Protection filter

[paulpp]

Have tended to put a good quality (but not the best) UV or other filter on my lenses as "protection". But saw a post in another Forum where someone suggested "Why put a comparatively cheap piece of glass over something the manufacturers have spend £s developing?"
Which made me wonder - is it worth putting a filter on for protection unless you can afford the very best?

 

[Roger Hicks]

It makes very, very little difference, except )I am told) with longer lenses. Anyone who's conducted formal tests with a 50mm or wider can tell you that you need cheap window-glass before you can see any difference at all on the film. I've never tested it with longer lenses (75mm and above) but from general experience, any decent filter should still be OK.

Cheers,

R.

 

[thomasw_]

I think we can only answer this for ourselves. As such, I do think it is worth the cost of buying UV B+W filters for each of my 5 M-mount lenses. At between 30-50 bucks, and given the fact that I don't baby my Ms, it is a cheap piece of protection against accidental scuffs on my expensive RF lenses. Others may suggest that they degrade the images, but in my experience I don't see any IQ difference in using or not using a UV filter. So it is worth it for the protecting the front element.

 

[Jelico]

I do have UV or protection filters on all my lenses after letting my camera fall onto concrete floor. The filter (B+W) took the hit, was destroyed but still in one piece, nothing happened to the lens. Since then protection filter is a must. I did number of tests and never observed any deterioration of images due to filter.