do you use protective filters with your lens?

[arseniii]

cases, filters , soft releases sounds like condoms to me!
just don't clean the lens with anything but dust blower and use the hood. you will be fine 🙂

 

[imokruok]

You do not have to read many member equipment ads to figure out how much damage can be done to the front element of a lens by general carelessness. I have filters on all my lenses and have never noticed the slightest degradation of the image by their use. Basically, I find it a nuisance to have to remove and store a lens cap every time I want to grab a shot. Obviously, good quality filters are best, but what's $40 spent on a decent filter compared to damaging a $1000 lens?...TW

Agreed on all points. I'm all about using my equipment, and if I don't have a filter on it, I baby it.

 

[airfrogusmc]

I've also seen (thin as compared to front element) filters shattered by an impact that would have damaged a front element and those tiny razor like shards were embedded in a front element running a very expensive lens.

Heres a 30+ year old lens that has never seen a filter on ot for protection and I doubt many here are harder on equipment than I am. I refuse to put an unmatched piece of glass on a very expensive lens. Any lens quality is only as good as it's weakest link. (IQ wise its a filter) and the curved thick front element is a lot stronger than the relatively thin filter which will shatter under things like side impact that would never damage a front element.

The 30+ year old lens. Notice the nicks and dings in hte lens barrel.

And here a lens that 20+ years old and the only filters that have been on either were for effect.

Hoods always. Filters only for effect.

 

[35mmdelux]

I prefer to wipe a filter then wiping pricey Leica glass. Yea there are blowers and camel hair brushes for due care.

 

[airfrogusmc]

I prefer to wipe a filter then wiping pricey Leica glass. Yea there are blowers and camel hair brushes for due care.

I have had my 35 Lux FLE for over a year now and the glass looks as clean as the day I bought it. I really don't want to turn my 5K lens into a $100 lens. The way I look at it is a lens is only as sharp as its weakest link and that would be the IQ of a $100 unmatched filter. But thats me.

If you feel safer with a filter then spend the money and get one. Who am I to say what and how you should spend your dough. Be careful though because filters are not that good for protecting against impact and can cause serious problems. I've seen that first hand.

 

[pete hogan]

Nikon filter saved a Nikon 50/1.4 lens for me upon impact many years ago, so filters became a habit. And I use yellow filters for B&W most of the time. Lens caps too.

 

[airfrogusmc]

I have a very good friend that is a very good photographer that works for one of the major camera stores and they are told to push filters and other accessories. They usually make very little on major manufacturers cameras and lenses when compared to the % they make on things like filters. He says that they are taught to sell the protection angle but he doesn't use filters for protection either but he wants to make the mother ship as much money as he can. He to only uses filters for what they are actually designed for, effect.

 

[Guaranteed]

I have had my 35 Lux FLE for over a year now and the glass looks as clean as the day I bought it. I really don't want to turn my 5K lens into a $100 lens. The way I look at it is a lens is only as sharp as its weakest link and that would be the IQ of a $100 unmatched filter. But thats me.

If you feel safer with a filter then spend the money and get one. Who am I to say what and how you should spend your dough. Be careful though because filters are not that good for protecting against impact and can cause serious problems. I've seen that first hand.

Your posts using it over POTN in the LLA thread almost pushed me over the edge into getting one, I need to revisit it soon.

 

[airfrogusmc]

Your posts using it over POTN in the LLA thread almost pushed me over the edge into getting one, I need to revisit it soon.

Let me help push you over the edge. LoL

Almost everything in this thread (over 90%) was shot with an M Monochrom and 35 lux FLE. Its the sharpest 35mm lens I have ever shot with.
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=127307

The 35 cron is an excellent choice to. 35mm F/L just seems to fit with the way I see.

 

[Roger Hicks]

I have had my 35 Lux FLE for over a year now and the glass looks as clean as the day I bought it. I really don't want to turn my 5K lens into a $100 lens. The way I look at it is a lens is only as sharp as its weakest link and that would be the IQ of a $100 unmatched filter. But thats me.

If you feel safer with a filter then spend the money and get one. Who am I to say what and how you should spend your dough. Be careful though because filters are not that good for protecting against impact and can cause serious problems. I've seen that first hand.

Bold: Except of course that you won't. Have you ever done a side by side test? What "serious problems" have you seen elsewhere? And my wife had a PC-Nikkor on her Nikon when she tripped in the Himalayas. Shattered filter: unharmed front element. Sure, the plural of "anecdote" is not "data" but when have you ever seen a lens where a filter failed to offer significant additional protection?

Cheers,

R.

 

[Gumby]

... and who has ever measured the IQ of a filter?

 

[Roger Hicks]

... and who has ever measured the IQ of a filter?

Insofar as we're talking about resolution and contrast tests with and without filters, I have, and Ctein has. He is a better experimentalist than I. Our conclusions? Can't see a difference, at least with the lenses we tried.

No doubt other have conducted similar experiments too, but those who say they see a difference tend to be hazy when you ask about their experimental protocols.

Cheers,

R.

 

[MikeDimit]

No filters usually. I do think that lens are build in a way to protect the glass. So protective cap is used only when my camera is transported. UV - only by sea or high mountain.

 

[Addy101]

Do whatever makes you happy. Really, there are points to be made on both sides of the argument. I don't use filters normally, but if you think it protects your front element, please use them!

To counterpoint the "filter saved my front element" posts: I have a lens I can't get the filter off because I bumped it. The lens' filter thread is fine, just the filters. Thankfully it was a screw in hood, or else the scattering of the filter glass might have damaged the front element.....

 

[mdarnton]

Filters are cheap, lenses are expensive.

 

[meanstreetshooter]

Always a filter:
UV
Haze-1 or 2 (Canon filter designation)
K2 for B&W film.
Sometimes a ND filter.

I always shoot with a hood in place. I use the caps when lenses are placed in the bag or case.

 

[Phil_F_NM]

Sure, the plural of "anecdote" is not "data" but when have you ever seen a lens where a filter failed to offer significant additional protection?

Cheers,

R.

It happened to me right before I was supposed to shoot the star of a SciFi/Fantasy movie back in 2006.

I was shooting a crop sensor canon and for the shoot I wanted to use my 70-200 f/4 L which was a stunning piece of glass.

When I got out of the car, the lens must have shifted in my bag and it tumbled onto the pavement. I almost got sick right there even before I saw the damage.

The B+W UV filter had taken a little bit of the stress and the ring was dented a small amount but the filter was fine. It still even unscrewed. The lens had a thumb-sized clam shell shaped crack in it and the stator ring in the focusing stage was broken.

Now, this wasn't a bug tumble but a filter just wasn't going to protect the lens from that damage anyway. So it can happen.

As for regular use, I don't use protection filters at all. If I'm shooting film, I find that I want the flat, long tonal range that unfiltered B&W gives. It's better for scanning. If I know exactly the look I'm going for then I'll use a contrast filter but otherwise it's always nude glass. The only filters I regularly use are neutral density. Those are coated Heliopan ND6s that I use on my Mamiya 6 if I want to shoot the rest of a roll of Tri-X and it's still mid-day.

The only time I ever used filters regularly was when I was on deployment in Iraq where the silt just blasts lenses into foggy bottoms of cola bottles. Those were Leica filters on Leica lenses too. There I DID use contrast filtration as well simply because I needed to pull down the amount of light somehow into a reasonable exposure range and I didn't have any ND filters. I was also wet printing those B&W images back then too.

I love walking around city streets at night and have had too many images ruined because of a filter on my lens causing either flare or a specular highlight mirror image effect with points of light suspended where they aren't supposed to be.

Now, hoods I use religiously.

Phil Forrest

 

[Roger Hicks]

Nope, No need for protection... after over 40+ years in photography, never has a reason... I don't bring cameras to the beach or the like... . . .

Well, I do. I can't see why I'd want a camera I could only use in dry still air in a limited range of places. Beaches, monsoons, spas, mountains, deserts... Wherever.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Roger Hicks]

It happened to me right before I was supposed to shoot the star of a SciFi/Fantasy movie back in 2006.

I was shooting a crop sensor canon and for the shoot I wanted to use my 70-200 f/4 L which was a stunning piece of glass.

When I got out of the car, the lens must have shifted in my bag and it tumbled onto the pavement. I almost got sick right there even before I saw the damage.

The B+W UV filter had taken a little bit of the stress and the ring was dented a small amount but the filter was fine. It still even unscrewed. The lens had a thumb-sized clam shell shaped crack in it and the stator ring in the focusing stage was broken.

Now, this wasn't a bug tumble but a filter just wasn't going to protect the lens from that damage anyway. So it can happen.

As for regular use, I don't use protection filters at all. If I'm shooting film, I find that I want the flat, long tonal range that unfiltered B&W gives. It's better for scanning. If I know exactly the look I'm going for then I'll use a contrast filter but otherwise it's always nude glass. The only filters I regularly use are neutral density. Those are coated Heliopan ND6s that I use on my Mamiya 6 if I want to shoot the rest of a roll of Tri-X and it's still mid-day.

The only time I ever used filters regularly was when I was on deployment in Iraq where the silt just blasts lenses into foggy bottoms of cola bottles. Those were Leica filters on Leica lenses too. There I DID use contrast filtration as well simply because I needed to pull down the amount of light somehow into a reasonable exposure range and I didn't have any ND filters. I was also wet printing those B&W images back then too.

I love walking around city streets at night and have had too many images ruined because of a filter on my lens causing either flare or a specular highlight mirror image effect with points of light suspended where they aren't supposed to be.

Now, hoods I use religiously.

Phil Forrest

Dear Phil,

Fair anecdote, but the point is that a big, heavy lens was damaged when it fell. Look carefully at my wording: ADDITIONAL protection. Sure, it's a counter-factual conditional, but would the lens have been less protected without a filter? Hardly. On the occasion you cite, the additional protection was not sufficient. On another occasion, it might have been. But I'd really dispute that the filter offered less protection (= increased vulnerability).

Cities at night? I am not unfamiliar with those. "Ruined" images? Few if any in my experience: more spoiled from internal reflections in the lenses themselves. But yes, I'd completely agree about hoods.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Godfrey]

No, unless I need to protect them from something.

G