Gregoryniss
Well-known
I always shoot with a yellow K2 filter when using black and white because I like the tonality combined with neopan
DNG
Film Friendly
I use UV filters on all lenses expect the 90 Cron.. the first element is set back enough when the hood is extended to not need one. (I use my hand for protection in windy areas where sand may fly around).
akremer
Established
I use a clear P filter to protect my planar. The last thing that I want to do is hurt a nice lens.
Last edited:
j j
Well-known
I don't get it. A filter smashed and showered all your valuable kit with glass fragments and you decided from that it was safer to put filters on all your lenses?
Water Ouzel
Water Ouzel
Then again, it might very wwll.
I was very glad to have had a filter on the front of one of my lenses, after being hit straight on by a hard-thrown snowball (frankly more ice than snow) while I was actually shooting. Shattered filter, and a cut above my eye, but the lens itself was undamaged.
David R Munson
写真のオタク
IMO there are two valid reasons to shoot with a "protective filter"
1. Your lens is vintage and has a soft lens coating that could be easily damaged through careless cleaning methods.
2. You're shooting in a hazardous environment such as at a race track or by the ocean where there's salt spray.
Beyond that, all you're doing is putting money in the camera store salesman's pocket. They're a ****ing waste of money 99% of the time. I am amazed by the amount of cash people drop on filters that are basically useless at best. Use a proper lens hood, be sensible about handling your gear, and your lens will be fine. Only in extreme situations will the front element of a lens actually be broken or significantly damaged, and in those cases a filter isn't likely to provide much protection anyway.
I spent years assisting in commercial photography, where image quality is the single most important factor. Not once did I ever see a photographer use a protective filter. Out of curiosity I even asked some of them whether they ever used a protective filter, and practically got laughed out of the room.
If you put a lot of money into your glass, why put something on the front of it that is almost universally going to provide zero benefit and which adds possible image degradation. If the lenses were better off with a protective filter, the manufacturers would have built one in.
Don't waste your money on protective filters. Be sensible, clean your lenses with appropriate technique when necessary, use a hood, and your glass will be just fine.
1. Your lens is vintage and has a soft lens coating that could be easily damaged through careless cleaning methods.
2. You're shooting in a hazardous environment such as at a race track or by the ocean where there's salt spray.
Beyond that, all you're doing is putting money in the camera store salesman's pocket. They're a ****ing waste of money 99% of the time. I am amazed by the amount of cash people drop on filters that are basically useless at best. Use a proper lens hood, be sensible about handling your gear, and your lens will be fine. Only in extreme situations will the front element of a lens actually be broken or significantly damaged, and in those cases a filter isn't likely to provide much protection anyway.
I spent years assisting in commercial photography, where image quality is the single most important factor. Not once did I ever see a photographer use a protective filter. Out of curiosity I even asked some of them whether they ever used a protective filter, and practically got laughed out of the room.
If you put a lot of money into your glass, why put something on the front of it that is almost universally going to provide zero benefit and which adds possible image degradation. If the lenses were better off with a protective filter, the manufacturers would have built one in.
Don't waste your money on protective filters. Be sensible, clean your lenses with appropriate technique when necessary, use a hood, and your glass will be just fine.
tlitody
Well-known
I'm inclined to agree with above post. Buying a lens is like buying a pair of shoes. The sales assistant gets bonus points for selling you the latest and greatest shoe cream to keep them in pristine condition if you use it regularly.
And on that note I notice that zeiss are selling ZF IR lenses which have NOT got the standard IR filtering built into the T* coating. And I guess most lenses are designed to filter UV too. M8 owners can't take advantage but don't Nikon digital cameras have IR filters over sensors? I don't know or maybe the ZF IR lenses are really meant for film cameras.
And on that note I notice that zeiss are selling ZF IR lenses which have NOT got the standard IR filtering built into the T* coating. And I guess most lenses are designed to filter UV too. M8 owners can't take advantage but don't Nikon digital cameras have IR filters over sensors? I don't know or maybe the ZF IR lenses are really meant for film cameras.
Water Ouzel
Water Ouzel
Perhaps I ought to clarify that the filter in question was a polarizer to deal with the strong glare at the time.
I don't see much point in putting any filter for any reason other than to enhance the image; polarizer, yellow/orange/red/etc for B&W shooting where appropriate, and so on.
I just ended up being lucky that day.
Alpacaman
keen bean
A UV filter saved my main lens when my tripod toppled, but then again, so did the lens hood, which sacrificed itself for the greater good.
I do like the way that polarizers, grad NDs, red filters etc. force me to think a lot more about my photography.
I do like the way that polarizers, grad NDs, red filters etc. force me to think a lot more about my photography.
Last edited:
Matus
Well-known
While I do not use UV filters with my LF lenses, I have recently got a Mamiya 6 with all 3 lenses and got UV filter for each lens found a deal on new HMC Hoya UV(0). Simply because I may toss the lens in the bag just with the hood on without the lens cap and it just may happen that there will be something glass unfriendly.
So in my case the way the lens is being used/handled dictates the use of UV filters.
So in my case the way the lens is being used/handled dictates the use of UV filters.
Paul Luscher
Well-known
Hmmm.....isn't this like the 352nd time this question has come up? Wit the usual postions being taken? (Whoops, sorry, didn't realize you were a newbie).
Well, I'd say it's a matter of what suits you..but FOR ME, DEFINITELY FILTERS. There may be drawbacks in using them , but not enough to make up for the fact that it's easier to replace a $50 filter, as opposed to a $2,000 lens, if something happens...
Well, I'd say it's a matter of what suits you..but FOR ME, DEFINITELY FILTERS. There may be drawbacks in using them , but not enough to make up for the fact that it's easier to replace a $50 filter, as opposed to a $2,000 lens, if something happens...
benlees
Well-known
I don't photograph in studios and I pay for my own equipment so I use filters. I often am out and about in the muck or dust. Lens hood won't help you there, especially Mamiya rf ones- cheap plastic! I wouldn't want to clean a lens after photographing dogs cavorting by a river. Lots of reasons to use a filter.
raytoei@gmail.com
Veteran
i used to insist on filters, but recently with a hood, i have decided not to use filter on the most excellent sonnar 1.5 that i bought from Brian. Ditto to my 50 lux, with hood = no filter.
cheers!
raytoei
cheers!
raytoei
hendriphile
Well-known
Any high quality lens can yield its best performance only if the two outside glass surfaces are in perfect condition. And it is much better to keep them clean than to keep cleaning them. A light yellow filter (with black-and-white film) or a colorless ultraviolet filter (for color shots), left permanently on the lens, will protect the surface against outside influences (e.g., fine sand at the seaside).
--- Leica M3 instruction manual.
Of course we all have the right to follow or ignore this advice, as we choose.
--- Leica M3 instruction manual.
Of course we all have the right to follow or ignore this advice, as we choose.
Last edited:
kshapero
South Florida Man
Well said MR Leica, IMHO.
Gumby
Veteran
littlefields
Member
People still argue about this old saw? Seriously? Wake up...it's 2011. Use a good grade of filter for your lenses, shut up, and go take some photographs. Uh-mazin'.
wcurtiss
Member
When I first got back into photography I slapped filters on every lens I owned, now I just use hoods and lens caps. The only filters I use these days are neutral density or yellow/orange filters for b&w. Use them or don't, it really shouldn't be such a controversy...
Joosep
Well-known
Too poor to damage my lenses. Use BW and Marumi filters.
DtheG
Established
I always had a UV filter on my film SLR. For a time I kept a filter on the X100 all the time in place of a lens cap, taking it off occasionally if the image would be affected by flare etc. Then I decided to rely on the lens cap and hood for protection. The filter went back on this summer to keep out the dust. On the whole for my purposes I prefer protection from dust, stray fingers, etc to what is likely to be an imperceptible effect on image quality.