Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
Thread started 02 Aug 2013 (Friday) 04:35
Search threadPrev/next
POLL: "Who uses filter for the sole purpose of protecting the lens"
Use filter
234
51.4%
Don't use filter
221
48.6%

455 voters, 455 votes given (1 choice only choices can be voted per member)). VOTING IS FOR MEMBERS ONLY.
BROWSE ALL POLLS
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Who uses filters for the sole purpose of protecting the lens

 
EverydayGetaway
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
10,640 posts
Gallery: 11 photos
Likes: 3885
Joined Oct 2012
Location: Bowie, MD
     
Aug 11, 2013 18:37 |  #166

I've had one pair of glasses for 2 years and I clean them multiple times a day with my shirt. I frequently go hiking in dusty conditions, tumble in a gym with them on (they fly off and hit things), etc. After those 2 years of use they still have no scratches at all on them and they're a cheap pair of glasses. I'd like to think that if my glasses can handle it, the front element can handle just as much abuse.

If I were to go and shoot a rally or rodeo then sure, I'd toss a filter on there just for the peace of mind, but for daily use I just don't get the point. I've seen a definite flare issue caused by a UV filter, after that they stopped going on my lenses. Not only that, I personally find that a filter is actually harder to wipe clean then a lens is (unless it's sea spray, because with a filter I'll scrub that sucker as rough as I feel I need to, I'm a little more gentle with my front elements).


Fuji X-Pro2 // Fuji X-H1 // Fuji X-T1 // Fuji X-100T
flickr (external link) // Instagram (external link)www.LucasGPhoto.com (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
georgebowman
Goldmember
Avatar
1,510 posts
Likes: 2
Joined May 2009
Location: Verona, WI
     
Aug 12, 2013 00:10 |  #167

I've ponder this same question. I bought Hoya Digital Pro filters for all of L glass because I was afraid the front elements were going to get damaged when shooting weddings. However, I often wondered if that was really affecting my image quality or autofocus. Now I'm going to pull the filters off and run some test shots. Thanks for all of your input.


My Gear: 7d, XTi, 17-55f2.8 EF-S, 70-200f4L, 28-135 Kit lens, 2-580EXii
_______________
My Flickr http://www.flickr.com/​photos/gtbowman (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Wilt
Reader's Digest Condensed version of War and Peace [POTN Vol 1]
Avatar
41,872 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 2603
Joined Aug 2005
Location: Belmont, CA
     
Aug 12, 2013 00:30 |  #168

georgebowman wrote in post #16200160 (external link)
I've ponder this same question. I bought Hoya Digital Pro filters for all of L glass because I was afraid the front elements were going to get damaged when shooting weddings. However, I often wondered if that was really affecting my image quality or autofocus. Now I'm going to pull the filters off and run some test shots. Thanks for all of your input.

The Hoya Digital Pro line of filters is a marketing scam to pry money out of the hands of those owing digital cameras. They are inferior in light transmission compared to the Hoya S-HMC line with 99.7% light transmission, the Digital Por line transmitting only 97% of the light and similar to the older Hoya HMC line in light transmission. Hoya later came out with Hoya HD line, which transmits 99.35% of light per their claims.


You need to give me OK to edit your image and repost! Keep POTN alive and well with member support https://photography-on-the.net/forum/donate.p​hp
Canon dSLR system, Olympus OM 35mm system, Bronica ETRSi 645 system, Horseman LS 4x5 system, Metz flashes, Dynalite studio lighting, and too many accessories to mention

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
JM ­ Photos
"Childhood ruined"
Avatar
3,374 posts
Gallery: 65 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 319
Joined Sep 2010
Location: Washington: North Seattle
     
Aug 12, 2013 15:54 |  #169

hollis_f wrote in post #16197892 (external link)
I may already have posted this...

No filter, Hoya HD, Cheap NoName

QUOTED IMAGE

I don't know if that's the best comparison...Even the original without a filter looks like complete crap.


Canon 6D, & Sony α6000
Own: 24-105mm f/4L | Tamron 150-600mm f/5-6.3 | Rokinon 14mm f/1.8
Want: 24-70mm f/2.8 L II | 70-200mm f/2.8 L II
Website: Jordyn Murdock Photography (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
hollis_f
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
10,649 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 85
Joined Jul 2007
Location: Sussex, UK
     
Aug 12, 2013 16:43 |  #170

JM Photos wrote in post #16202067 (external link)
I don't know if that's the best comparison...Even the original without a filter looks like complete crap.

They are 100% crops at 400mm


Frank Hollis - Retired mass spectroscopist
Give a man a fish and he'll eat for a day. Teach a man to fish and he'll complain about the withdrawal of his free fish entitlement.
Gear Website (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
vaflower
Senior Member
Avatar
855 posts
Joined Sep 2012
Location: Massachusetts
     
Aug 12, 2013 16:52 |  #171

Feel free to test yourself if you can see UV filter effect in a more studio-like situation. https://photography-on-the.net …/showthread.php​?t=1322076


Fuji XE-1, Zeiss ikon, Hasselblad; I love shooting film as a conceptual idea :)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
MakisM1
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
5,580 posts
Gallery: 24 photos
Likes: 352
Joined Dec 2011
Location: Houston
     
Aug 12, 2013 17:38 |  #172

hollis_f wrote in post #16202198 (external link)
They are 100% crops at 400mm

They are still complete cr@p Hollis...:D


Gerry
Canon 5D MkIII/Canon 60D/Canon EF-S 18-200/Canon EF 24-70L USM II/Canon EF 70-200L 2.8 USM II/Canon EF 50 f1.8 II/Σ 8-16/ 430 EXII
OS: Linux Ubuntu/PostProcessing: Darktable/Image Processing: GIMP

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
KirkS518
Goldmember
Avatar
3,983 posts
Likes: 24
Joined Apr 2012
Location: Central Gulf Coast, Flori-duh
     
Aug 12, 2013 18:11 |  #173

vaflower wrote in post #16202225 (external link)
Feel free to test yourself if you can see UV filter effect in a more studio-like situation. https://photography-on-the.net …/showthread.php​?t=1322076

Why would you ever need 'protection' in an indoor controlled environment? Seriously...?


If steroids are illegal for athletes, should PS be illegal for models?
Digital - 50D, 20D IR Conv, 9 Lenses from 8mm to 300mm
Analog - Mamiya RB67 Pro-SD, Canon A-1, Nikon F4S, YashicaMat 124G, Rollei 35S, QL17 GIII, Zeiss Ikon Ikoflex 1st Version, and and entire room full of lenses and other stuff

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
vaflower
Senior Member
Avatar
855 posts
Joined Sep 2012
Location: Massachusetts
     
Aug 12, 2013 18:18 |  #174

KirkS518 wrote in post #16202447 (external link)
Why would you ever need 'protection' in an indoor controlled environment? Seriously...?

Irrelevant question. It is just a test. No one find an imatest chart beautiful but it is still a standard shooting test.


Fuji XE-1, Zeiss ikon, Hasselblad; I love shooting film as a conceptual idea :)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Wilt
Reader's Digest Condensed version of War and Peace [POTN Vol 1]
Avatar
41,872 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 2603
Joined Aug 2005
Location: Belmont, CA
     
Aug 12, 2013 18:22 |  #175

KirkS518 wrote in post #16202447 (external link)
Why would you ever need 'protection' in an indoor controlled environment? Seriously...?

Close up shots of infants/toddlers...rea​ching hands covered with slobber.
Close up shots of pets, or around pets...wet noses, tongues


You need to give me OK to edit your image and repost! Keep POTN alive and well with member support https://photography-on-the.net/forum/donate.p​hp
Canon dSLR system, Olympus OM 35mm system, Bronica ETRSi 645 system, Horseman LS 4x5 system, Metz flashes, Dynalite studio lighting, and too many accessories to mention

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Wilt
Reader's Digest Condensed version of War and Peace [POTN Vol 1]
Avatar
41,872 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 2603
Joined Aug 2005
Location: Belmont, CA
     
Aug 12, 2013 18:27 |  #176

MakisM1 wrote in post #16202366 (external link)
They are still complete cr@p Hollis...:D

It does prove the point raised by the Subject of another current thread, "Can you see UV filter image degradation ? "

You might not always see it, but Yes you CAN, in the right circumstances.
That's why one should not simply leave a filter on, 100% of the time. And in the case of some lenses (like th 100-400mm), you should AVOID using a filter as much as possible.


You need to give me OK to edit your image and repost! Keep POTN alive and well with member support https://photography-on-the.net/forum/donate.p​hp
Canon dSLR system, Olympus OM 35mm system, Bronica ETRSi 645 system, Horseman LS 4x5 system, Metz flashes, Dynalite studio lighting, and too many accessories to mention

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
hollis_f
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
10,649 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 85
Joined Jul 2007
Location: Sussex, UK
     
Aug 12, 2013 18:50 |  #177

MakisM1 wrote in post #16202366 (external link)
They are still complete cr@p Hollis...:D

Look you complete and utter... They are not supposed to be marvellous framable photos. They were taken as test shots to prove a point.


Frank Hollis - Retired mass spectroscopist
Give a man a fish and he'll eat for a day. Teach a man to fish and he'll complain about the withdrawal of his free fish entitlement.
Gear Website (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Hogloff
Cream of the Crop
7,606 posts
Likes: 415
Joined Apr 2003
Location: British Columbia
     
Aug 12, 2013 19:08 |  #178
bannedPermanent ban

I don't get it. Either use filters or don't. There is no right or wrong here. It's a personal choice...very much like buying insurance for your gear. I've seen tests that show degradation under certain conditions and other tests that show none.

Personally, I use a uv filter when I feel I need to protect my glass, not to improve the quality of the photo. I have never seen any degradation in the prints I make from images I shot with the filter attached. But then I only use them under very specific conditions.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
KirkS518
Goldmember
Avatar
3,983 posts
Likes: 24
Joined Apr 2012
Location: Central Gulf Coast, Flori-duh
     
Aug 12, 2013 20:38 |  #179

Hogloff wrote in post #16202587 (external link)
I don't get it. Either use filters or don't. There is no right or wrong here. It's a personal choice...very much like buying insurance for your gear. I've seen tests that show degradation under certain conditions and other tests that show none.

Personally, I use a uv filter when I feel I need to protect my glass, not to improve the quality of the photo. I have never seen any degradation in the prints I make from images I shot with the filter attached. But then I only use them under very specific conditions.

Aside form the "It's the Internet, and I'm going to argue until I win or die" phenomenon, I think the 2 sides see it this way;

Those for the use of filters feel that it gives an extra layer of risk reduction, although there will be the occasional loss of image quality. They feel the benefits outweigh the cost (ie, cost of filter & cost in (potential) IQ loss).

Those against the use of filters feel that the potential for lens damage is minimal to non-existent, and value IQ enough to take that risk. And, a hood serves the same purpose as a filter without IQ loss, and potentially greater IQ due to the reduction of the glare/flare potential.

I think the argument/fight/war comes into play when the argument that an extra piece of glass isn't, doesn't, won't, hasn't, never will affect IQ, and not whether or not to use one for protection.

Thank the heavens for the internet. Could you imagine a banquet hall full of photogs, 50% for, 50% against? There would be a bunch of bloodied, maimed, and dead photographers after a couple of hours. :D


If steroids are illegal for athletes, should PS be illegal for models?
Digital - 50D, 20D IR Conv, 9 Lenses from 8mm to 300mm
Analog - Mamiya RB67 Pro-SD, Canon A-1, Nikon F4S, YashicaMat 124G, Rollei 35S, QL17 GIII, Zeiss Ikon Ikoflex 1st Version, and and entire room full of lenses and other stuff

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Charlie
Guess What! I'm Pregnant!
16,118 posts
Gallery: 8 photos
Likes: 6183
Joined Sep 2007
     
Aug 12, 2013 20:39 |  #180

lenses with weaker optics, I will tend to avoid the filter as much as possible (50L).

Also, lenses with really small elements, I try to avoid using filters as well (40mm pancake, 22mm stm).

If anyone borrows my gear, a filter is going on. As for degradation to sharpness, pretty sure the biggest offenders are ND and Circular polarizers. I dont have any issues slapping those on.


Sony A7riii/A9 - FE 12-24/4 - FE 24-240 - SY 24/2.8 - FE 28/2 - FE 35/2.8 - FE 50/1.8 - FE 85/1.8 - EF 135/1.8 Art - F 600/5.6 - CZ 100-300 - Astro Rok 14/2.8 - Tamron 17-28/2.8 - 28-75/2.8 RXD, 70-200/2.8 VC

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

21,373 views & 0 likes for this thread
Who uses filters for the sole purpose of protecting the lens
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is KiwiMark
777 guests, 352 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.