filters; yes, or no?

M

mojobebop

Well-known
Local time
3:28 PM
Joined
Oct 8, 2008
Messages
255
to filter or not?
a sophomoric question perhaps.
i have put a heliopan uv on my lens
today, mainly for protection.

what i am wondering about is whether or not
this 'extra' glass will only serve to detract from
image quality.

i have never used lens caps, being primarily a street shooter;
(whenever i do i forget to remove, & miss the shot).
yet i find on occasion
when grabbing for the camera my fingertip may
nudge the lens element.
 
It's a religious question. Some say yes, some say no, and most don't know or don't care. But it can start wars. Final analysis, based upon the result of previous wars - use one if you think it helps and don't if you don't think it helps.

Don't mean to rain on your parade, but this particular question is nearly as bad as the perennial 'film versus digital' thing.
 
bmattock said:
It's a religious question. Some say yes, some say no, and most don't know or don't care. But it can start wars. Final analysis, based upon the result of previous wars - use one if you think it helps and don't if you don't think it helps.

Don't mean to rain on your parade, but this particular question is nearly as bad as the perennial 'film versus digital' thing.
Click to expand...


yes, i admit i felt like an idiot asking it.
 
I use skylight or haze filters as a prophylactic on my vintage lenses with soft coatings and/or glass.

If you are worried about it, it would be a simple task to check if a filter affects image quality or not.
 
Last edited:
mojobebop said:
yes, i admit i felt like an idiot asking it.
Click to expand...

No, you're not an idiot, it's a legitimate question. It is so legitimate that it gets asked a lot. The problem is that there may not be a definitive answer, but for some reason, people who UV or Skylight filter and those who do not feel strongly about it. I dunno. I don't use 'em, mostly due to a) laziness and b) I'm not prone to dropping cameras/lenses. I've smudged the lens a few times with a fingertip, I carry lens cleaning cloths for that and other purposes. No biggie. But that's me. YMMV.
 
A related debate is of course whether or not there is any real need, from an image quality perspective, to get the more expensive UV / Skylight filters as opposed to the ones that only cost a few dollars.

You could use the search function of the forum to find related threads on both those debates.

Personally, I use a filter, lens hood, and lens cap. I do not have a lot of money, so I like to protect (as much as possible) that which I have saved for. Probably is not necessary since I am very careful anyway, but I like to err on the side of caution. The metro system can get crowded anyway and having filters, lens hoods, lens caps makes me -feel- safer.

The filters I buy depend on the cost of the lens. If I spent $50 on an old Nikon AI lens for my D70, I wont put a $50 filter on it - I toss on a $10 tiffen. For my Nokton 50/1.5, I put on a hoya smc uv filter which was around $25.

I cannot discern any difference between filter on and filter off photos that I have taken. But, I am just an amateur. I am not a pro and I do not have a pro's eyes - I am also not so critical of my own work and I dont pixel peep.

Anyway, I rambled a bit, but I hope that what I said helps somewhat.
 
I rarely even bother cleaning the lens unless I get a humongous greasy fingerprint on it. A bit of dust won't ruin your photos. If something hits the filter with enough force to shatter it the lens is probably a gonner anyway. Use a hood. When I do use filters for reasons other than protection I have a motley collection of single coated old Leitz, Tiffen, Ednalite (sp?), Hoya, Spiratone, etc., mostly picked up used for a buck or two each. Nobody, absolutely NOBODY, will ever look at your prints and say "Tsk, tsk! That would have been such a great photo if only you hadn't been so damned cheap!"
 
Last edited:
Al Kaplan said:
I rarely even bother cleaning the lens unless I get a humongous greasy fingerprint on it. A bit of dust won't ruin your photos. If something hits the filter with enough force to shatter it the lens is probably a gonner anyway. Use a hood.
Click to expand...

much thanks for informative responses.

apologise for the lower caps.
i actually do know better.
a habit from writing.
also, online i've always thought
it's appropriate given the medium.
i could be wrong.
in any case, appreciate the responses.
 
Well, I've always used UV filters on most of my lenses, but that's just me.

I'm a 100% B&W film shooter with my Leicas, and after a few years using them, I'm starting to put colored filters on the lenses. Yes it can add something in terms of tonality and overall rendition.

Good to have a choice.
 
I personally do not use protective filters unless I am actively shooting in a situation that could be injurious to the front element. I don't usually worry about rain or snow since I use a hood and stay capped when I can. When I do use filters I prefer decent quality multicoated ones.

I may start using filters more frequently - I'm considering keeping a ND filter in the bag so I can shoot my usual 400CN at 200 in full daylight without stopping down.
 
I always use a UV filter on all my lenses for protection purposes, but as others say there is no definite answer. Really just horses for courses.
 
If the filter is of good quality I doubt you will ever be able to dectect any difference between a picture taken with a filter on and a picture taken without a filter but if you are really worried why don't you keep a filter for protection (a sound choice if you own expensive glasses) and take it away any time you have the time and you are not in a situation potentially dangerous for your lens? That's getting the best from both worlds.

GLF
 
bmattock said:
The only thing light can pass through which does not affect it is a vacuum.

Of course the filters degrade the image; they must. The question is how much.
Click to expand...
Alright Bill, let me put it another way - I can't see any difference. I've only tried it with two lenses and two filters mind, and I can't tell which is which, even under a loupe. (And there is 20/20 vision in the eye that was looking... ;))
 
on routine shooting a filter is wise. Lenses get dirty simply by being in the environment -- this is fact. If you only hang out at Starbucks then this might not be an issue.

Using a little logic, why would I want to wipe grim off my $4,000 35mm Summilux ASPH when a filter can take the hit?
 
peter_n said:
Alright Bill, let me put it another way - I can't see any difference. I've only tried it with two lenses and two filters mind, and I can't tell which is which, even under a loupe. (And there is 20/20 vision in the eye that was looking... ;))
Click to expand...

I agree, most definitely. I doubt I'd be able to tell the difference either. :D

I've just always been into the details. Like a scratched lens, does it impact the image? X-Rays, do they damage the film? Outdated film, OK to use? Etc, etc. The answer is almost always 'it depends'. If you can see the damage, then it matters. If you can't, then it doesn't. But all damage is 'damage', so of course it affects the image. One has to determine what their tolerance level is, assuming they can even detect the differences.
 
About the time I considered NOT using a filter in a "safe" environment, I had a kid run past me, then make a quick turn - firmly planting his soft-serve ice cream cone into my lens hood - vanilla and chocolate twist oozing through the hood vents.

Unscrewed the filter and hood, everything was fine. Cleaned up the hood, bought a new filter.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom