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

 
Wilt
Reader's Digest Condensed version of War and Peace [POTN Vol 1]
Avatar
41,858 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 2596
Joined Aug 2005
Location: Belmont, CA
     
Aug 12, 2013 20:45 |  #181

I guess this lens should have had a filter on it ...

IMAGE: http://i69.photobucket.com/albums/i63/wiltonw/POTN%202013%20Post%20Mar1/elementscratch_zps3f703e0c.jpg

...whenever the owner wanted to clean the lens!

:lol:

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
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
KirkS518
Goldmember
Avatar
3,983 posts
Likes: 24
Joined Apr 2012
Location: Central Gulf Coast, Flori-duh
     
Aug 12, 2013 20:57 |  #182

...but sandpaper does such a great job at removing unwanted dust!


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
DreDaze
happy with myself for not saying anything stupid
Avatar
18,183 posts
Gallery: 45 photos
Likes: 2582
Joined Mar 2006
Location: S.F. Bay Area
     
Aug 12, 2013 21:11 |  #183

Wilt wrote in post #16202810 (external link)
I guess this lens should have had a filter on it ...

QUOTED IMAGE

...whenever the owner wanted to clean the lens!

:lol:

i may be wrong, but it almost looks like that's inside of the lens...almost like a fungus...


Andre or Dre
gear list
Instagram (external link)
flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Wilt
Reader's Digest Condensed version of War and Peace [POTN Vol 1]
Avatar
41,858 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 2596
Joined Aug 2005
Location: Belmont, CA
     
Aug 12, 2013 21:14 |  #184

DreDaze wrote in post #16202894 (external link)
i may be wrong, but it almost looks like that's inside of the lens...almost like a fungus...

This lens is posted as part of a kit on eBay right now. The seller (a store in OR) says the scratches are on the front element, "The worst cosmetic problem is the lens front optic (see photo). It is badly scratched (from over zealous cleaning we suspect). "


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
kin2son
Goldmember
4,546 posts
Likes: 3
Joined May 2011
Location: Sydney, Australia
     
Aug 12, 2013 21:23 |  #185
bannedPermanent ban

It has been said multiple times that people who goes filterless agree that a protective filter is needed for HARSH environment such as beach, sandy/rocky environment etc.

Also filter makes sense on certain L lenses to complete the weather sealing.

The above aren't the center of argument.

Problem is many newb thinks putting protective filter on for normal day to day shooting is required because it will protect the lens....WRONG!

Another problem with newb I think is most of them won't spend $100+ for a quality protective filter such as a B+W ones and use a cheap tiffen crap that degrades the IQ further on their not so great lens...

At the end of the day, if one thinks putting a filter on makes them feel better and more secure, go for it by all means....you're only wasting your own money, not mine :p BUT if you are going to do so, get quality ones and prepare to spend $100 for one, not cheaping out.


5D3 Gripped / 17-40L / Σ35 / 40 Pancake / Zeiss 50 MP / Σ85 / 100L Macro / 70-200 f2.8L II IS / 430 EX II / 580 EX II / Canon 2xIII TC / Kenko Ext. Tubes
EOS M / EF-M 18-55 / EF-M 22f2 / Ricoh GR aka Ultimate street camera :p
Flickr (external link) | My Images on Getty®‎ (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
georgebowman
Goldmember
Avatar
1,510 posts
Likes: 2
Joined May 2009
Location: Verona, WI
     
Aug 13, 2013 00:08 |  #186

Wilt wrote in post #16200193 (external link)
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.

Gee, at the time I purchased the Digital Pro filters I thought they were a good quality filter. It looks like I was lead down the road so to speak. So it looks like I may want to dump them completely or purchase a better quality UV filter. Thanks for your advice.


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
Nalauk
Member
95 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Sep 2012
     
Aug 13, 2013 06:05 |  #187

Wilt wrote in post #16200193 (external link)
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.


I haven't voted or added my voice to this discussion because I'm in the use a filter to complete weather sealing or provide a protection in an extreme situation group rather than leave a UV/protector on all the time (I have one 77mm Hoya Pro-1D UV in the bag for fitting if needed).

However it would be interesting if this could be properly established, as I've heard a few reasons why they made the Pro-1D line.

There used to be the 'old' SHMC Pro-1 filters (late 90's early 2000's vintage) which were designed for film. When digital started to become more mainstream I heard Hoya had some problems with an internal reflection ( the digital sensors were shinier than film ) and it affected the old Pro-1's.

I've heard they actually had to reduce (or change quite a bit) the multi coating on the rear side of the filter (and make sure the inner surface of the mount was anti reflective). This would mean they perhaps did transmit less light - and hence less reflection onto the sensor.

I've looked at the rear surface of mine and it is considerably less shiny and more matt looking than an old SHMC Pro-1 filter I have (admittedly it's a polarizer not a UV unfortunately) But I have never had the internal reflection problem with this filter - yet!

Maybe they were a quick rush job more than a scam and the HD is the result of more work and time?

I've never had any problems with mine however, they are well made and the image quality is good and they are also thin to avoid vignetting (which I'm not sure if the cheaper SHMC are?) but of course they are not on the lenses all the time.

Anyone like to compare the rear surfaces of a SHMC Pro-1, a Pro-1D, an SHMC and an HMC UV filter and see if they look shinier or not?




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Wilt
Reader's Digest Condensed version of War and Peace [POTN Vol 1]
Avatar
41,858 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 2596
Joined Aug 2005
Location: Belmont, CA
     
Aug 13, 2013 09:05 |  #188

Nalauk wrote in post #16203743 (external link)
However it would be interesting if this could be properly established, as I've heard a few reasons why they made the Pro-1D line.

There used to be the 'old' SHMC Pro-1 filters (late 90's early 2000's vintage) which were designed for film. When digital started to become more mainstream I heard Hoya had some problems with an internal reflection ( the digital sensors were shinier than film ) and it affected the old Pro-1's.

What THK still says on the newest web pages (even the web address is a new one!):

"In 1996 Hoya introduced the line of Super Multi-coated filters. Consisting of a Skylight, 1B, UV (0), ND 2X, ND4X, and a low profile circular polarizer, this line of filters has a 5+1 layering system on each side of the glass: 5 layers of anti-reflective coating and a transparent easy-clean top coat. This reduces light reflections off the filter surface to an average of just 0.3%. This is the lowest reflective rate on the market, from any filter manufacturer."

Here is the THK info on the Digital Pro series...

IMAGE: http://i69.photobucket.com/albums/i63/wiltonw/POTN%202013%20Post%20Mar1/THKfilters_zps89f45c81.jpg

Now just how does reducing the coating transmission to 97% -- with 3% reflected -- alleviate reflections between the sensor and the back surface of a filter which reflects only 0.3% ?! :confused:

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
Nalauk
Member
95 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Sep 2012
     
Aug 13, 2013 09:32 |  #189

Yes I've seen that before, but as I said it was a problem specific to the 'old' Pro-1. They then produced the new Pro-1D which replaced the old Pro-1 (and was in fact slightly cheaper than the outgoing filter).

The problem was light coming in, hitting the sensor and reflecting on the back of the Pro-1 filter, which then showed on the final image.

That's what i heard - quite clearly neither of us know for certain. I'm not too fussed about it, but you've set yourself up over the years and spouted the same line that it is a scam. I know there are a few advantages of the Pro over the normal ones - whether it's worth a big premium is debatable however.

Anyway, at this test http://www.lenstip.com …icle-UV_filters_test.html (external link) they did some comparisons (assuming we can trust this testing) and all the 3 Hoyas had 97% light transmission allowing for a small degree of mistake in test conditions, that's the Pro-1D, the SHMC and the HMC.
It looks more from the graph that it's the very effective UV coat that is perhaps cutting down on a small amount of visible light, but someone more used to optics than either you or I need to decide that.

EDIT: Just an extra, my old Pro-1 reflects a green colour, the newer Pro-1D seems to be slightly Magenta, but a bit more normal - again I need a UV of each to really compare however.

EDIT EDIT: The box of my 'old' Pro-1 reckons it has 7 coatings on the rear, your quote on the SHMC reckons 6, so there was a difference between these filters.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
belias1989
THREAD ­ STARTER
Member
148 posts
Joined Sep 2011
     
Aug 15, 2013 21:27 |  #190

bad thing for UV filters is that, one of my lens got the filter stuck on it..




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
1Tanker
Goldmember
Avatar
4,470 posts
Likes: 5
Joined Jan 2011
Location: Swaying to the Symphony of Destruction
     
Aug 15, 2013 21:30 |  #191

belias1989 wrote in post #16211895 (external link)
bad thing for UV filters is that, one of my lens got the filter stuck on it..

They make cheap little plastic "wrenches" for that.. or you can even use a rubber band.


Kel
Gear

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
ejackso1
Member
Avatar
164 posts
Joined Nov 2010
Location: Deptford, NJ
     
Aug 17, 2013 14:13 |  #192

I personally only use a filter in situations where the lens is very likely to be damaged. The best is example is that I use my 18-135 to shoot paintball tournaments every now and then. When I do, I always make sure I've got a filter and a hood on it. If I can avoid damage to my lens, I'd like to do so, even if it costs little compared to the more expensive lenses out there.



Canon 7D | EF-S 18-135 | EF-S 55-250
Panasonic GF1 | Panasonic 14mm f/2.5

Flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
jmarshphoto
Senior Member
Avatar
710 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Likes: 359
Joined Apr 2011
Location: Baltimore,MD
     
Aug 17, 2013 14:20 |  #193

The only filters I use are 4x6 grads and ND's. For all other situations, well that's what insurance is for ; )


http://jmarshphoto.com (external link)
IG @itsjordanindeed

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Madweasel
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
6,223 posts
Likes: 58
Joined Jun 2006
Location: Fareham, UK
     
Aug 17, 2013 15:02 |  #194

I've always had the impression that there's a fairly even split between those who habitually leave a filter on all the time "for protection" and those who only use them where necessary and otherwise remove them; but this poll is incredibly close to an exactly even split. After over 400 responses it is still within a single percentage point of precisely 50/50. Not significant in itself, but interesting.


Mark.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
1Tanker
Goldmember
Avatar
4,470 posts
Likes: 5
Joined Jan 2011
Location: Swaying to the Symphony of Destruction
     
Aug 17, 2013 15:59 |  #195

Madweasel wrote in post #16216460 (external link)
I've always had the impression that there's a fairly even split between those who habitually leave a filter on all the time "for protection" and those who only use them where necessary and otherwise remove them; but this poll is incredibly close to an exactly even split. After over 400 responses it is still within a single percentage point of precisely 50/50. Not significant in itself, but interesting.

I find that quite interesting as well. Without "singling out" newbs (or meaning to offend), with 340,000+ accounts on this forum... i'm willing to bet that way more than 1/2 are newbs/ not too serious about photography. If all 340k answered this poll, i bet ~75% would answer in favor of using filters.


Kel
Gear

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

21,348 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 kbcl0ttery
843 guests, 231 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.