To Filter or NOT to Filter - That is the question

[dcsang]

Ok folks,

FrankS mentioned to me that I should really look after my 50mm collapsible cron and that I should consider dropping a filter on the front of said lens.

I never thought about it that much but in a way, I guess he's got a point. The older lenses aren't as well coated as these newer ones and, if I want to ensure I keep it in tip top shape, I should have a decent filter on it (UV that is).

Now, I have absolutely no filters on my EOS L glass or any other gear I own. Why? I was always told that, as long as you were careful with your gear, why put what could be an inferior piece of glass in front of a nice superior piece of glass.

So I am curious, do you use filters as protective measures or do you simply use them to enhance/alter/adjust your images that you take. Of course, R-D1 folks may not need filters to adjust/enhance as much can be done in post processing.

Cheers
Dave

[back alley]

yes...and no...

when i was a noob i put a filter on everything. i also used never ready cases.

then i decided i was against filters and thought to myself, 'when was the last time you 'hurt' a lens'? answer...never!

now i have become more pragmatic.

in summer/nice weather - no filters.
in winter/snow/sleet etc - uv filters.

joe

[richard_l]

I only use filters for their effect, otherwise they just increase the chance of flare.

[rover]

Yellow 2x filter and hood for B&W shooting and just a hood for color.

[Andrew Touchon]

I use B+W MRC UV filters on all of my lenses. I have not noticed any problems with flare. However, I would not use the the less expensive non multicoated filters. Any slight decrease in lens performance is worth the peace of mind that the extra protection the filters provide.

[aad]

I keep a cap on in bad conditions on my RF lenses, no filter. The SLR lenses have filters.

[Honu-Hugger]

Originally Posted by richard_l

I only use filters for their effect, otherwise they just increase the chance of flare.

Same here; one more element, one more air-glass surface that the designers work very deliberately to minimize. I have never harmed a front element by not having a filter in place and I'm not about to start saving glass now for the next owner. Shades or hoods are a different story -- I never leave home with out one .

[DougK]

I used to use UV filters religiously, but it seemed like most caused more problems in my photos than they were worth as protection. I keep one handy in the bag and use it if I'm going into harsh conditions (dust, rain, snow, salt air, toddlers) but otherwise I leave them off, put on a hood, and just use a polarizer or other effects filter when I need it.

[peter_n]

Always, alway, always. Either a UV or a light or med. yellow. Never use lens caps. Each lens has a filter and a lens hood on all the time. The only exceptions are the 90 and 135 Tele-Elmarits which share a lens hood so they are never in the bag at the same time. I use B+W and Hoya filters.

[Benjamin Marks]

I keep a filter on some of my LF gear as I am always swinging it about in wind, rain etc. (thinking of the Nikkor-M 300 here -- takes a 52mm filter just like many Nikon primes). If the situation doesn't warrant it, I'll remove the filter. RF glass - no filter. I have had my 50 Summicron for 10 years and the front element looks fine. I use hoods though, whenever possible.

[richard_l]

A lot of people need to use protective filters because they are too aggressive (or careless) about cleaning their lenses, like scrubbing the dust off a lens with a dry shirtsleeve.

[Gabriel M.A.]

B+W MRC UV filters always on. Or a K2 filter. In some cases a red filter, as a last recourse if the scene is too bright or lacks contrast.

I'm too paranoid about having my lenses "nekid".

[peterc]

I used to put UV or skylight filters on every lens I owned. Once a filter saved a lens from nasty damage. Now I use lenses naked unless I'm putting on a filter for effect or as protection in nasty weather.
While it's best to avoid it , it takes a lot of front element damage to make an impact on your pictures (I have some really ugly lenses that produce very nice results).

Peter

[FrankS]

My point to Dave was to protect the SOFT coating of his vintage collasible Summicron. If I'm lucky enough to own a lens that has survived 50 years with no marks, I don't want to be the one responsible for damaging such a fine lens. Unmarked col. Summicrons are not irreplaceable yet, but some day soon they will be.

Originally Posted by dcsang

Ok folks,

FrankS mentioned to me that I should really look after my 50mm collapsible cron and that I should consider dropping a filter on the front of said lens.

I never thought about it that much but in a way, I guess he's got a point. The older lenses aren't as well coated as these newer ones and, if I want to ensure I keep it in tip top shape, I should have a decent filter on it (UV that is).

Now, I have absolutely no filters on my EOS L glass or any other gear I own. Why? I was always told that, as long as you were careful with your gear, why put what could be an inferior piece of glass in front of a nice superior piece of glass.

So I am curious, do you use filters as protective measures or do you simply use them to enhance/alter/adjust your images that you take. Of course, R-D1 folks may not need filters to adjust/enhance as much can be done in post processing.

Cheers
Dave

THIS IS THE STUPIDIST POST I'VE EVER SEEN ON THIS SITE!!!

Skylight and UV filters are "matter of course" prophylatics that are intended to protect the main frontal optic and add-in some "glare" protection.

But the real purposes are two:

1) Keep the main frontal optic safe from a "catastrophic head-on" collision.

AND MOST IMPORTANTLY:

2) Save the main frontal optic from "cleaning abrasions".

I SAY:

CLEAN THE FILTER - - - - NOT THE LENS!!!

[einolu]

well so much for the stupidest thread ever... you probably just havent been on this site long enough (did you miss the 'free digital camera' spam we had not too long ago, how would you rate that one?).



I use a UV filter as a lens cap, I take it off when I shoot, and even if I forget to, then its NP.

[sbug]

Stupid? Hardly. I never use a filter for protection. I shoot mostly with a Canonet. Lens ruined? I'll buy a new one. BFD Not that I've ever so much as scratched a lens. Now I suppose if I'm using something more $$$, maybe a filter... but overall, I am not a fan of filters for protection. Only effect.

Scott

Originally Posted by copake_ham

THIS IS THE STUPIDIST POST I'VE EVER SEEN ON THIS SITE!!!

Skylight and UV filters are "matter of course" prophylatics that are intended to protect the main frontal optic and add-in some "glare" protection.

But the real purposes are two:

1) Keep the main frontal optic safe from a "catastrophic head-on" collision.

AND MOST IMPORTANTLY:

2) Save the main frontal optic from "cleaning abrasions".

I SAY:

CLEAN THE FILTER - - - - NOT THE LENS!!!

[FrankS]

Eh-hem, copake_ham. Could you please try to be a bit more diplomatic? There's no such thing as a stupid question if someone is trying to learn.

Originally Posted by sbug

Stupid? Hardly. I never use a filter for protection. I shoot mostly with a Canonet. Lens ruined? I'll buy a new one. BFD Not that I've ever so much as scratched a lens. Now I suppose if I'm using something more $$$, maybe a filter... but overall, I am not a fan of filters for protection. Only effect.

Scott

Sorry... I should have made way for the "throw away crowd".

I shoot a Nikon S2 plus Bessa R2S with mainly original lenses.

THEY DON'T MAKE THEM ANYMORE!

Also, I believe in RESPECTING my gear.

When you treat it like replaceable s**t you are saying a different value from what I live by.

That's life - I value preservation over replacement.

[Honu-Hugger]

Or use a lens cap, be careful and rarely should you ever have to clean anything. What are you people doing with your lenses that require such regular cleaning and harsh treatment? Protective filters are a "matter of course" only for those that choose to use them. I don't care how much the lens cost or what its perceived value might be -- I still never use a filter for protection and never will; I only use filters for their intended effect. For protection I use a lens cap, a case, and some common sense about being careful. Clearly this is a matter of personal preference with no right or wrong answer.

[Honu-Hugger]

Originally Posted by copake_ham

Sorry... I should have made way for the "throw away crowd".

I shoot a Nikon S2 plus Bessa R2S with mainly original lenses.

THEY DON'T MAKE THEM ANYMORE!

Also, I believe in RESPECTING my gear.

When you treat it like replaceable s**t you are saying a different value from what I live by.

That's life - I value preservation over replacement.

I use many lenses that were originally made in quantities of less than three or four hundred when new (Schact, Kinoptik, Kilar, Zeiss Topogon, etc.) and guess what? Still no "protective" filters on any of them. No filters and I don't treat any of them like "replaceable s**t;" is this a concept that seems difficult to comprehend? That a person can still be careful without a "protective" filter?

Originally Posted by FrankS

Eh-hem, copake_ham. Could you please try to be a bit more diplomatic? There's no such thing as a stupid question if someone is trying to learn.

You're correct.

I sincerely apologize for saying STUPID etc.

It was a "dumbo" statement and I was wrong to use it.

I should have said AMAZED that this would even be a query.

Please forgive my indescretion.

[dmr]

Not to sound like a heretic here, but ...

On the 28-135 zoom lens on the SLR I do keep a skylight filter for protection. I figure that it cost boocoo $$$ and a few $ is cheap insurance.

On the rangefinders, and on the SLR with the normal lens and even the superwide, I never really thought of it. I suppose on the GIII I could get a new one or a replacement lens element from a parts camera if it got dinged. For the Mamiya I have almost enough parts to make another one, including a front lens assembly all ready to screw in if necessary.

Yes, I do use lens caps.

Originally Posted by Honu-Hugger

I use many lenses that were originally made in quantities of less than three or four hundred when new (Schact, Kinoptik, Kilar, Zeiss Topogon, etc.) and guess what? Still no "protective" filters on any of them. No filters and I don't treat any of them like "replaceable s**t;" is this a concept that seems difficult to comprehend? That a person can still be careful without a "protective" filter?

Mea culpa ,in part... [see other posts]

You can be a "careful" as a saint - but "accidents" happen.

You apparently have a lot of glass and some indifference as to their value to you.

My values are different.

It's not just a matter of price and replacement - to me its a matter of respect for what I currently own - and what I hope to pass on...

Carefulness does not replace protection.

I'll bet your drive carefully - does that mean you don't have insurance?

[richard_l]

I thought it was a pretty sensible question.

Dave, if you feel better with a UV filter on your Cron, use one, and don't worry about it. If you always use an appropriate hood, and remove the filter when shooting into a light source, you should never have any deterioration of your photos due to the filter.