The great filter poll of 2010: UV/NC with vs. without

[scottwallick]

Vote your conscience, or at least the one that is in neighborhood of your stance on this topic. Do you put a UV filter on every lens? Never? Rarely? I'm interested in seeing an updated poll.

Following up on a two-year old poll regarding the use of UV/NC filters, the debate rages on here on RFF (e.g., this, this, this, and this). Now, the previously cited poll had 'with UV filter' coming in at 57.3% and 'without UV filter' at 42.7% at the time of writing. Fascinating, because I would have imagined the majority opting for 'without UV filter'. I would have assumed most of us here acknowledging filters affecting image quality and opting for going bare.

So I am interested in revisiting this eternal debate with a slightly expanded list of options for the poll.

Because, it seems to be, image quality will be better without a UV filter, especially with modern lenses. But a majority here are using UV filters. Why?

The reason I see to use a UV filter must be for protection alone; but at what cost to image quality? Great? Little?

You may have tired of this debate, so please be patient as a reignite it. 😉

If you're interested in reading the discussions on this issue elsewhere, you can do so here, here, here, here, and here and notably here.

Notable articles I read at one point include Luminous Landscapes, Dr. Shene at MTU, Atkins at Photo.net, Palacios at Nikonians, and Teila Day on PBase.

Feel free to share your thoughts, citations, practices, rationale, etc.

 

[FPjohn]

Mud

Mud

http://rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=93085

Opinions are based on experience and priorities. I have removed mud from both naked lenses and from filters in front of a lens. I prefer the latter.

yours
FPJ

 

[KenR]

ditto the above. I fell last year hiking in glacier national park. Both my camera and my mouth slammed into some tree roots. The camera handled it better than my mouth. Slightly dented filer ring, lots of dirt on the filter and camera, but the lip and front tooth still not right. I was able to clean off the camera and use it for the rest of the trip, although the liquid diet for the next week was not fun.

 

[John Lawrence]

I've tried both with and without and couldn't see any difference, so I keep UV filters on all my lenses.

John

 

[ferider]

You forgot the following poll option:

• I pride myself on shooting in the dark, wide open, and at 1/8s or lower hand-held. Under these conditions using a filter on my Noctilux would be unacceptable, it would affect the lens' character and image quality.

🙂

I always use filters. Have scratched front elements, had mud, water, salt and other goop on filters.

Roland.

 

[JohnTF]

I did pay $100 for a front element of a Tamron on my lady friend's Nikon, she had just taken the filter off to let some condensation evaporate, and the new boyfriend knocked it over on to a rock giving it a 1+ inch furrow.
Lens actually seemed to work OK, but would have preferred buying her a new filter.

I am much quicker to wipe a filter than a lens element.

Have heard a lot that implies it does not degrade the image in any way, so hard to argue against it when you have the filter.

Would it give sufficient status if you have the Leica branded filters to justify using those?

Regards,

 

[barnwulf]

I read that lens manufacturers don't recommend filters because filters can alter the quallity of the image. This is probably true especially if low cost filters are used. I have never seen any evidence of this but I take it as a good advice. I never use a filter unless I am needing an effect that a filter will give me and then I only buy high quality coated filters. I have been photographing for over 50 years and have never damaged a lens. I almost always use a lens hood which does offer some protection. Bare naked lenses for me. - Jim

 

[andredossantos]

Always. But I cant tell a difference between pictures taken with and without (though that may be because Im not looking very hard).

 

[John Lawrence]

I read that lens manufacturers don't recommend filters because filters can alter the quallity of the image.

Leica say that their filters don't affect the quality of their lenses:-

'The Leica filters for the Leica M system are made of optically pure glass, parallel plane ground and precisely annealed, so the full performance of the Leica M lenses is retained even with a filter attached.'

http://uk.leica-camera.com/photography/m_system/accessories/filters/2197.html

John

 

[Paul Luscher]

Oy. Not this again. Always good for a dust-up. Let the games begin.....

 

[barnwulf]

You are right, John and thanks for pointing that out. Leica filters are excellent and a bit on the expensive side. They would obviously be a great choice. I was speaking on more general terms as Leicas filter sales are probably pretty small in comparison to all the other filter brands in use out there. If you have a excellent lens it doesn't make sense to use a low priced non-coated filter in front of the lens. I think that is what the article was refering to. If you have quite a few lenses and you need 3 or 4 different filter sizes it can get expensive. Using step up/down adapters then the lens hood use gets complicated. - Jim

 

[chris000]

No, don't use them.

I use a filter system on the front of the camera for contrast filters, ND and graduated ND, if I were to keep a UV on wide angle lenses I would end up with vignetting.

I have heard all the warnings about protecting lenses but in 35 years of photography I have never had a problem yet. I make the effort to keep my lenses as clean as possible and when I have to clean them I use appropriate materials and take great care.

 

[John Lawrence]

You are right, John and thanks for pointing that out. Leica filters are excellent and a bit on the expensive side. They would obviously be a great choice. I was speaking on more general terms as Leicas filter sales are probably pretty small in comparison to all the other filter brands in use out there. If you have a excellent lens it doesn't make sense to use a low priced non-coated filter in front of the lens. I think that is what the article was refering to. If you have quite a few lenses and you need 3 or 4 different filter sizes it can get expensive. Using step up/down adapters then the lens hood use gets complicated. - Jim

Slightly off topic (and the subject of much debate on forums) is whether or not Leica filters are made by B + W. My understanding, from those in the know, is that B + W do indeed make the filters for Leica, and use the exact same glass in their filters.

Still, that's another poll for another day .....



John

 

[ferider]

My understanding is that they used to, but newer Leica filters come from somewhere else (Hoya?).

Coating between B+W MRC and new Leica filters if very much different.

Note that Hoya HMC filters test very good compared to B+W filters, optically.

 

[coelacanth]

I use filter on all lenses because I never carry front lens cap with me (other than Elmar 50/3.5 on IIIf).

Speed is everything for me.

 

[John Lawrence]

My understanding is that they used to, but newer Leica filters come from somewhere else (Hoya?).

Coating between B+W MRC and new Leica filters if very much different.

Note that Hoya HMC filters test very good compared to B+W filters, optically.

I hadn't heard this, but out of interest, when did they change?

John

Edit: To avoid taking this thread off topic, just did a quick search on LUG and answered my question. Thanks for pointing this out.

 

[robbeiflex]

I voted "YES! I am compelled to protect the front element of my expensive lens." That said, sometimes I accomplish this with a lens hood rather than a filter. Like others here have stated, the point is to protect the lens without having to deal with a lens cap when I'm walking around and shooting. I often use a yellow filter for daytime outdoor B&W or a skylight for daytime outdoor colour. Caps are for when the camera and/or lenses are in the bag not being used.

 

[Soothsayerman]

I voted no, but it depends. I don't shoot trucks flying through mud, or trekking across southeast Asia in a monsoon. If I did, I might, but since I don't I'm not going to put a mid quality piece of glass in front of a lens I may have paid over $1500 dollars for.

With modern lenses, the coatings are not mearly applied to the glass, it is on a whole different level of technology than that which is why they easily stand up to properly cleaning on a regular basis. The dirt will do more damage than cleaning.

Older lenses on the other hand vary and can be very different. And if I had a rarer non-contemporary lens that was expensive, I would be more inclined to do so. But if I did, it would either be something made by Schneider or Lee.

 

[JohnTF]

I have heard a lot of folks with Physics degrees saying they tested all the newer multicoated filters and could never find any evidence of an image degraded by a filter.

Should be very easy for someone with good equipment to measure with a test pattern, and I find it odd that a lens maker would advise that a good quality filter would produce less than the results of the lens without one.

It is always sweet to find those BW filters in the junk drawer for a few bucks in a size you can use.

I standardized on a larger filter size for my MF glass, stacked them with covers, or kept them in cases, along with the adapters I needed for various lenses I was carrying.

I did get two Leica filters with my M8, but have not bought any Leica or BW filters new, pays to be friendly with a local store, they take all that stuff off when a camera comes in, along with the cases and straps. I got an entire Nikon set with a black F as I was there when it was traded in.


I am guessing this has been discussed before. ;-)

Regards, John

 

[ed1234]

I rather do the cleaning on the filter than on the front elements of all my lens.