I shoot most of my glass without a UV filter ... okay, virtually everything ... EXCEPT for my 24L TS-E II ... WAY TOO COSTLY (for my taste) to deal with a front element scrape. I prefer to protect most of my other glass with hoods vs. filters, but I know I am always at a bit more risk without one. So far, so good.
Shooting film, I used to use UV filters a lot more ... not so much with digital.
Besides, a guy could go broke buying high quality UV filters for all his alts.
i've never even scratched any of my filters. smeared stuff on the coatings that made them unusable, yes, but scratch, never. older Hoyas and some lens cleaning solutions did not get along in the slightest. lost some filters off the camera as i was shooting too, but that is another story.
Herb...
Gunzorro wrote:
As I say, I've scratched several filters, and if they hadn't been in place, it would have been the lens instead.
i clean my lenses only once a year on average too and with no filters. they don't need any more because they don't get dirty in the first place. i don't shoot in conditions where i need to protect them from anything - sand, sticky fingers, wet dog noses, etc. Leicas go for a lot more than $2K each too.
Herb...
RickPerry wrote:
I enjoy cleaning my filters - but I only clean my lenses about once a year - if that! I use B&W filters exclusively - $50-100 each on lenses that go $600-$2000 each - why not!
waterfall spray is just water. i have a filter on because when i am shooting waterfalls, a thick ND filter.
Herb...
Two23 wrote:
I honestly think filters can do more damage to a lens than they prevent, although I will use one on rare occasions, such as shooting in waterfall spray.
telyt wrote:
Fear is a far more powerful motivator than reason, every successful politician knows this.
Some of us fear a loss of image quality.
Some of us fear damage to the front element.
Do whatever it takes to keep you using your camera & making pictures.
Don't worry about what the other guy does.
True, but let me add a bit of fear to the pro-filter crowd
Before I got into photography I had a Canon 350D with a Sigma 18-200 super zoom. Horrific lens. Anyway, I of course had a filter to protect the front element. At one point I dropped the camera - it wasn't a serious drop - from a coffee table onto a hardwood floor. The filter shattered and two things happened:
1) The glass shards from the filter badly scratched the front element
2) The filter ring got deformed so I could not remove it from the lens. I had to cut it loose and damaged the threads on the lens.
So a filter not only doesn't give you any protection against drops, it can actually damage the lens. As a contrast to this, I dropped my M9 + 28 Cron onto a concrete pavement. It was a nasty drop, the camera hit the ground lens first and rolled a couple of times. Damage? A bent filter ring: http://peltarion.eu/img/comp/damage/cron28.jpg
It is insured but I have not bothered to send it in for repairs yet as it is in perfect working order - only the filter threads were bent.
using a filter on my 21 vs my 25 are why my 25 consistently outperforms my 21 in the kinds of shooting i do with either lens. remove the filters and the 21 is sharper across the field. put one on and it's the other way around. most of my shooting with either lens requires a filter.
Herb...
FlyPenFly wrote:
If I can find some time this weekend I'll do some tests for CA on my Zeiss lenses with and without clear/UV filters on tripod.
I'm a little surprised about the poll results... 31 people so far voted "always". I get the people who vote "sometimes", like in a sand storm or inside an erupting vulcano, but always? Seriously?
That is very interesting, Herb. The 21 seems to dislike filters, so does the 90 cron of Luka's. Some other lenses seem not to suffer much, hence the conflicting experiences.
So a filter not only doesn't give you any protection against drops, it can actually damage the lens. As a contrast to this, I dropped my M9 + 28 Cron onto a concrete pavement. It was a nasty drop, the camera hit the ground lens first and rolled a couple of times. Damage? A bent filter ring.
Luka, you didn't have the hood on the 28 Cron? In some respects, I wouldn't blame you because it causes so much viewfinder blockage...
douglasf13 wrote:
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.
I agree that the chrome rings are silly. I'm not sure I've had flare because of them, but enough times they've reflected in glass I was shooting through, such as train and airplane windows. I ended up buying step up rings as well just for this purpose.
As for UV filters... I have them on most of my Canon glass, partly out of habit because that gear is often used in a somewhat abusive manner and I might stuff lenses in pouches while shooting without lens caps on, etc... With rangefinder lenses I decided not to bother with filters, in part to maximize image quality. I have nicked some front elements though, like when accidentally putting two lenses in the same divider of the bag because I wasn't paying attention, them rubbing together for some time... I did the same to a Canon 15mm fisheye. The lens was usable despite the scuff in the coating unless the sun was in that part of the frame...
For me it's a bit like taking possession of a new car. The first while I'll park it way out on the edges of parking lots to avoid dings and scuffs, but then inevitably it happens anyway. With that out of the way, I just use it and let it collect some character It's more work and stress to try to maintain a high state of perfection...
rscheffler wrote:
Luka, you didn't have the hood on the 28 Cron? In some respects, I wouldn't blame you because it causes so much viewfinder blockage...
I didn't. The only lens hoods I use on M glass are on the lenses that have built-in ones. The others are just inconvenient due to the size they add and of course because of the viewfinder blockage.
Better images with the filters on. The naked lens images get close though, lol. From screen jpgs anyway...how do you see the difference in the raws? What is that crap, a field of some type of grain? I'd hate to have to walk though it.
I find that lens caps sometimes come off in my camera bag, therefore I use a filter plus lens cap when carrying my gear around. When I take the lens out to put it on my camera, I unscrew the filter unless there is sand or spray.
At home most of the lenses sit there with a filter instead of a lenscap. This prevents unnecessary dust on the front element but lets light in which allegedly helps with preventing fungal growth.
@philip: Looks like common reed to me? Not very pleasant to walk through, in the first place because it grows in wet/swampy soil.
I wonder if smridevan's samples with filter turned out slightly sharper because he focused while the filter was on (removing the filter changing the focus ever so slightly).
I'd also expect least degradation from a filter in the image center and most of it in the (full frame) corners of wider lenses.
It's more work and stress to try to maintain a high state of perfection...