do you use protective filters with your lens?

do you use protective filters with your lens?

  • yes, a filter is always on my lens

    Votes: 249 60.4%

  • no, i don't need it

    Votes: 163 39.6%
  • Total voters
    412
I always use good quality filters. While all filters degrade image quality of a lens, it is important to stress that the amount of degradation is more theoretical than real, as this degradation is unnoticeable if one uses a clean and good quality filter.

Also, those who don't use filters because of this "degradation" issue overlook the fact that the inevitable accumulation of dust, rain spots, salt spray, sand, airborne grit, greasy haze, pollution, pollen, etc. on an exposed front element and the resulting scratches and necessity of repeatedly cleaning the front element will surely degrade the imaging quality of a lens (and its sale value) FAR MORE than any good quality filter.

I can see the gradual damage that the elements and repeated cleaning inflict on filters and their coatings, even though I always use lens shades and put on lens caps when not using a lens. It is nice to know that I can always replace a damaged filter cheaply, as opposed to having a damaged lens.

Thus logic and commonsense favor using a filter. The resistance of those who refuse to use a filter strikes me as more ideological than practical.
 
Always Use Skylight, Rubber Hood, and Snap-on Cap.

Always Use Skylight, Rubber Hood, and Snap-on Cap.

Here are some medium and large format lenses I have recently acquired. I always add to each new lens, a good-quality Skylight Filter, Rubber Collapsible Lens Hood, and Snap-On Lenscap, just for peace-of-mind and protection. It's saved me from impact damage a few times I can recall.
 

Attachments

  • 001.jpg
    001.jpg
    52.8 KB · Views: 0
Just took the protective filter off the Summilux-R 50mm. It produced a noticeable softening/smearing.. Yet it's a very good quality filter.

Maybe I'll use it when I want a soft focus effect...

G
 
I don't really feel the need of filter protection for my only Monochrom lens, but as I usually have either a B+W medium yellow or B+W orange filter aboard anyway, security is incidental.
 
Click here to see what I saw when removing my camera from its bag after an air trip.



Now here to see how it looked after removing the filter.



Needless to say I immediately replaced the filter!
 
An update to my earlier response, I keep cheap UV filters (Hoya HMC) on all my lenses but instead of unclipping lens caps, I unscrew the filters with the lens caps attached and set them aside. I've come to the (belated) realisation there's absolutely no point in putting a cheap $30 piece of glass in front of $2000 worth of glass.

For moisture, mud, or snow, I use B+W filters.
 
I never use UV filters. As a few folks have pointed out, why add an extra piece of glass to a lens built to the exacting standards of an optical engineer. I use hoods on all my lenses for protection and always have the caps with me. I will use filters when needed for B&W - yellow and orange
 
LazyHammock said:
I never use UV filters. As a few folks have pointed out, why add an extra piece of glass to a lens built to the exacting standards of an optical engineer. I use hoods on all my lenses for protection and always have the caps with me. I will use filters when needed for B&W - yellow and orange
Click to expand...
The clue lies in the word "protective".

For a further clue, conduct tests for yourself and see when filters reduce image quality. When they do (and it's not often) -- take 'em off.

Finally, caps are great until you want to take pictures. Then, it's as well to leave 'em off. If you're taking pictures for several hours...

Cheers,

R.
 
And caps with older Leica cameras are a classic way to shoot blanks. I don't particularly care about through the lens meters, but they do make a good lens cap warning device.
 
Roger Hicks said:
The clue lies in the word "protective".

For a further clue, conduct tests for yourself and see when filters reduce image quality. When they do (and it's not often) -- take 'em off.

Finally, caps are great until you want to take pictures. Then, it's as well to leave 'em off. If you're taking pictures for several hours...

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...

Thanks for all the "clues" Roger. Testing under all lighting situations does not sound at all practical. I'll stick to using hoods for my lens protection rather than extraneous glass.

Finally, I should clarify that when I said I have the caps with me, they are in a pocket when I'm out shooting.
 
I always use a hood (except my 90/4 Elmar) and a filter, preferably B+W filters. It gives me peace of mind, which is enough of a reason for me. Besides, I can't discern any noticeable loss of sharpness. My 21mm does sometimes flare in harsh, direct sunlight, but those are extreme circumstances.
 
I answered yes but they're not always on the lens. In particular situations, such as a candlelit scene prone to ghosting, I'll take them off. Otherwise, I find them worthwhile on my pricey ASPH glass.
 
Does not make much sense to keep a glass in front of some other glass to prevent damage. If something hits hard on your glass filter, it is most likely that it will damage your lens too. Dust and fingerprints are easy to be removed. Many people think that the slightest touch will damage the front element of their lenses, but they are much harder than they think.
I used to use clear filters found on lenses bought as protective caps whenever one was not available, but after a couple of clicks with them forgotten on I have stopped doing so.
 
No, a protective glass filter probably won't save your lens from damage in a car crash. Damage from a belt buckle or zipper? Yes, a $90 B&W probably will save that Noctilux.
 
Yes, a $90 B&W probably will save that Noctilux.
Click to expand...

Certainly, but on the other and I think I'd draw the line at putting a protective filter on a lens if the filter was worth more than the lens.

Otherwise I always use protective filters.
 
Roger Hicks said:
The clue lies in the word "protective".

For a further clue, conduct tests for yourself and see when filters reduce image quality. When they do (and it's not often) -- take 'em off.

Finally, caps are great until you want to take pictures. Then, it's as well to leave 'em off. If you're taking pictures for several hours...

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...

I agree, I had a m4/3 20mm lens that showed flare when using a protective filter so I took it off. Much later I noticed that the lens has gained a small scratch which thankfully doesn't affect the image. I continue to use a filter on my other lenses / cameras as I haven't encountered flare problems with them. I suspect that the cheaper the filter the more likely that flare will be an issue.
 
....I didn't vote. Depends on the subject. I've shot at crazy concerts where alcohol hit my lens and killed spots on the coating. Same thing goes if you get too close to a graffiti artist. Also, when rain and dirt/dust is flying pretty bad, I'll use one. I take a lot of photos of my nieces too who throw stuff at me (snowballs, toys, dirt, stones) when I'm taking pictures of them. I never try to control the action, so I take precaution in these times. But landscape and most street stuff, I don't bother because it's relatively safe. So, 25% yes, 75% no.
 
I use contrast filters on lenses when shooting B&W.
I use protective filters only:

- on lenses which are impossible to replace
- when I am shooting pictures in rain or dirt

I do not use UV filters but buy the best protective clear filters I can for a certain filter size, if I need one.

I feel the loss in sharpness and detail of a good filter is unimportant - I never saw the difference.
The issue with ghosts and reflections though is a real one and my sole reason, not to use filters, if I can.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom