Filter vs. No Filter

I just feel better with a quality filter on all the time .. and only use B+W. Everyone is different and this subject has to be one of the most discussed among photographers.
Mike

jerrybsmith wrote in post #3268199
...now I've got the best UV filters I can find on them but wonder if I'm doing the right thing. It's all about image quality and protecting my investment so what should I do?

First, the best protection against damage to your lens is always use the proper hood and due care. Sure, there are some conditions under which using a filter for protection is prudent. That is why I have a high quality (either B+H or Heliopan) UV filter for each of my lens sizes. However, I can't recall the last time I felt the need to use them. Adding another piece of glass has to affect image quality. Most advocates will admit there is some light loss using a filter. Well, hell, getting less light has to affect IQ. Keeping a protection filter in place all the time is a throwback to the days many, many years ago when lens glass and coatings were not as hard as they are today. Protect your investment? In what? If it's your photos then why use something that is unnessary and causes IQ degrading? I don't buy a lens, I buy the photos I will get from the lens. When someone says that filters have protected their lenses from getting scratches (and, in some cases they claim "many times") you can be sure they are not replacing those filters each time if ever, that they didn't use a hood and they certainly didn't use due care. Yeah, they will spend $60 getting the best filter but won't spend $30 for a hood. For me the position I take has nothing to do with save your money. You should have a high quality UV filter for each lens size you have. That way if and when those prudent to use a protection filter times come along, you will be ready.

Oh goody, our weekly filter/hood thread.:p

I always use a filter, and really enjoy warming up the same old arguments....

I'm not too worried about actual damage to a lens, as I am severely retentive about looking after my gear, but more that it keeps the front of the lens clean and that means that I am far less likely to damage my own lens through inappropriate cleaning methods.

With a good quality filter I don't think an ordinary shooter would see any quality loss. I certainly dont.

PetKal wrote in post #3270602
Oh goody, our weekly filter/hood thread.:p

... only weekly, I thought they were bi-daily now.

steved110 wrote in post #3270631
...I am far less likely to damage my own lens through inappropriate cleaning methods.

That's a hell of a note. Using a lens UV filter for protection from it's owner. Man, I can't argue with that. You think maybe that comes under my due care suggestion?

For the cost of quality filters for all my lenses I can buy no-fault insurance for my gear for several years. I go with the insurance and a Canon hood.

The only time I use a filter for protection is when enviromental conditons are very harsh.

BTW, lenses are not investments; they are tools. Investments increase in value over time - tools lose or hold their value and need maintenance.

pturton wrote in post #3410433
Investments increase in value over time...

Haven't done much investing, have you?

jr_senator wrote in post #3410472
Haven't done much investing, have you?

I am convinced that the typical consumer is at the mercy of the professional trader, and the only people who make money consistently are the big trading firms and the floor traders, who make a small percentage on every transaction they handle...they don't care about the direction of the transaction, only that there is one happening!

I use only B+W coated filters. Given the type of lenses I like, I think its foolish to use less than the best. I've been a lot of places, and it's impossible (unless you're in an hermetically sealed environment) to avoid getting stuff of some sort on your filter/lens. Since a filter is on the front part of the lens, it's easier to clean than a recessed lens, and it's also flat, making it easier to clean and see that it's clean. Plus don't forget the cool effects that can be obtained with filters!

That being said there is a light reduction. That's simple physics. I think one would have to have some serious instrumentation to detect a noticeable degradation in an image due to this. We see with our eyes, and any degradation is probably invisible.

I used filters all the time once. Then I stopped it. Then I found out that the quality difference is not enough to warranty no filter, so I bought a Schneider B+W 77 010 UV-Haze 1x MRC filter for my 100-400LIS. I'll then slowly buy two more, one MRC 67mm for the 70-200 f/4L and a slim-MRC for the 17-40L. The 10-22 has the Käsemann polariser on most of the time and the 28-105 II isn't expensive enough to have a filter on.

So, I don't really care about the quality loss (which is little), I care about my expensive glass.

jr_senator wrote in post #3410472
Haven't done much investing, have you?

Just a little on a long term.

I value my images too highly to soften them needlessly with a filter.

I'm going to toss a coin every morning - then I'll know what to do for that day.

Some people use protection, some don't.

I try to think about my signature quote all the time, even when doing photography (it's my own, so I'd better).

I always use protection on things that are big and long... like lenses...