To filter or not to filter, this is the question --

[35mmdelux]

I have been shooting with UV filters a long time. However, I don't know that lenses where designed to be used with an additional piece of glass in front of the lens element?

I use the filters to filter out UV, haze, and to keep the lens clean. On an expensive lens I would rather wipe the filter, rather than the lens glass. Lenses get dirty easily, dusty, whatever simply by being in the environment.

Lately, while checking late models lenses for sale I have started to see more of "the lens has a few cleaning marks." Posters have written that today's multi-coating is far harder than in the past -- apparently not much more it would appear?

I've got a couple of Summilux ASPH lenses I would not like to see damaged as well as some pretty good glass on my Hasselblad. The past few weeks I have been shooting without filters to see how the lenses perform free of the extra glass.

I think this is an important question to consider, given that filters might compromise the performance of a lens.

What say ye?

Thanks, Paul

 

[colyn]

Except for contrast enhancement with B&W film I never use a filter. Instead to protect the front element I use a hood..
If the lens needs cleaning I first blow off any dust with canned air then carefully clean with a Q-Tip..

 

[sepiareverb]

I use filters when needed to get what I'm after- that's usually some sort of yellow, orange or green when shooting B&W, often a warming filter (81A or B) for color. I'll also use ND filters to shoot HP5 out in the big bright sun. But lots of my lenses travel free from filters. I'm careful to use the lenscap when I can as well.

Many folks will say you don't really even need to clean the lenses, as cleaning marks, and even big bits of stuff inside the lens make no difference in image quality. I did have a 105/2.5 Nikkor that had a very large bit of something black on an internal element- looked like a fleck of black paint. It was quite near the middle of the lens. I ran a test, shooting a lightbox at near and far distances, wide open to stopped all the way down and never saw an impact. Granted this is not a real complete test, sunlight entering the lens might be more likely to impact image quality in this kind of situation- but I was very surprised.

 

[ZeissFan]

I've have filters on some cameras and no filters on others. I've never noticed degradation of the image on those with filters.

I would suggest buying known brands of high quality filters for your camera.

And of course, with certain films, you have no choice but to use a filter.

In this example, I had a filter over the lens. The story is below the image.

Now, consider this: The (Zeiss Ikon) filter that I used was probably in the neighborhood of at least 50 years old and possibly up to 70 years old. Doing a hefty amount of pixel peeping, the degradation of the image is insignificant.

The concerns over the use of filters, I think, is overblown. A high quality filter in combination with a hood probably gives you the best protection for a lens.

My curmudgeonly opinion is that photographers waste a lot of time worrying about things that don't matter. I read once that someone believed they got better results by overdeveloping their film 15 seconds over the recommended time. That's preposterous, if you consider all of the variables involved: perceived dilution vs. actual dilution; fluctuations in room and processing tank temperatures; the amount of water left over from a prewash; etc.

Years ago, I let one of my friend's mothers use my Pentax MX. When she took the camera off her neck, it flipped up and the lens kissed her. Literally, kissed her, as I ended up with her lip imprint on the skylight filter, courtesy of some very heavy lipstick she was wearing. I was young, and I didn't know about how to clean things. I simply threw away the filter and bought another. But boy was I glad I had that filter that day.

So that's my opinion. You'll get a lot of opinions on either side of this "issue."

 

[waileong]

?

?

As an extra piece of glass, a filter cannot improve image quality unless it is used for a legitimate purpose (eg yellow filter for shooting outdoor scenes in B&W).

There are websites where pixel peepers have done controlled tests, google and you shall find.

So if you want a UV filter for protection, fine. But image quality will be degraded. Whether you can see it depends on the quality of the filter and the type of shooting you do. And whether the degradation bothers you, only you can answer.

I have been shooting with UV filters a long time. However, I don't know that lenses where designed to be used with an additional piece of glass in front of the lens element?

I use the filters to filter out UV, haze, and to keep the lens clean. On an expensive lens I would rather wipe the filter, rather than the lens glass. Lenses get dirty easily, dusty, whatever simply by being in the environment.

Lately, while checking late models lenses for sale I have started to see more of "the lens has a few cleaning marks." Posters have written that today's multi-coating is far harder than in the past -- apparently not much more it would appear?

I've got a couple of Summilux ASPH lenses I would not like to see damaged as well as some pretty good glass on my Hasselblad. The past few weeks I have been shooting without filters to see how the lenses perform free of the extra glass.

I think this is an important question to consider, given that filters might compromise the performance of a lens.

What say ye?

Thanks, Paul

 

[Pherdinand]

really, many of those "cleaning marks" on todays lenses could be cleaned up if the owner would not be so afraid of doing it. I have a beater canonet on which i tried, some of the junk on its lens that seemed to be damage, cleaned up nicely (and some turned out to be chipped lens surface), and in the end it's nice and shiny again.

OTOH, an expensive lens i also would not risk cleaning too roughly, unless i KNOW i won't sell it 🙂

 

[maddoc]

I used my lenses for one month without filter and realized less flare and a little higher contrast in my photos (I take photos mostly at night with a lot of strong light sources in and around the frame). But ... a lot of dust and smear build up withing this time. So I cleared the front elements once and went back using filter....

Cleaning a filter is easier and I don't have to take so much care, if nothing else available, a wet napkin does the job. This procedure I wouldn't do with the front element of my lenses....

 

[payasam]

A filter of the best quality should not degrade the image enough to matter -- but the image will always be better, in absolute terms, without a filter.

 

[sepiareverb]

I'd say do what you want and stop worrying. If you like what you get with a filter (image quality or in protection) use it.

 

[peter_n]

I use B+W MRC filters and the smallest hood I can find on all my lenses for protection and readiness. When I got my 75/2AA first I kept the lens cap on for a while because that hood is extremely short. However I do need to protect myself from my own stupidity, so after a few completely black frames in my neg strips I reverted to the norm. I think the B+W MRC filters and their Heliopan equivalents are extremely high quality glass and I've never had a problem with the filters I use. They are comparatively expensive however.

 

[Tom A]

I am very much in favor of filters - particularly on lenses that i am interested in buying! They do keep the front element clean and scratch free. However, as soon as I get it, I remove the filter. I only use yellow/orange/red for contrast with black and white. Otherwise I cant see the reason for sticking an extra piece of glass on the front of a lens. i does increase the chance for reflections and degrading the image.
Under extreme conditions, desert sandstorms or salt water spray it is a good idea as most filters are cheaper than front elements of lenses.