Herb, the reason I use filters is because I don't see the artifacts in my shots. If I ever had any shots like the ones Obik is showing, I would immediately throw away the filters.
HerbChong wrote:
my feelings exactly. there is no such thing as a minor effect of the filter. either it's invisible or it's not. for someone who shoots as much Zeiss glass as he does, i am surprised. why get the Zeiss glass in the first place?
I was very dismayed to find a tiny scuff in the lens coating and an even smaller scratch in the glass of the front element of my Zeiss ZE 21/2.8 -- probably caused by the stupid metal lens hood slipping when being installed or removed.
Even though it is on the side and doesn't affect images, it does affect my trying to sell the lens at a decent price.
If you value your lenses and want to keep them in pristine condition for use or resale, you need to consider the value of a quality front filter. I've never had a front element damaged on a lens I used a filter on, but I have had front filters spotted, scuffed, and scratched! I use filters about 1/2 the time on my expensive lenses (but seldom on my cheaper lenses). A lens hood is great too, but as I point out, can introduce its own costly problems -- and a hood is no good when adjusting a CPL.
The front filter also completes the weather sealing of many Canon "L" lenses -- I always use a filter in inclement or threatening weather.
millsart wrote:
However, I just never really get the "protection" thing. If anyone is so worried about protecting their gear, and the stated cause of damage always seems to be drops, then why aren't they also covering their camera in bubble wrap or something ?
Personally, I'm not worried about drops at all. I'm worried about scratches, scuffs, and liquids. Even with its ridiculously long hood, still get brush and branches brushing against the filter on my 100L. I also feel far more comfortable wiping rain, frog slime, and beer off a filter (with a t-shirt, since I'm in the field) than I do wiping it off my front element. I leave the filters at home as often as I can, but there are plenty of situations where I feel it's better to play it safe.
edwardkaraa wrote:
Herb, the reason I use filters is because I don't see the artifacts in my shots. If I ever had any shots like the ones Obik is showing, I would immediately throw away the filters.
Yeah, in all fairness that's a cheap-ass $2 filter from 1950. Or certainly looks like it. Newer ones costing over $25 don't usually do that much damage!
I too had a similar incident as Gunzorro when the front cap got loose in the bag and kept on rubbing against the lens front element for quite a while, resulting in many scratches to the coatings. Another incident was when I was putting the lens cap back and it slipped from my hand and its edge bumped against the front element, this time causing a small but deeper nick in the coating. Maybe I'm clumsier than average but I prefer to scratch the filter than the lens itself.
Lenshood is better protection against falls and whatnot anyway. Although filters may be better for splash protection. Always used to shoot with good quality filters (Hoya, Tiffen, B+W), now I typically only use one if I want something the filter provides rather than as a matter of course. Have I been saved by a filter? Yes, once had a tripod fall over just right shattering a UV filter, lens was fine. Uncertain whether the lens would have been damaged w/o the filter, but it is likely. Now I always shoot with a lenshood, and am very careful with my glass. A good hood works magic anyway, especially on tele glass where the hood can be substantial. In 3 years the only time I cleaned the front element of my 500 f/4 was a month ago before I sold it. And it was nearly spotless anyway.
Bifurcator wrote:
Yeah, in all fairness that's a cheap-ass $2 filter from 1950. Or certainly looks like it. Newer ones costing over $25 don't usually do that much damage!
B+W MRC filter purchased in September of 2008 from B&H. Don't have the purchase price on hand. Performance is on par with every other multicoated UV filter I've used from B+W, Tiffen, or Hoya.
Gunzorro wrote:
If you value your lenses and want to keep them in pristine condition for use or resale, you need to consider the value of a quality front filter....
I think this is a major point. Many use lenses as simply tools, and others consider them assets...but I think most of us are somewhere in between.
With ZM lenses, I use step up rings to 49mm as "mini" hoods on all of my lenses. This allows me to use easy on/off 51mm push on caps for all of my lenses, adds a little extra protection and flare resistance, and allows me to use a single filter size, when I need it. It also blocks the silly chrome filter threads of ZM lenses, which could potentially cause flare issues.
p.s. since I am able to use push on caps, the step up rings with the cap on are no longer than the regular ZM caps.
Edward -- I know! Isn't it a heartbreaker to have a pristine piece of quality glass, and then find it damaged in any way? Likely, I did the same thing as you -- the Zeiss cap is very fussy to attach or remove with the hood on, and may have bungled that -- I don't recall every losing control of the hood.
Douglas -- Yes, you've got it. I'm in the middle. I use the lens as a tool, but not to pound nails. It is an asset for later gear purchases or trade. So, while in my possesion I treat it with the utmost care and consideration that my process allows.
Like obik, I've never seen any excessive faults from using filters in the most demanding lighting -- with light sources present in the photos. I do remove the filter when shooting in controlled situations with the camera tripod mounted for time exposures in good weather conditions.
in the 35 years i have been shooting with SLRs, i have yet to have a single lens scratched or otherwise marked that couldn't be removed with a Lenspen or lens tissue and a good lens cleaning fluid. in the beginning, i used to have a filter on my lenses all the time. when i finally got good equipment, i stopped because they made the filter more obvious. i have a filter on my camera only when i need its effect. on the Zeiss, 21, any filter of any type i have tried has shown optical degradation enough to notice. nonetheless, i have a set of filters specifically for it because ND and CPL filters can't be done in post processing.
Herb...
Gunzorro wrote:
I was very dismayed to find a tiny scuff in the lens coating and an even smaller scratch in the glass of the front element of my Zeiss ZE 21/2.8 -- probably caused by the stupid metal lens hood slipping when being installed or removed.
Gunzorro wrote:
Edward -- I know! Isn't it a heartbreaker to have a pristine piece of quality glass, and then find it damaged in any way? Likely, I did the same thing as you -- the Zeiss cap is very fussy to attach or remove with the hood on, and may have bungled that -- I don't recall every losing control of the hood.
Yes Sir! Almost every time I put the damn lens cap back, especially with the hood on, it slips. The ZS were not better. Luckily the caps are made of softer material than other brands. But it is a design fault nevertheless.
edwardkaraa wrote:
Yes Sir! Almost every time I put the damn lens cap back, especially with the hood on, it slips. The ZS were not better. Luckily the caps are made of softer material than other brands. But it is a design fault nevertheless.
Yeah, I just keep the Zeiss lens caps in the box and use various other options. If not using my step-up ring thingie, I prefer screw in metal caps.
Never! Or rather, very seldom, and I've regretted it those times. Last time was last summer in Antelope Canyon - a famous camera killer with its fine dust that gets into everything. I had two cameras and two lenses, the 5DII + 21 Distagon and the M9 + 35 Lux ASPH. I had a BW filter on the Zeiss and a Leica filter on the Leica. The latter was OK, I did not notice any dramatic drop in quality. The 21 Distagon was such a disaster that I removed the filter mid shoot - after I got crap like this:
Look at it this way: A lens is a delicate optical instrument. The lens elements are aligned with sub millimeter precision. They contain exotic materials chosen for their precise refractive coefficients. The materials have been chosen by advanced computer simulation and they've been hand-mined by (probably) African child slave labor. Do you really think you can improve on the lens by adding a random glass element in front of it, placed at a random distance?
Gunzorro wrote:
Like obik, I've never seen any excessive faults from using filters in the most demanding lighting -- with light sources present in the photos. I do remove the filter when shooting in controlled situations with the camera tripod mounted for time exposures in good weather conditions.
I think you meant unlike me, since I posted several nasty examples of filter ghosting.
Luka, the Distagon is known for being very sensitive to flare, even without the filter. The older Contax seems to have been even worse in that regard. As you say, you didn't have a problem with the Leica lens under the same conditions. That is why IMHO it is better to trust our own experience rather than anecdotal reports. You had a problem with the filter so you removed it. That solved the problem. I don't have a problem with the filter, maybe because I don't shoot in such conditions, or maybe because I don't own a lens that is sensitive to flare. One thing for sure, it doesn't improve the IQ, but in most cases, it doesn't degrade it to a noticeable extent either, and it provides protection against scratches and nicks, cleaning marks, and dust/rain, which coincidentally can lower the IQ, permanently. It does not protect against bumps, falls and shocks. So each can decide based on their priorities, me thinks.
Bifurcator wrote:
Yeah, in all fairness that's a cheap-ass $2 filter from 1950. Or certainly looks like it. Newer ones costing over $25 don't usually do that much damage!
obik wrote:
B+W MRC filter purchased in September of 2008 from B&H. Don't have the purchase price on hand. Performance is on par with every other multicoated UV filter I've used from B+W, Tiffen, or Hoya.
I can't believe it. You were totally ripped off! Or that's BW's lowest grade plus worst batch ever. Maybe it was a China knock-off. BTW, the one place sample variation is a HUGE reality is in the production and coating of filters! A few years back on a different forum there was an educated and experienced photographer who showed the difference in sample variation and between cheap and expensive (good, average, and poor) filters over many different conditions. He had a test like your window shot there. The worst of the worst was not as bad as your image.
ryanpfleger wrote:
Lenshood is better protection against falls and whatnot anyway.
Now hoods I dig! Hoods on everything! Rubber all around! Hoods! Hoods! Hoods! There should be a hood song!
millsart wrote:
Personally, I'm trying to buy any many UV filters as I can find ? Why ? Because I'm planning to place them around the perimeter of my car. Given the amazing ability of these little rings to stop damage from all the claims I read, I think they should be great in a traffic accident as well.
After getting into a head-on crash, I will be able to walk away unharmed, and while my filters will be destroyed, the car body behind them will be just fine!
Its far cheaper to replace a few filters than to pay for a whole new car right ?? ...Show more →
For the record, I never use UV filters, but I love when I buy a used lens with a high quality UV filter attached. That way, I can quickly recover some of the cost for the lens.
