Using protective filters of RF lenses

[peter_n]

Phill & Roland have it: there are two schools of thought and it is very controversial, almost religious in nature. Those who don't use them tend to scoff at those who do, and the filter users can point to their pristine front elements in reply! 😀

So Assaf you can see from the replies that it is a bit controversial and that the replies are somewhat predictable. It happens about once every month or two... 😉

 

[Magus]

Post deleted by posters request

 

[Xmas]

Magus

Is there someone more perceptive to quote?

Noel

 

[John Elder]

Last Saturday I was shooting on Coney Island, NYC, a windy day, fine sand blowing all over the place. I was very glad that I had a high quailty filter on the 3 high quailty lens I was shooting that day. I went from the non filtered school of thought to the filtered school many years ago. I have been shooting for over 25 years and I can't show you a photograph degraded by a high quailty filter. I choose to protect the lens and then not worry about the enviornment I'm shooting in.

 

[oscroft]

Another way to think about it is cost vs risk. I've used dozens of lenses over the years and have never lost one to damage that a filter would have prevented. If I'd put high quality filters on all of those lenses (and high quality filters are expensive), I'd have been financially worse off than had I broken a lens. Obviously it depends on the price of the lenses you buy (and on other things, like how often you can reuse a filter when you dispense with a lens, etc). I don't think I've ever spent more than about $400 on a lens, with most being quite a bit cheaper, so I reckon I could probably afford to break one lens in ten and still come out financially ahead through not buying filters. If you have more expensive lenses and the filters cost less as a percentage of the price, then the economics might weigh the other way and filters might be a better idea.

 

[Krosya]

I'd rather get all kinds of finger smudges, dirt and dust on a filter than on a lens. Thats what I think filter is for. Hood is also a good protection, but one doesn't substitute the other - for different reasons.
I've yet to see a photo that was affected by UV filter in a bad way. However I have seen some lenses that have some oil from fingers imbedded into the front element's glass. Which would you prefer?
Oh and as far as dropping your camera - no filter of hood or whatever will protect you from damage. Yes, you can get lucky and it will be functional after all, but really - c'mon! This goes even more so for RF - possible recalibration, etc. Simply don't drop your camera!!!!!!! How about someone starts talking about a protection from a speeding bullet now? UV filter will not protect you from that either, yet it's not a reason not to use one....
I'd suggest - buy best filter you can afford. Some of them have glass as good as in your lens. I wish I had glass in my windows as good as they have in Heliopan filters (Magus) 😉

 

[richard_l]

Any high-quality lens can yield its best performance only if the outside glass surfaces are kept clean. And it is much better to keep them clean than to keep cleaning them. A colorless ultra-violet filter (LEITZ UVa) left permanently on the lens, will protect the surface against outside influences (e.g., fine sand at the seaside). The lenshood, too, guards the lens against accidental contact with your fingers, and against splashes in rainy weather.​

Ernst Leitz GMBH Wetzlar Germany - Leica M3 Instructions​

 

[Finder]

Heliopan maybe made of Schlott glass, but they have bad quality control. Their US distributor (HP Marketing) is awful if you need warranty work.

The "school of thought" that states a filter degrades the image is based on a rather fuzzy thought. An optical blank is not the most difficult thing to manufacture. Optically, it is insignificant. Which is the other problem with this school, it cannot actually show a filter impacts image quality.

 

[oscroft]

I've yet to see a photo that was affected by UV filter in a bad way

I've seen them - spoiled by ghost images caused by back-reflection from the flat surface of the filter (in fact, someone posted one here on RFF not so long ago)

 

[Spyderman]

I once dropped a lens while changing lenses on my camera, and I broke the glass of the filter. The filter absorbed most of the impact and the lens was fine. I'm glad I had the filter there...

Also filters are easily repalced if you scratch them, make cleaning marks in the coatings, bend the thread... Not so easy with the front lens element or the front thread on the lens... I simply use filters. The cheapest available 🙄

 

[Palaeoboy]

Sticking a window pane in front of a lovingly designed, brilliantly performing optic is a bit unusual
Hehe, we said pretty much the same thing at the same time - only you said it better

And I have never seen a window pane thats been machined with perfectly parallel surfaces and fully multicoated either. More being ridiculous I think than well said. But then some seem know exactly the conditions we all shoot to call it irrational fear.

 

[back alley]

long winters, lots of snow and wind - i use filters

short summers, on the prairies, windy at times and lots of grit in the air - i use filters

perfect weather, priceless...😉

 

[Silva Lining]

Assaf - I get my Heliopan filters from http://www.retrophotographic.com.

As I said you have seen here there are two passionate and neither wholly rational schools of thought on this subject.

Make your choice and then go and shoot some photographs and let everyone else debate and argue. 😉

 

[richard_l]

Under ideal circumstances, a good filter will not noticeably degrade the image. It will, however, increase the likelihood of flare, so it also increases the desirability of a lens hood.

Richard

 

[Ororaro]

I've seen them - spoiled by ghost images caused by back-reflection from the flat surface of the filter (in fact, someone posted one here on RFF not so long ago)

This happens on digital sensors, not on film.

I am a fierce filter believer.

 

[Simon Larbalestier]

Where i live and tend to shoot a lot of dust and moisture gets on/in my equipment. I like to to use yellow or green filters most of the time when shooting outdoors so it makes sense to me to use good UV filters as protection when i'm not using the colored ones. I'm much happier cleaning the debris off these than the front element! I favor the B+W, Heliopan or Leica filters and will remove a filter if i'm indoors or shooting a tricky back-lit situation to minimize ghosting or flare.

 

[peterm1]

While there are those who feel that the extra bit of glass will degrade the highly priced (and prized) image I dread the thought of accidentally dropping or bumping a very exensive and beautifully made lens without a filter to protect the front element. (BTW although not designed for this, a lens hood helps in this regard too.) Probably worse and more insidious is the risk of getting dust on the front element with the damage that over enthusiastic cleaning causes. I am happy to use the filter and take a small risk of flare. If I am shooting in a contre joure situation and think of it , its a simple matter to take the filter off for the shot then to put it back in place after.

 

[oscroft]

And I have never seen a window pane thats been machined with perfectly parallel surfaces and fully multicoated either. More being ridiculous I think than well said. But then some seem know exactly the conditions we all shoot to call it irrational fear.

Hey, lighten up - this is a friendly discussion, you know 😀

 

[oscroft]

This happens on digital sensors, not on film.

Why should the kind of sensor make any difference? A projected image is a projected image, whatever it is projected on. I've certainly seen ghost images from long before digital cameras were invented, and I even remember owning a Pentax ghostless filter (made from curved glass) back in the seventies.

 

[oscroft]

While there are those who feel that the extra bit of glass will degrade the highly priced (and prized) image I dread the thought of accidentally dropping or bumping a very exensive and beautifully made lens without a filter to protect the front element.

That sounds to me like a very good reason for using filters, and I think it reflects the main difference in opinions - personal attitudes to risk (similar to investment - some people are happy with high risk stocks, while others prefer the safety of bank savings accounts, etc).