To Filter or NOT to Filter - That is the question

To Filter or NOT to Filter - That is the question

  • Yes I use UV / Protection Filters

    Votes: 421 58.0%

  • No, I love to shoot naked !!

    Votes: 305 42.0%
  • Total voters
    726
Nachkebia said:
Yesterday I bought 39 and 46 Leica UV filters to project my lenses, I can not afford sctraching my lovely 50 lux asph 😀
Click to expand...

An UV filter is a filter!

You have to use it as a filter, not as a 'protection' for your lens!

The front lens of Leica is special protected against damage and dust!

UV filters affect the quality of the photo negatively!
 
Last edited:
I have UV filters (B+W or heliopan) for all my lenses, and orange and polarising ones in 39 and 46.

I used to leave the UV on all the time (hate that UV light, so I have to filter it out 🙂 ) but recently we've had some nice fluffy clouds so I was putting on the orange to get some separation.

Taking the UV off one 39 lens, putting the orange on, taking the UV off the other 39 lens, taking the orange off the first, putting it on the second and putting the UV on the first lens again was getting to be a pain - so now I'm leaving off the UV filter.

Of course, I've bought the hoods for the ZM Biogons (the Leicas all have the built-in hoods), and I use the lens caps too. Unfortunately, the Summicron 50 lens cap keeps falling off in the bag, and since I have several (2) cameras in the bag, they sometimes scuff each other.

I have therefore decided to put all the UV filters back on again 🙂

Regarding the quality degradation... if you're using ASA 400 or 1600 film, handheld on a tinsy winsy bit of film, who cares if there's an optically plane, multicoated bit of glass in front?

I may do some tests myself to see if I can tell a difference. Until then, filter. You only have to be unlucky once...

colin
 
"cough up £5 for a replacement filter if it gets shattered, or pay £40 of your hard-earned money for a replacement lens because you couldn't be bothered paying £5 in the first place".

That always got the customers attention. 😉
 
I can't for the life of me remember whether I answered this before or not, and I'm far too lazy to go through the six pages of posts to see. So....
I keep clear skylight filters on all my lenses (except the 300 2.8 and the 12~24 which don't accept them), and always keep hoods on them as well. I shoot on the street a lot so my stuff gets banged around quite a bit, and I'd rather have to replace a filter than a front element.
As for the degradation of the image that some are so worried about, I've never had anyone tell me that but for the crappy filter or worse yet the scratched up filter, that US Spot News Award would have been awarded to me. So I don't worry about stuff like that. Those who like or dislike my work will like it or dislike it regardless of what is or isn't on the front of the lens.
 
350D_user said:
"cough up £5 for a replacement filter if it gets shattered, or pay £40 of your hard-earned money for a replacement lens because you couldn't be bothered paying £5 in the first place".

That always got the customers attention. 😉
Click to expand...


Of course these days, thats EUR 30 for the B+W MRC filter and EUR 3100 for the Leica Summilux 35/1.4 ASPH (GBP 20 and 2000)

🙂


colin
 
I had begun to question the value of protective filters when I noticed a clear scratch on the 60mm UV on my 75 'lux. The lens a nice user picked up for very reasonable price. I would never buy another at current prices. I may be a gorilla, but my equipment will be used. I'll continue using the filters. I do, however, doubt the practicality of Multi-coated filter in relation to the price difference.
 
I have a range of polarising filters that I always have handy but no other filters other than a couple that came with cameras. I use the polarisers because their effects are very hard, if impossible, to mimic electronically. I'm not sure about UV filters etc. With coloured filters, I'm happy to use them for B&W shots (reminds me, I need an orange 40.5mm), but colour DSLR shots, I just take and mimic in post-processing which isn't too hard for limited brains like mine.

Does anyone know if the FSU filters advertised by various FSU gear sellers on that auction site are any good?
 
I realize this is an "elderly" thread, but I just discovered it, and found it interesting. I'll comment, since my answer to the poll will push it to the fore again anyway.

I've always been compulsive about keeping a skylight or UV filter on every lens(primarily SLR lenses, since my RF habit is new).

I felt I was doing the right thing by restricting the cleaning marks to the filter, and protecting the front element coating.

Now I wonder if I'm really only degrading the performance of my lenses, and quality of my photos. This is a topic I wouldn't normally have considered, but now I'm rethinking my strategy. Perhaps I should try shooting without the filter.
 
Last edited:
I use B+W UV-Haze filter for Minolta 85/1.4 G (SLR) lens only, with it's very large front element .
My big and fast SLR lenses are 72mm and 82mm in diameter, so they obviously need a filter to prevent finger prints and dirt.

For small RF lenses (39mm) I think protective filter is a nonsense - except for the case when you need specific filters for B/W (red,yellow, etc).
 
Last edited:
Use a protection filter?

Absolutely.

I don't expect to have a motor vehicle accident but I always use seatbelts despite them wrinkling my shirts.
 
I choose the late Ernst Haas' approach: except for the occasional polarizer, I've never used any.

And, maybe I have a reluctant guardian angel somewhere, but I've never damaged a lens at the front element; barrel-damage, yes (on my Ricoh GR1 where I didn't have the option of a filter [available on later models]), but never the front element. Of course, that might be because I use lens hoods rather religiously. 🙂


- Barrett
 
Last edited:
amateriat, I've collected filters over the years thinking they are going to be a 'silver bullet.' I have many, way more than I could use. But I'm really with you. I find that when I use a filter to try to get an effect, I end up creating a problem in some other area of the image.
 
Let me duplicate a post I made on a thread here about what are cleaning marks.

"One reason I like to use a UV filter is that there are times when you must clean a lens, and any amount of cleaning, no matter how careful is executed it is eventually going to have some effect on the surface of the lens/ filter. As I keep saying, sooner ruin a $30 filter than a $300 (or perhaps $3000) lens.

Marks and damage to coating do matter. I used to own a Nikon Nikonos U/W camera with its standard 35mm lens. When I bought it (new) it had a small circular flaw in the front surface coating. I never sent it back thinking it would not matter. But used above water that puppy flared like a maniac whenever I shot other than with the sun behind me. OK I think this lens had a reputation for flare anyway but the flare I got always corresponded with the position of the coating flaw and convinced me that the quality of coating and lens surfaces matters."

I should add that this is especially my position with old and immaculate Leitz glass etc. I kinda think of myself as not the owner but the custodian for posterity of special items and like to keep them in as good condition as when they came into my hands in the expectation that when I am gone and forgotten some lucky person will get the same thrill as I first did when I picked up one fo these beauties. (Besides they will sell for more...:angel:
 
Last edited:
I put a cheap, single-coated filter on my SLR, and using my hand as a hood I pointed the camera nearly at the sun to see the difference with and without the hand. There was a difference, but nothing to worry about if one is willing to digitally post-process a more important shot.

If I were a pro, I reckon I would buy a more expensive filter.
 
As someone on the Leica stand at photokina said to me many years ago: "Why do you think we make lens caps?"

Yes, I have once had a lens saved by smashing the filter, not the front glass: a 35/2.8 PC-Nikkor, a few months old at the time.

Today, I use filters on some lenses (ones that are used to take shots all the time, e.g. my 35/1.4 Summilux, where I'm walking around with the lens uncovered) but not on others. If I'm not using a filter, I use a lens cap.

Does it matter? Certainly not enough to justify some of the more hysterical reactions here.

Cheers,

Roger
 
I occasionally freelance for a local news website, which unfortunately means if I come across a car accident I get out and take photos (the only thing that gets more hits than car accidents are house fires).

I just got back from an accident where all I had was my Bessa on-hand. I rewound my roll of TRI-X and threw in a roll of Kodak 400 HD colour film. When I was rewinding the film in the lab I realized I had my yellow filter on the whole time :O

Easy enough to colour-correct... at least it wasn't my red filter!

It turned out that they didn't need photos as someone videotaped it before I got there.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom