What's this protective filter you talk about? Lenses come with lens caps for both ends don't they?

whtrbt7 wrote:
What's this protective filter you talk about? Lenses come with lens caps for both ends don't they?

Most photographers use a Uv filter on the front of their lenses to protect the front element. It doesn't impact on the image quality (some dispute this) if you turn around and bash the front of the lens into something hard you bust a $30 filter, instead of a $xxxx lens! You can also clean them with your shirt when out shooting!

On the main thread topic...IMO this is one of those questions that has no 'right answer' to fit every photographer or every situation. You just have to shoot and figure out what the best fit is for you. I use both (I'm guessing most photographers do)...whatever works best for the task at hand.

As for filters...unless there is some specific reason to use a filter...I don't use them. I'm reasonably cautious with my gear and use lens caps and hoods. I have never scratched a front element or filter in over 20 years of photography.

YMMV

marko1953 wrote:
whtrbt7 wrote:
What's this protective filter you talk about? Lenses come with lens caps for both ends don't they?

Most photographers use a Uv filter on the front of their lenses to protect the front element....

Really? Based on many threads and some polls I've read here, I figure it's about 50%.

=============

Edited to include my comments below on the following remarks by marko, which were made after posting these comments. I don't want to further derail the thread, which is now on page 5 and back on track...

marko1953 wrote:
Thank you so much for picking me up on that minor point! I should have said "SOME" photographers, please excuse my ignorance and thank you for being so quick to pick me up on that point which is so important to the point of the thread!


You made an apparent "statement of fact" that has no evidence to support it. I'm surprised that you get this torqued about somebody calling you out on such a minor issue. Maybe you should get your blood pressure checked.

About UV filters for front lens protection, wouldn't they be mandatory in such hostile environments as deserts (thinking of Namibia) or sandy beaches ?

ggreene wrote:
While we are talking about primes vs. zooms can we also discuss whether to put a protective filter on them?

Did you really have to bring it up? Damn!

Ulan wrote:
About UV filters for front lens protection, wouldn't they be mandatory in such hostile environments as deserts (thinking of Namibia) or sandy beaches ?

Not mandatory, but expect some think it's best.

Me, I can't see the point of buying hugely expensive lenses, MA'ing them, testing them and then sticking a piece of glass with two extra surfaces on the front - except in particularly hazardous conditions where the front element might actually get damaged or the filter is acting as part of the weathersealing. A good lenshood is much more useful for me and protects the lens rather better in my opinion. as well as helping IQ

To say a filter has 'no effect' on image quality is also wrong. There may be occasions where a significant difference doesn't show up but the fact the extra layer of glass is there *will* make some difference however small, especially in contre-jour situations.

Opinions vary on filters!

I use filters when:

1) abrasive compounds abound
2) corrosive compounds abound (including salt spray and smoke)
3) heavy moisture (to complete the "L" seal)
4) rough and tumble human contact (finger smidging or drinks that can contain 1 & 2 above)

When things are calm, clean, and under my control, I don't use filters.

I like primes and zooms. I use both, as needed. It is difficult to go wide on crop bodies without zooms, so they excel for travel and events. You can't always step back far enough, like in the Coliseum in Rome.
For low light, I like fast primes, like the Canon 35F2 and 50F1.4. I use the 35F2 much more often than any of my other lenses.
If you are going to use bounce flash indoors, just stay with the 18-55 IS. It will do fine at F7.1 or F8. I have more expensive zoom lenses, but the kit lens is really pretty good, once you can stop down enough. It isn't as sharp as the 24-105L or other L zooms, but it also costs much less. If money is an issue, get a good inexpensive prime, like the Canon 35F2. If you want to spend more, go right ahead. However, you can get great images on a crop with this lens. If you get one that isn't sharp, send it back for a replacement. Mine has been great on 3 different crop bodies.

artyH wrote:
I like primes and zooms. I use both, as needed. It is difficult to go wide on crop bodies without zooms, so they excel for travel and events. You can't always step back far enough, like in the Coliseum in Rome.
For low light, I like fast primes, like the Canon 35F2 and 50F1.4. I use the 35F2 much more often than any of my other lenses.
If you are going to use bounce flash indoors, just stay with the 18-55 IS. It will do fine at F7.1 or F8. I have more expensive zoom lenses, but the kit lens is really pretty good, once you can stop down enough. It isn't as sharp as the 24-105L or other L zooms, but it also costs much less. If money is an issue, get a good inexpensive prime, like the Canon 35F2. If you want to spend more, go right ahead. However, you can get great images on a crop with this lens. If you get one that isn't sharp, send it back for a replacement. Mine has been great on 3 different crop bodies.

Great advice. I've pretty much decided to buy a flash as it will improve my indoor pictures no matter what lens I use. I still just can't decide if I want to go with a fast prime for indoors and a longer zoom for outside, or a Tamron 17-50 or Canon 15-85 for everything. I hate making decisions on lenses My budget is around $620 right now and possibly more if I sell the 18-55 and 50 1.8.

marko1953 wrote:
whtrbt7 wrote:
What's this protective filter you talk about? Lenses come with lens caps for both ends don't they?

Most photographers use a Uv filter on the front of their lenses to protect the front element. It doesn't impact on the image quality (some dispute this) if you turn around and bash the front of the lens into something hard you bust a $30 filter, instead of a $xxxx lens! You can also clean them with your shirt when out shooting!


UV filters affect IQ, how much and how much you care to witness can vary though. I could see a distinct difference when comparing cheap filters to say the B+W MRCs and/or no filter at all. But then of course B+W is rarely ever $30 unless its small filter to begin with.

taylorman22 wrote:
artyH wrote:
I like primes and zooms. I use both, as needed. It is difficult to go wide on crop bodies without zooms, so they excel for travel and events. You can't always step back far enough, like in the Coliseum in Rome.
For low light, I like fast primes, like the Canon 35F2 and 50F1.4. I use the 35F2 much more often than any of my other lenses.
If you are going to use bounce flash indoors, just stay with the 18-55 IS. It will do fine at F7.1 or F8. I have more expensive zoom lenses, but the kit lens is really pretty good, once you can stop down enough. It isn't as sharp as the 24-105L or other L zooms, but it also costs much less. If money is an issue, get a good inexpensive prime, like the Canon 35F2. If you want to spend more, go right ahead. However, you can get great images on a crop with this lens. If you get one that isn't sharp, send it back for a replacement. Mine has been great on 3 different crop bodies.

Great advice. I've pretty much decided to buy a flash as it will improve my indoor pictures no matter what lens I use. I still just can't decide if I want to go with a fast prime for indoors and a longer zoom for outside, or a Tamron 17-50 or Canon 15-85 for everything. I hate making decisions on lenses My budget is around $620 right now and possibly more if I sell the 18-55 and 50 1.8.

Sell them both, then you can afford the 15-85 and the Sigma 30

jcolwell wrote:
marko1953 wrote:
whtrbt7 wrote:
What's this protective filter you talk about? Lenses come with lens caps for both ends don't they?

Most photographers use a Uv filter on the front of their lenses to protect the front element....

Really? Based on many threads and some polls I've read here, I figure it's about 50%.

Thank you so much for picking me up on that minor point! I should have said "SOME" photographers, please excuse my ignorance and thank you for being so quick to pick me up on that point which is so important to the point of the thread!

Gunzorro wrote:
Opinions vary on filters!

I use filters when:

1) abrasive compounds abound
2) corrosive compounds abound (including salt spray and smoke)
3) heavy moisture (to complete the "L" seal)
4) rough and tumble human contact (finger smidging or drinks that can contain 1 & 2 above)

When things are calm, clean, and under my control, I don't use filters.

+1, there are too many filters in front of imaging sensor already. Filters cutting down your light one way or another...AA filters, dirtaway filters, lens filters...too many filters

As you can see there is as much consensus on using protective filters as there is on primes vs. zooms.

ggreene wrote:
As you can see there is as much consensus on using protective filters as there is on primes vs. zooms.

...yep. I think I've finally decided what I'm gonna do. I'm pretty sure it's the Tamron 17-50 2.8, Tamron 70-300, and a 430ex II flash. It's either that or a Canon f/4L (no IS) and a 430ex II flash....keeping my kit 15-55.

marko1953 wrote:
whtrbt7 wrote:
What's this protective filter you talk about? Lenses come with lens caps for both ends don't they?

Most photographers use a Uv filter on the front of their lenses to protect the front element. It doesn't impact on the image quality (some dispute this) if you turn around and bash the front of the lens into something hard you bust a $30 filter, instead of a $xxxx lens! You can also clean them with your shirt when out shooting!


Most serious photographers do not use a "protective" filter on the front element. Lots of new camera buyers are convinced that they need such filters by the sales people, or by other recently new photographers who bought such filters and now think others should, too.

The protective filters have no beneficial qualities at all in terms of image quality. In many cases they may not produce a negative effect either, but in other cases they can. Most commonly they can generate reflections between the rear of the filter and the front elements of the lens, and this is not uncommon in night photography when bright light sources appear in the frame. Less-expensive and lesser-quality UV filters can create other sorts of image quality problems including flare, loss in contrast, or even outright optical distortions.

The "insurance" value of UV filters is also rather dubious. It is undoubtedly true that there are a few unusual cases in which a frontal impact to the filter that might have caused damage to the lens is prevented or lessened by the filter. There are also reports of cases in which shards from broken filters, sometimes from side impacts that would not have struck the front element, scratch the front element. The cost/ benefit story for high quality filters also doesn't quite make monetary sense. While a filter certainly costs less than an expensive lens, a) it only protects from a small subset of possible modes of lens damage, b) the cost of replacing a front element is often little more than the cost of an excellent "protective" filter, c) the cost of adding expensive, high quality filters to each of your lenses often approaches the value of a lens, and d) very few photographers have a lens front element damaged in a way that the filter would have prevented it.

In a few rare cases when one is shooting with a sealed body (such as a 1-series Canon body) and working in a very hostile environment, the addition of such a filter might have some value. Thinking that you are protected by putting a filter on your lens while shooting with an unsealed camera body seems a bit strange...

Dan

I carry some neutral density filters and a polarizer with me in case they're needed.

I had bought a UV filter "for protection!" a few years back, and was always fighting with it. And a couple of my zooms IQ seem affected by the use of filters. I wasn't buying junk, but maybe one brand works better than another.

After all these years though, I've never had a situation where a filter would have saved me money because of an accident.

I can't believe some people! On their need to point out their supposed "Superior" knowledge. Here is what happened in this thread: The OP didn't know about protective filters so I told him what "some" (sorry for saying "most") photographers use. I don't mind people disagreeing with me but it was only a passing comment about photographers using protective filters. I did note that some believe it affects image quality.

Apologies and thank you to all who posted their own experience and didn't try to lecture us on their opinion.

Ok, here is my updated rating based on your need to point out my error about photographers using filters:
Type 1: Novice. Doesn't even know about "protective" filters

Type 2: Mainstream amateur photographer. Uses protective filter for perceived benefits

Type 3: Advanced/experienced photographer: Doesn't believe in using protective filter because he thinks it will harm his image quality and may actually damage his front element in the event of a smash.

Type 4: Older, wise, very mature photographer with 6303 posts on FM forums (some containing links to their own website so we can all benefit) who likes to show off their superior knowledge by giving advice and picking everyone up on things he disagrees with on his perception of reality. Will often post photos of themselves on their own websites along with long pretentious lists of their gear (past and present) "who remembers the Apple Quicktake?" Also makes inane statements on their website like " I carry a selection of high quality lenses, tripod, filters, and there other usual stuff". I am imagining all the people who actually benefited from reading that statement! Also tries to look trendy by carrying links to all of these ..Google Plus, Flickr,Twitter, Facebook, Pinterest and Linkedin.

Ok, now I am waiting for the next lecture......

Most serious photographers do not use a "protective" filter on the front element.

Dan

You know that may be true for a number of reasons, which may or may not apply to 'amateurs' or other pros.

I've worked with newspaper and sports photogs with scratched front elements. You know where their gear came from? The huge gear closets back at the newspaper.

Take a look at my flickr Harvest images shot at sea on commercial fishing vessels. Did I have filters on? You bet.

Meticulous landscape, fashion and studio photogs have almost zero need for a protector filter.

Me, in a hurry with multiple bodies and lens changes? Again, you bet.

I cannot afford to replace a lens due to a dinged front element. I have no insurance, no company to back me up, nothing but a $50 filter.