between the front lens elements of my 100/2.0. It seems that time a filter would have been a nice thing...

[sdommin]

Can somebody write back to me and tell me how they don't believe in filters and that they think that they are a waste of time. PLEASE!!!

I don't believe in filters and I think they are a waste of time. [Well, you asked!]

Actually, I've never used filters for protection. I got my first SLR (a Canon Ftb) in 1975 and I've been shooting hot 'n heavy since then. I've never scratched a lens, which is what so many people are deathly afraid of. Maybe its just my personal technique, but I've rarely even let dust touch the lens (and I've been to some dusty places).

[SkipD]

The only filters I have used for about 40 years of shooting have been polarized filters or colored filters for special effects when shooting B&W film. I have never scratched a lens when cleaning it. I suppose if I decided to take photos in a sandstorm I might consider a clear filter. I have already shot car races in the rain with no filter, and not a single problem occurred.

I always use good lens hoods, however, and that saved a camera that's still working 37 years after a major crash to the sidewalk (and no repairs other than replacing the hood).

[PaulB]

Be aware that the 16-35/2.8L and 17-40/4L are only weathersealed IF a filter is used .
A filter MAY degrade an image but a stone through the front element - as happened to a colleague of mine a few years back - really ruins your day. It was a Nikon 400/3.5 and the front element survived thanks to a front mounted filter!
Also note that the long L telephotos have a front protection filter built in to the design - much cheaper to replace than a front element.....................

[ohenry]

If less than the best is acceptable to you then, by all means, don't worry about image degradation from filters and feel good knowing that your images may not be your best, but at least your lens is practicing safe photography. Remember, lens flare often enhances your images, especially when they show up at random places...how creative is that?

[cactusclay]

I think someone said it already, but I'll say it too. If you can tell a difference without one then maybe you really need that extra quality, but the quality of the images with protective filters seem good enough for me. I have a pair of Maui Jim sunglasses, that I've had for about four years now. I take very good care of them and always store them in a case, but they have little nicks and scratches none the less, because they are exposed to the elements. I try to keep lenses in the best shape possible and exposing the front element to the elements doesn't help with that. I used to shoot ski photography and I actually had a filter get cracked by a chunck of ice as a skier made a turn in the gates ahead of me. That was enough to sell me on filters.

[pcasciola]

Based on the results of our recent poll which showed 25% of our members have had at least one lens saved by a filter, and my own tests where I could not see any difference in image quality with and without my relatively inexpensive Hoya Super HMC UVs, my filters are staying on. If I saw even the slightest degradation in image quality, they would be in the garbage in a second.

True, I don't see many lenses for sale with scratched front elements, but I do see many with dings along the rim, costing the seller at least $50-$100 in value, so I'd rather have a dinged filter than a dinged or scratched lens.

[triangle]

If you want something to convince you, this might help.
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/columns/sm-feb-05.shtml

Thanks for this read.


I posted a poll not long ago here about this topic (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=55443). As a matter of fact I had filters in my cart at B&H for each of my lenses to purchase on my next order. I read the article and reread the posts that everyone contributed there. I think I am going to go ahead and get the filters (around $35 for all three lenses). The majority of shooters here seem to think it is important, if I do not like them I will put them in the bag.

[ijohnson]

And the winner is..........








Needless to say, we had a party here last night.

[timmyquest]

And the winner is..........








Needless to say, we had a party here last night.

Oh man, i can attest to that!

I took my 17-40 to a party one night, just before i left i said "i better put the filter on it"

When i woke up the next day and looked at the camera...oh man, that lens would have been toast lol

[rklepper]

I started using a filter on my kit lense from the rebel XT. All of my photos really looked washed out. I used a UV filter on this with my new 28-135 IS USM. HEre is an example photo:

http://www.iowalakes.edu/faculty/klepper/pictures/ruby01.htm

Doc

[Anders Östberg]

I started using a filter on my kit lense from the rebel XT. All of my photos really looked washed out. I used a UV filter on this with my new 28-135 IS USM. HEre is an example photo:

http://www.iowalakes.edu/faculty/klepper/pictures/ruby01.htm

Doc
Just out of curiousity, what brand/model filter was that?

[RonS50]

If you go to the Canon website and look for EF Lense 101, under lens care, They recomend the use of a UV filter for lense protection. I think I will take their advice.