Filter vs. No Filter

I have spent a lot of money acquiring what I think is some of the best lenses Canon makes. Right now I've got the best UV filters I can find on them but wonder if I'm doing the right thing. I almost always use them with the hoods on so I've heard that should be enough to protect the lens. It's all about image quality and protecting my investment so what should I do?

Having personally scratched many a UV filter, I would rather replace a £50 filter than have my lens sent back to Canon to reground the glass.

Keep hearing this argument. It is down to personal choice. I am not sure if the more expensive UV filters (milticoated etc etc) will affect the image

If I am going to be carring my lens around, I will keep a filter on it. If it's on a tripod and it's going to be there for a while, I'll take the filter off.

zul wrote in post #3268233
Keep hearing this argument. It is down to personal choice. I am not sure if the more expensive UV filters (milticoated etc etc) will affect the image

Its probably one of the most asked questions on this forum

Anke wrote in post #3268258
Its probably one of the most asked questions on this forum

And one of the easiest to answer. Take a picture with a filter on and take another picture of the same subject with the filter off. Now pixel peep both photos and see if you can tell them apart. (Hint: Write down the file numbers so you will know which is which.)

Now try a strongly back lit subject that is just starting to show flare in your viewfinder. Depending on the quality of the coating on the filter you will probably start to see a little more flare with the filter.

For every filter advocate (like me) on this forum, there seems to be a filter-hating zealot that will come up with all sorts of reasons why you are wasting your money to keep a protective filter on all the time - they will even claim that your image quality will suffer. I don't buy their side of the story. I have a multi-coated UV on every lens that will accept one, and probably always will.

Which side of the fence you fall down on is your decision, but I will urge you to consider this: if you go for a protective filter, buy it consistent with the quality of the lens it is going on. Don't put a $10 Sunpak filter on a $1200 'L' lens.

Have Fun,

i agree. filters are a must for me.

only use one filter for the 70-200 for motrocross sport and the rest of my lens, dont need one...

Sometimes it depends on what youre shooting.

Motorsports, paintball, kids throwing rocks, where/whenever the possibility of the front element getting scratched then I would say get one. A good quality one.

I usually keep my hood on the lens and so far no scratches. Like others have stated, it really is up to you. Congrats on the aquisition of all the nice lenses

I just keep a foot in both camps, and hate myself equaly.

I keep a filter on the 17-70 nearly all the time (it now needs replacing, the coating is showing signs of coming off), but i don't keep a filter on the 70-300, or the 50.

The 17-70 see's a lot of use, its my main lens, and I'm not afraid to get it dirty. Hence why the filter is now stuffed, It got covered in salt spray, water spray, dust and dirt on a recent holiday.
The 70-300 and the 50 see a lot less use, and both have very large hoods and much smaller front elements making them less prone to the sort of abuse the 17-70 gets.

I used to use filters all the time, but now I just use them when I need them. On the beach. In light rain. Dusty locations. Etc. Or if I need a polarizer.

I've become comfortable just using a hood.

The way I look at it is this, I would rather buy a new filter and keep my lens element scratch free than replace the lens. Some will argue that its adding another piece of glass to the image and will degrade it. What little degrading I might get is worth it if I keep my $1000 L in nice shape and help it retain its value by not being scratched. Just my thoughts and it is a personal decision you need to make. I agree with ScottE try it your self. Can you see a difference? Whats the chance of it getting scratched? Are you that careful with it? I personally don't want to have to worry about it which I do if one is not in place. Just me.

I think UV filters may increase flare in high contrast situations. Seeing as you do weddings, this may be a factor for a few shots here and there where the room is dark and there is a single bright light that you shoot into.

Also if you do weddings/events, you maybe changing lenses very fast and some drunkard may poke at your lenses or what not and may actually need the protection.

It's a personal thing. My buddy who is a professional photog likes to use expensive filters for such a reason. I can't blame him and his images look just fine.

If you aren't sure, I think you should do some filter vs no filter in situations where you typically shoot and see if you can detect any differences.

Filter, no filter. Democrat, Republican. I see both have merits and also have aspects that suck big time! Knowing when to side with which is the mark of wisdom, no matter if you are discussing filters or politics! Neither side is a clear winner of choice all of the time