To Filter or NOT to Filter - That is the question

To Filter or NOT to Filter - That is the question

  • Yes I use UV / Protection Filters

    Votes: 421 58.0%

  • No, I love to shoot naked !!

    Votes: 305 42.0%
  • Total voters
    726
back alley said:
some have a greater need to be 'right'.

joe
Click to expand...
Out here the same emotions surface regarding motor oil (particularly what you're running in your farm tractor; apparently cars are of lesser importance) and rifle calibers -- especially rifle calibers. You may be forgiven for running Valvoline instead of Delo, but not for shooting with a .243 🙂.
 
George, buy insurance for your expensive glass and don't rely on filters for protection. When was the last time you were poked in the eye? 😉 Think of that front element as your third eye and you'll be careful with your lenses. 🙄 Invest in a good lens shade. Pros in this part of the country laugh at people who use filters. 😛

R.J.
 
Although I almost never use a filter, it would be nice in the long run. Have you ever looked at an old lens, and realized that it had a permanent filter? When you pull off the filter, and the lens is spotless and pristine, it seems worth it to have a filter on your lenses. Nonetheless, in the short term, I feel that it most certainly decreases some picture quality for a few reasons. Most have been mentioned, but one that seems to be missing is that fact that a filter decreases the caution with which one generally treats a lens. If there is a filter, why a lens cap?, or why excess caution? Thus, filters tend to generally be in worse shape than the front element of a naked lens would normally be.
 
I've definitely seen old lenses with filters permanently on them - my Canon P had one. And yes, the front element is perfect and spotless and beautiful. I actually do use that filter as a lens cap (since I have no lens cap).

On the other hand, my FED 1 came with an unfiltered lens - and the last two owners said they'd never had one. And it had no lens cap either. And it's also perfect and spotless and beautiful.

So being careful does work! 😉
 
copake_ham said:
Mea culpa ,in part... [see other posts]

You can be a "careful" as a saint - but "accidents" happen.

You apparently have a lot of glass and some indifference as to their value to you.

My values are different.

It's not just a matter of price and replacement - to me its a matter of respect for what I currently own - and what I hope to pass on...

Carefulness does not replace protection.

I'll bet your drive carefully - does that mean you don't have insurance?
Click to expand...

Doesn't "using them carefully" mean using them to their full capability as well?
And I do drive carefully (most of the time) -but does that mean I need to have a Sherman tank driving in front of me to "protect"my car? And as you say, my car has insurance -so do my more expensive lenses.....
 
I've always used UV filters on my lenses. I've got various leneses I've owned from new and never had to clean the front element. I've saved a £800 MF lens with a £30 filter. I've also shot a lot of slide in my time and a UV does stop the occasional 'cold' picture in strong light. I used to be extremely sniffy about people who used any kind of filter for an effect but changed my mind after I used a yellow green filter for portraiture in black and white. The bottom line is I will do whatever it takes to make pictures that I am happy with - and that's what we should all do, filter or no
 
I keep filters on just about every lens I own. I have made filters to go on lenses. They protect the delicate front element from "too many cleanings" over the decades. The 35mm RF camera that I bought in 1969 at age 11 has a perfect lens on it.

UV filters also cut out wavelengths of light that tend to "blur" pictures. Film is sensitive below blue, and most lenses are not color corrected for that range.
 
As I close in rapidly on the half-century mark, Thanks!

My Mom, age 81, watching my oldest Sister turning 58, told me "You are all getting old!"
 
Unfortunately I had to learn by my own ( painful) experience that UV filters used for the purpose of protection ARE an optical risk, worse than I thought.
Two additional glass-to-air surfaces in front of the lens obviously is more than an academic argument.

So I have UV filters mounted on all lenses but take them off before I go out for shooting, excepted beach, mountains, rain and really dusty places.

Knowing that tiny clean marks on the frontlens have almost no visible effect I hate them anyway on a lens for many hundred if not for thousands of Euros. I have no choice at this point, it's part of my education to take care on worthful and precisely manufactured gadgets.

The filter ring itself can have a protective effect too, saved me once my Mat124 when it fell on the concrete.

On the other hand it does not make sense to spoil the result of such an expensive lens, I mean you buy it BECAUSE of the outstanding performance and and you want to get it all.

Two hearts beat in my breast and so for me this means turn-in, turn-out, turn-in, turn-out...... :bang:
 
hms624 said:
Although I almost never use a filter, it would be nice in the long run. Have you ever looked at an old lens, and realized that it had a permanent filter? When you pull off the filter, and the lens is spotless and pristine, it seems worth it to have a filter on your lenses. [snip]
Click to expand...
Indeed I've had that very experience. I bought a 1978 or 9 50mm Summilux on eBay a few months ago and when it arrived there was a note from the seller - an 85 yr. old who had been the only owner. There was a UV filter on it and when I unscrewed it I realized it had been on there for the life of the lens. The front element was pristine and the white engaving on the front rim looked like it had been done the day before. I wrote back to him and told him that I would take good care of the lens for as long as I owned it. 🙂

 
I have them on all my old SLR gear, all my new (about 14 yrs old) Leica lenses, on my LTM 105, but everything else is naked. My wide CVs do so well with flare I hate to add anything. I think I go with price of the lens to be replaced. B2 (;->
 
For some reason, the filter debate reminds me of Felix Unger. 🙂

I suppose if one places a filter on a new lens and never removes it for any reason, the only "harm" might be flare under certain shooting conditions.

But, for those who take them on and off, isn't there a higher probability of sealing moisture in between the front element and the filter and hastening the formation of fungus? I've always read that a filter should be removed when storing lenses for any length of time for that reason.

I don't use filters myself, but always have a hood on each lens. However, I would bet the screw in hoods would be more solid than the Leica "clip" on hoods in the event of a drop.

Some time ago, on a forum I cannot recall, I read where a lens was dropped and the filter shattered, severely scratching the front element. Now that would make me sick!

This subject is really obsessive. 😀
 
brightsky said:
Some time ago, on a forum I cannot recall, I read where a lens was dropped and the filter shattered, severely scratching the front element. Now that would make me sick!
Click to expand...


Aaargh!! That was me :bang: I was not pleased, as it was a Leica Apo Telyt 280
Luckily the front element of that lens is the "cheapest" meaning I could have bought a Canon L lens for the repair costs 😡 Well... In Hong Kong at any rate.
 
Last edited:
no filters for me. Actually, if I use any filters at all (besides the UV filters which I DO use), I use an 81A - but only when shooting outdoor portraits.

With black and white - nothing.
 
Hmmm. I used my equipment in the field for about 10 years. I shattered the front elements of two RF Nikkor lenses and cracked the viewfinder window on a Nikon SP somewhere on a very bumpy mountain road. I've also bent, shattered or broken half a dozen filters, so without them, my kill-rate for lenses would've been much higher. Nowadays, in my more suburban pursuits of chasing after my kids with a camera, I do sometimes remove the filters. But most of the time they stay on the lens. One of the reasons I like very high quality lenses is that they can stand the degredation of things like filters. If my resolution already exceeds that of the film, then the filter's degredation borders on the inconsequential. I do use lens hoods for reflections and flare, which are a different thing altogether.

In the pursuit for perfect sharpness, nobody ever discusses their enlarging lens. And few of us spend a lot time discussing scanner technique and sharpness.

I know there are strong opinions on both sides of the filter issue. But I'm not sure the presence or absence of a protective filter ever made or ruined a really good photograph.
 
sbug said:
Stupid? Hardly. I never use a filter for protection. I shoot mostly with a Canonet. Lens ruined? I'll buy a new one. BFD Not that I've ever so much as scratched a lens. Now I suppose if I'm using something more $$$, maybe a filter... but overall, I am not a fan of filters for protection. Only effect.

Scott
Click to expand...

Total agreement, with some bold on "only effect".

Cheers,

Ruben
 
I have put my two cents worth in on this subject a couple of times before. I do like reading everyone else's ideas too. I use filters, hoods, and caps on every lens I can find them for. I usually get the coated UV. I have B&W's, Contax's, Hoya's. I clean the filters when they get dirty and the lenses stay as pristine as possible. I can remove the filter if needed, especially if I am making multiples of the lenses value per day.
I have some lenses without filters because I just have not searched them out yet. I have a lens with cleaning marks I am thinking of sending to be re-coated. I am glad it is not an expensive lens. 🙂 🙂
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom