Filter vs. No Filter

I've often thought that the lens company spends millions designing lens for the best possible light transmission and then I would put a piece of glass (filter) in front of the lens? That filter is not figured in the scheme by the lens manufacturer and can cause flare and degradation of the image. That filter is expensive and adds no protection to the lens with the exception of scratch protection. I've never heard of any body ever replacing a filter because it was scratched and the same with a lens.

Use a lens hood at all time to protect your lens and learn how to properly clean your lens without grinding grit into it.

Just my opinion folks!

JohnnyG wrote in post #3413959
I've never heard of any body ever replacing a filter because it was scratched and the same with a lens.

Now you have, I'm going to replace the filter on my 17-70 because its scratched, and is showing signs of the coating coming off.
It happened because I ended up in an environment (under a waterfall) where I had to aggresivly wipe the front of the lens with my sleeve to clean it and get the shot.
Fortunatly the filter was there, because I can't afford to just go out and buy a new lens, carry a spare, or was in a situation where I could be with out one while insurance took care of it.

That said I then spent several days shooting with out the filter, and have used the lens quite a few times since, all with nothing more than a hood for protection

JohnnyG wrote in post #3413959
I've often thought that the lens company spends millions designing lens for the best possible light transmission and then I would put a piece of glass (filter) in front of the lens? That filter is not figured in the scheme by the lens manufacturer and can cause flare and degradation of the image. That filter is expensive and adds no protection to the lens with the exception of scratch protection. I've never heard of any body ever replacing a filter because it was scratched and the same with a lens.

Use a lens hood at all time to protect your lens and learn how to properly clean your lens without grinding grit into it.

Just my opinion folks!

I only use filters when I need one. I agree with not putting an inexpensive piece of glass on a great lens. Its always about physics. Every time you add glass you add refraction and other related problems. I shot with Hasselblads for years and those Zeiss lenses were REAL pricey. If I remember right I paid 2500 for my 180mm. I think that lens is over $3500 now. Never scratched or cracked an element and I'm rough on my stuff. I have a friend that works for one of the major professional camera stores and she said its on filters and other stuff that they make a good % of their profits and they are all encouraged to sell UV filters with all their lenses. She also doesn't use filters unless she needs one. But this is a personal thing and if you feel more comfortable with one then thats cool. Its in the extreme lighting situations where you might really see a problem and if you want to use a filter if you know that going in remove it when your in that type of lighting situation. For most shooting you probably wont see much difference if you use one. Not for me though...

Just some thoughts:

1) Lens makers put filter threads on the front of their lenses. Is it possible that they realize that filters will be used? If so, could it be possible that the lenses have been designed with this in mind?

2) Zoom lenses with 18 elements are not uncommon; that's 18 pieces of optical glass for light to go through. Would adding one more piece of optical glass be significant? Note that they key word here is significant. In theory, every piece of glass reduces light transmission, but that's not necessarily significant.

3) Spots on your sensor? Don't worry, just clone them out of the images. At what point do the number and size of dust spots reduce and/or impair the image quality to a significant degree?

4) Should we even be thinking about all of this?

Glenn NK wrote in post #3415469
Just some thoughts:

1) Lens makers put filter threads on the front of their lenses. Is it possible that they realize that filters will be used? If so, could it be possible that the lenses have been designed with this in mind?

2) Zoom lenses with 18 elements are not uncommon; that's 18 pieces of optical glass for light to go through. Would adding one more piece of optical glass be significant? Note that they key word here is significant. In theory, every piece of glass reduces light transmission, but that's not necessarily significant.

3) Spots on your sensor? Don't worry, just clone them out of the images. At what point do the number and size of dust spots reduce and/or impair the image quality to a significant degree?

4) Should we even be thinking about all of this?

Democrat...Republican.​..Green party...Independent?

Catholic...Protestant.​..Jewish...Muslim...at​heist?

Coke...Pepsi...RC Cola...Safeway brand...Shasta cola...water?

Chevy...Ford...Honda..​.Nissan...Toyota...wal​k or bike...

....does any of this truly matter enough to debate about??? They ALL have their strengths and their shortcomings, and they all have their haters and supporters. And you will seldom convince one to switch to the other.

Wilt wrote in post #3416759
Democrat...Republican.​..Green party...Independent?

Catholic...Protestant.​..Jewish...Muslim...at​heist?

Coke...Pepsi...RC Cola...Safeway brand...Shasta cola...water?

Chevy...Ford...Honda..​.Nissan...Toyota...wal​k or bike...

....does any of this truly matter enough to debate about??? They ALL have their strengths and their shortcomings, and they all have their haters and supporters. And you will seldom convince one to switch to the other.

Agreed - I should have put No.4 in bold italics.

Yep well said Glen and Wilt.

Find whatever works for you and stick to it. With the changes in optics/filters over the years unless you're in an extreme lighting situation you'll probably never see a difference in image quality and if it does slightly effect contrast you can always punch it up a bit in PP. No big deal either way. A non issue in my opinion.

Glenn NK wrote in post #3415469
Just some thoughts:

1) Lens makers put filter threads on the front of their lenses. Is it possible that they realize that filters will be used? If so, could it be possible that the lenses have been designed with this in mind?

It's there for creative means and protection in extreme conditions - it was never meant for permanent affixing.

cwphoto wrote in post #3417362
It's there for creative means and protection in extreme conditions - it was never meant for permanent affixing.

Yup.

To the original poster - I have never used any filters for "protection" in over 40 years as a photographer and my 40-year-old lenses have no scratches.

I use the manufacturer's rigid hoods for the various lenses any time a lens is out of the case.

I clean my lenses with meticulous procedures that prevent grinding dust (some of which is very hard stuff) into the lens' surfaces.

I take reasonable care of my equipment, but my equipment is a set of tools and not a "collection".