who doesnt use a filter..

how do you mess up cleaning a front element with a lens pen? i've used a lens pen with all my lenses, past and present...

breal101 wrote in post #8910889
I used to be obsessed about having a filter on each lens but I got over it. I just obsess now about keeping them capped at both ends when not in use.

+ 1

PMCphotography wrote in post #8974898
And i would challenge anyone to take a series of shots with and without a UV filter and look at them split screen and compare for a loss in image quality.

Seen this post?

René Damkot wrote in post #8973408
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/columns/​sm-feb-05.shtml
http://toothwalker.org​/optics/filterflare.ht​ml

There's a similar conversation underway on the Sports Shooter web site. The opinions are nearly unanimous:

"I witnessed several examples of filters saving lenses that were dropped when I used to work in camera stores."

"By placing a filter on the lens in the first place the filter ring will suffer the damage and not the lens barrel."

"The most common lens damage I get is when the front element bangs up against my other cameras or other shooters' cameras when we're working in a scrum. Filters have saved my front elements many times from this type of damage."

"I have had a number of lenses saved by the filter that were hit by flying sand, gravel, cow snot, salt water spray, the occasional bub and whatnot."

"Easy to get all sorts of junk on the front element of that lens. I haven't noticed any difference in image quality--plus I prefer wiping fingerprints and smudges off a filter than the front element."

"I can attest to filters saving a lens that was dropped, I've actually had 2 or 3 filters save lenses that were dropped."

"Sorry, but I have had at least three lens drops that WERE saved by the filter."

"I use 'em and love 'em, I honed my skills in punk rock clubs where spit, snot and blood routinely found it's way onto my filters."

"Took a hockey puck to my 70-200, shattered the filter. Removed the filter and finished my assignment. No filter and I would have been screwed."

Of course, these are the substandard opinions of working pros who depend on their equipment for a living.

For the protection of the lens against foreign materials (sand, fingerprints, snot etc) filters are invaluable.

For protecting a lens against drops etc - filters are useless (or virtually so). There is no way that 50 grammes of brass can take absorb the momentum of 4-5kg of camera and lens.

DC Fan wrote in post #8982004
There's a similar conversation underway on the Sports Shooter web site. The opinions are nearly unanimous:

"I witnessed several examples of filters saving lenses that were dropped when I used to work in camera stores."

"By placing a filter on the lens in the first place the filter ring will suffer the damage and not the lens barrel."

"I can attest to filters saving a lens that was dropped, I've actually had 2 or 3 filters save lenses that were dropped."

"Sorry, but I have had at least three lens drops that WERE saved by the filter."

Above interpretations of reality are bogus in scientific merit. Decades ago I personally used a very sturdy zoom lens with a filter, one of the first zooms from Olympus and made of all metal. Camera on a strap on my shoulder during holiday in Europe, I turned on the spot while touring a castle and the camera swng out from my body a few inches, enough to swing the lens --without a major amount of force -- into a balcony rail and hitting filter first. No damage to filter, but damage to the zoom mechanism to cause it to no longer zoom its entire range of FL. 'Protection' by the filter, yeah right!

DC Fan wrote in post #8982004
"The most common lens damage I get is when the front element bangs up against my other cameras or other shooters' cameras when we're working in a scrum. Filters have saved my front elements many times from this type of damage."

"I have had a number of lenses saved by the filter that were hit by flying sand, gravel, cow snot, salt water spray, the occasional bub and whatnot."

"Easy to get all sorts of junk on the front element of that lens. I haven't noticed any difference in image quality--plus I prefer wiping fingerprints and smudges off a filter than the front element."

"I use 'em and love 'em, I honed my skills in punk rock clubs where spit, snot and blood routinely found it's way onto my filters."

Yup, all valid ways in which a filter can prevent something from striking the front element.

DC Fan wrote in post #8982004
""Took a hockey puck to my 70-200, shattered the filter. Removed the filter and finished my assignment. No filter and I would have been screwed."

Questionable value due to the filter in this case, but just maybe the thickness of the filter ring could have deflected the puck some, yet the puck still made contact with the filter glass, and both together offered mechanical interference from the puck striking the front element.

Q. If I were to throw a rock at your face would you feel safer if there were 1mm of glass just in front of it?

René Damkot wrote in post #8981746
Seen this post?
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/co...m-feb-05.shtml
http://toothwalker.org​/optics/filterflare.ht​ml

First off, I don't automatically believe something someone says just because it's on a website. Even a photography blog. I just did have a look, and I think it's a bit misleading to present the examples the authors did- a super high contrast night scene with lots of light sources. Any lens would be prone to flare in that situation.

If i shot Super high contrast night scenes with lots of light sources, i'd consider not using a filter if i found to be prone to flaring. But for the vast majority of things i shoot, there is NO difference in image quality with or without a UV Filter.

PMCphotography wrote in post #8984975
First off, I don't automatically believe something someone says just because it's on a website. Even a photography blog. I just did have a look, and I think it's a bit misleading to present the examples the authors did- a super high contrast night scene with lots of light sources. Any lens would be prone to flare in that situation.

If i shot Super high contrast night scenes with lots of light sources, i'd consider not using a filter if i found to be prone to flaring. But for the vast majority of things i shoot, there is NO difference in image quality with or without a UV Filter.

The reason that reflections show up in those night scenes is because the appear on a dark background. But if the background were lighter, those reflections would still be present. They wouldn't be as noticeable, but they would be contributing to an overall loss of contrast.

No UV filter can improve an image.
All UV filters will degrade an image
Expensive filters are more likely to have image degradation that is less noticeable than cheap UV filters.

A previous Poll on the subject;
https://photography-on-the.net …o=showresults&p​ollid=3668

I've had UV filters wreck auto focus,. as well as damage image quality, so I tend to avoid them now except in the most extreme conditions.
My best and most expensive lenses won't take a filter up front anyway... so when trecking a $5K lens through the harshest environments I shoot in, (which are a lot harsher than most people posting in this thread shoot in) that lens is without a UV filter.

Hollis' point should be well taken, it's like RAW Vs. Jpeg in the sense that there are absolute facts involved,. that one is absolutely measurably better than the other option in the IQ regard, where the opposite is may be superior on certain other criteria...

When we decide on one option vs. the other, we have to make a compromise based on our own priorities.

So be aware it is absolutely true that no UV filter will provide measurably better IQ than shooting with one.

Just as we need to be absolutely sure it's a fact that shooting with a UV filter will protect the lens better in some situations than without.

These are facts,. then we need to decide for ourselves which compromise we chose to make.

All the advice in the world will not be able to alter our own priorities,. so once we agree on the facts, there's not much left to debate,. only our own choice to make.

hollis_f wrote in post #8985124

No UV filter can improve an image.
All UV filters will degrade an image
Expensive filters are more likely to have image degradation that is less noticeable than cheap UV filters.

True. But unless you pixel peep, in most situations (not extreme night shots or shooting directly into the sun) the "image degradation" is so minuscule as to be non-noticeable except at 400%.

By your same logic,


All shots taken with a tripod are superior to handheld shots, So handholding your camera will degrade your image quality.

Also true, but we all accept the tradeoff of handholding our camera (in most non-extreme situations) for the miniscule lack of sharpness and (possibly) the need for a little more ISO.

Borrowlenses puts a filter on every lens it ships out to protect the lens. It has saved many, many lenses over the years. In fact just last weekend one our employees had his camera/lens fall off his tripod and land lens-first on the ground. The filter was shattered and took the brunt of the damage but the lens still worked perfectly and suffered extremely minimal cosmetic damage.

We get the argument for not using a filter but it can save your lens's bacon too.

I've seen a very expensive hassy lenses ruined because a filter shattered from not very substantial impact (a hood would have been more than sufficient) and some shards actually got imbedded it the front element. Also CPS doesn't send lenses with filters and believe me if Canon thought there was a big protection benefit from it they certainly would. Also Calumet rental lenses are free of filters. They can be some help in windy, sandy situations but for impact they are pretty much useless and in some cases can actually cause some real problems. Remember the glass on your lens is many times stronger than the thin glass on even a good filter.

markol wrote in post #8985524
Borrowlenses puts a filter on every lens it ships out to protect the lens.

What filters do you put on the 200mm f/1.8L, 200mm f/2L IS, 300mm f/2.8L IS, 400mm f/2.8L IS, 500mm f/4L IS, 600mm f/4L IS, and 800mm f/5.6L IS since you put them on every lens?