who doesnt use a filter..

hollis_f wrote in post #8896346
One of the worst conditions to use a UV/Clear filter.

I usually use an ND one for bright sunshine, as I did in HI this summer. But for outdoor use, the filters are more for protection than anything else. I have a tendency to carry 2 cameras as I shoot and it's a choice. Most of the time, I hate to admit, I forget to put a filter on and regret it later. Yes, and always have the hood on.

tracknut wrote in post #8896628
I'm trying to think... what $5K lens takes a screw-on UV filter?

No filters on my lenses.

Dave

Lenses like the 200mm 2L, 300mm 2.8L, 400mm 2.8L, 500mm 4L, 600mm 4L, 800 5.6L all come with a protection filter in the form of the front element, so no need for for screw-on UV filters.

jacuff wrote in post #8896724
Lenses like the 200mm 2L, 300mm 2.8L, 400mm 2.8L, 500mm 4L, 600mm 4L, 800 5.6L all come with a protection filter in the form of the front element, so no need for for screw-on UV filters.

Right, hence my question about which $5K lenses take screw-on filters...

Dave

UV filter on every lens.

This sparked good discussion! Okay, I feel better now...I was really against using a filter. Ill just stick with the hood.. and lens cap.

+2...

I use filters for effect only.

airfrogusmc wrote in post #8898296
I use filters for effect only.

I'm still looking for that Perfect Expsoure/Sharp Focus/Brilliant Color/Proper Framing/Relevent Content Filter...

hollis_f wrote in post #8895682

• No UV/Protective filter can improve image quality.
  
• All UV/Protective filters will impair image quality.
  
• With high-quality/high-cost filters that impairment is minimised, but not eliminated.
  
• A 1mm thin piece of galss will not protect your front element from any impact energetic enough to damage that front element.
  
• A 1mm thin piece of glass will protect your lens from grubby fingers, windblown sand or salt-spray and other such things.
  
• .........But not as well as a lens-cap
  
• With longer lenses a hood provides adequate protection and enhances image quality
  

I don't think anybody could argue with those facts (actually, I'm expecting people to disagree with all of them). Taking them into account - I use a UV filter when shooting in conditions where the wind can blow nasty stuff onto my lens. I never shoot near children or drunks. I always use a hood. I always use a lens-cap when not shooting.

Couldn't have said it better myself. My 400L, 100 macro, 35L and 24 TS NEVER have "protective" filters on them, and my 70-200 and 17-40 only get them when it's nasty out, to complete the weather sealing. Even then the 70-200 doesn't often need one, because the hood is so deep.

UV never, complete waste of money and probably the biggest scam in photography. I do like circular polarizers though.

FlyingPhotog wrote in post #8898316
I'm still looking for that Perfect Expsoure/Sharp Focus/Brilliant Color/Proper Framing/Relevent Content Filter...

I saw one for sale on DPR, but it went so fast the thread imploded.

Don't use a filter. Unless you have a extremely good quality filter, it really isn't worth it.

hollis_f wrote in post #8895682

• All UV/Protective filters will impair image quality.
  
• With high-quality/high-cost filters that impairment is minimised, but not eliminated.

A cheap filter will have loses of 7%, a good filter will have 'loses' of 0.7% I challenge anyone to see 0.3% affect in ordinary shooting circumstances during the day when a hood helps prevent flare.
A really bad filter will even distort the image, or cause the image to be unsharp. A very long time ago, I once crushed a Tiffen linear polarizing filter (rather than resell that POS to some unsuspecting person) because I could see definite distortions with the naked eye as I rotated the filter.

hollis_f wrote in post #8895682

• A 1mm thin piece of galss will not protect your front element from any impact energetic enough to damage that front element
  
• A 1mm thin piece of glass will protect your lens from grubby fingers, windblown sand or salt-spray and other such things.

And since filters are removeable, not permanent, one can always choose to use a filter in adverse conditions and remove a filter when the situations are especially demanding and the filter could make itself visible even when it only has a 0.3% affect on an image.

hollis_f wrote in post #8895682

• With longer lenses a hood provides adequate protection and enhances image quality

...except for grubby fingers, windblown sand or salt-spray and

wind blown salt spray

hollis_f wrote in post #8895682
I don't think anybody could argue with those facts (actually, I'm expecting people to disagree with all of them). Taking them into account - I use a UV filter when shooting in conditions where the wind can blow nasty stuff onto my lens. I never shoot near children or drunks. I always use a hood. I always use a lens-cap when not shooting.

Having toddler grandkids visiting my home, and shooting photos of them for my wife to show off her grandkids to her friends, I do experience the goopey fingers getting everywhere including the fronts of my lenses.

FlyingPhotog wrote in post #8898316
I'm still looking for that Perfect Expsoure/Sharp Focus/Brilliant Color/Proper Framing/Relevent Content Filter...

All the filters I use are in Photoshop.

DAMphyne wrote in post #8898832


All the filters I use are in Photoshop.

Mine are usually locked away in my brain and I forget to use them when I press the shutter button...