I'm in the all natural camp. No filters unless the conditions call for it (or if I need to use a CPL or ND/GD). Hoods locked and loaded every single time, filter or no.
I just posted this in another thread, but thought it could do some good here.
Do filters degrade quality? Yes. How much? Depending on quality, if you use a nice filter, you may, well, will probably see some very minor effect in the image at 100%.
Now, a few weeks ago I was out shooting for LMU at night, getting the water fountain at the front gate. At the time, I was using a rental 16-35 which did not come with a filter. So, there I sit, happily framing the fountain when all the sudden I'm getting sprayed with water from every different angle! I grabbed my tripod and camera and ran for it. Turns out the grass sprinkler system went off at just the right time.
Now, had this been my lens, I would have been mortified to see all that water sitting on the front lens element with no filter (to complete the water resistance you must ad a filter). So to me, a pixel peeping difference in quality is no where near as important as dust, water and ding protection of a thousand dollar lens. My filters stay on all the time no matter what, because you don't plan accidents.
Edit: And, I cary full insurance with $100 deductible.
Take a look here. There's a sample pic showing what a 20$ filter could do to an image. In that case, it doesn't degrade but actually improves. Now it would go from "20$ filters suck and reduce quality!" to "wow 20$ filter really looks amazing!"
And again, maybe when taking off the lens cap, it'll slip from your grasp and scratch the front of your lens. Then its again, woa! lucky I had a filter on!! Else my 1500$ lens would have been damaged!!!
If you setup the worst possible condition to show the weakness of filters, don't be surprised to see differences, but what really matters is, can you tell the difference IN A REAL F****** PICTURE? Does this look like a regular picture to you? How about this picture? Does it look like a fine photograph to anyone? and it was taken WITHOUT a filter! Look at the amazing quality of a photograph taken without a filter! Impressive!! *rolleyes*
Go out, take some real pictures and that cheap filter becomes invisible. If filters really reduces quality so much, lets see some real photographs which shows the difference between no filter, cheap filter and expensive filter. I'm sure that in 95% of your shots the cheap filter will be indistinguishable from no filter/expensive filter... And in the other 5%, it might even be better than the no filter due to the positive effect of the filter.
And again lets not forget the #1 reason people use filters, its for protection. The difference here might be throwing away a 20$ filter vs sending your 1500$ lens to Canon by mail and having to wait a couple of weeks/months without your lens and receiving a 150$ repair bill.
I never noticed a difference until I bought the 5D. My taste for the 16-35L has gone from hatred to enjoyment. It makes a huge difference by not using a filter. I was using a Hoya S-HMC UV. Now I'll only use it if weather grants it.
And again, maybe when taking off the lens cap, it'll slip from your grasp and scratch the front of your lens. Then its again, woa! lucky I had a filter on!! Else my 1500$ lens would have been damaged!!!
Actually, the lens coating is harder than lens cap plastic.
And again lets not forget the #1 reason people use filters, its for protection.
Snapshooters, perhaps. You won't find that as anything near a "#1 reason" among professions and knowledgeable enthusiasts (except those who spend a lot of time shooting in high-debris environments).
The difference here might be throwing away a 20$ filter vs sending your 1500$ lens to Canon by mail and having to wait a couple of weeks/months without your lens and receiving a 150$ repair bill.
I'm sure out there somewhere is a professional who has had a lens damaged in a way that would have been prevented by a filter, but in 35 years I've never heard one mention it.
Now, had this been my lens, I would have been mortified to see all that water sitting on the front lens element with no filter (to complete the water resistance you must ad a filter). So to me, a pixel peeping difference in quality is no where near as important as dust, water and ding protection of a thousand dollar lens. My filters stay on all the time no matter what, because you don't plan accidents..
Guess what: Water sprayed on the front of the lens would not have hurt it. True. Even if the lens isn't "weatherproofed," water splashed on the front element isn't a problem. Nor is dust just lying on the surface, unless one does something dumb when one tries to clean it off.
A filter provides ZERO ding protection. None, nada, zilch, nary a smidgen.
People, these things are tools. They are designed as tools. I hear of amateurs treating L lenses with kid gloves because they're L lenses...Good night, L lenses need less kid-glove treatment than the consumer lenses. These things are designed to be used by combat photographers, for crying out loud.
I remember when the late legendary camera repairman Marty Forscher used to hammer nails into a board with a Nikon F and then take pictures with it.
RDKirk wrote:
...
A filter provides ZERO ding protection. None, nada, zilch, nary a smidgen.
...
Hmm, that's just not true. I have one personal experience where I think the filter saved my front element from being scratched. I had my camera hanging from the shoulder with a 70-200/2.8 mounted and stumbled when going up a steep trail. I fell and bumped sideways into a rock which made the lens hood break off, the camera fell to the ground with me, lens first into another rock, scratching the UV filter. Stupid of me of course, I should have carried the camera another way, but that's what I did that time.
Other than that extreme case I often photograph in very dusty environments (motocross etc) and I much prefer viping the grit off the filter rather than having to clean the front element.
It doesn't really matter though, you can always come up with scenarios to support either stand. This whole UV/no UV discussion borders on religious fanaticism, just do what feels right to yourself and don't worry about what others do or think about it.
Edited by FretNoMore on May 21, 2006 at 04:36 PM GMT
"Actually, the lens coating is harder than lens cap plastic."
Hmm... so you wouldn't hesitate to rub your 70-200 IS front lens element with your lens cap?
" Nor is dust just lying on the surface, unless one does something dumb when one tries to clean it off."
So dust could damage a lens, but a lens cap couldn't?
"Nor is dust just lying on the surface, unless one does something dumb when one tries to clean it off."
Already thats one reason it offers protection, you don't have to do anything to your lens, you clean the filter. Besides, greasy fingers, zippers, buttons, branches, rocks, sand, salt (water..), dings, etc I find it very doubtful that filters offer no protection to your front lens element...
Dust, small pieces of lint or skin flakes, should not harm the coating, on the lens itself or on the filter. Dust, tiny particulate matters from dry soil or decomposed rocks, can scour the coating and are harmful. I use a rocket blower seriously to remove dust as much as I can before actually wiping the lens with a lens cloth and very gently at that. I am not sure about the hardness of the plastic lens cap but I would not deliberately rub a cap on any lens .
inMtl wrote:
can you tell the difference IN A REAL F****** PICTURE?
^ haha, true though
This topic is being handled like a bull in a china shop! jeez just use a MCR one or dont.. if you care that your final output is .5% less contrasty they you are probably not taking any pic's that could ever make a difference.. the best pics i have ever seen where ones that didnt display outstanding sharpness but the content was so interesting that you could really care less about it.. and in fact the *relativly poor quality of the photo enhanced the overall emotion (Larry Burrows war time photography)
I use'em, Heliopan MRC ones and the pics look good to me! Also my concern while shooting/storing the lens on travel is off my lens alot more then if the lens was naked
ah nevermind..
Im in the filters camp! Post one for Heliopan, Whoooooo! Let those fools damage thier lenses, that will showem..! HA
Shmackey wrote:
One thing to throw into the mix: if you're out in the field with minimal equipment, and your lens somehow gets dirty, you'll be very happy that you're using a UV filter if you need to use the "T-shirt technique."
I go back and forth on this all the time, so I don't have one solution to provide, but I'll say that I would be less likely to use UV filters if I worked in a studio instead of going hiking in the middle of nowhere.
why, what's the problem? i have cleaned my top of the line Pentax and Nikon lenses with my T-shirt when necessary. the disadvantge of a T-shirt is lint more than anything else. today's lens coatings are almost as hard as the glass underneath, which isn't especially soft either. my camera bags all have clean microfiber cloths inside them, but there are times when i don't have time to clean the front with anything else except my shirt.
more than 30 years of shooting SLRs and i've ever only damaged one filter, and that was when it was off the camera being cleaned for a barely noticeable smudge. Hoya SMC filters are very soft coatings and rubbing it with a lens cleaning tissue and cleaning fluid discolored the surface. no lenses have ever been damaged, and i have never used filters on them except when i wanted their effect.
cineski wrote:
Now, had this been my lens, I would have been mortified to see all that water sitting on the front lens element with no filter (to complete the water resistance you must ad a filter).
i can't believe that an ordinary filter does anything extra to resist water. if water is going to get in anywhere on the lens, it's going to be in the openings between the various elements of the barrel. the Nikkor weather sealed lenses don't require any kind of filter for water protection.
FretNoMore wrote:
Hmm, that's just not true. I have one personal experience where I think the filter saved my front element from being scratched. I had my camera hanging from the shoulder with a 70-200/2.8 mounted and stumbled when going up a steep trail. I fell and bumped sideways into a rock which made the lens hood break off, the camera fell to the ground with me, lens first into another rock, scratching the UV filter.
You understand there is a difference between a scratch and a ding, right? I said "ding," you're talking about scratches. Can a rock--a chuck of silicon--scratch a lens? Yes.
inMtl wrote:
"Actually, the lens coating is harder than lens cap plastic."
Hmm... so you wouldn't hesitate to rub your 70-200 IS front lens element with your lens cap?
That's called the "retreat to absurdity" fallacy. The coating is harder than plastic. An casual scrape of the lenscap against the lens is not going to damage it. If I worked hard enough, I might be able to wear through the coating, but I would have worn off more of the plastic.
" Nor is dust just lying on the surface, unless one does something dumb when one tries to clean it off."
So dust could damage a lens, but a lens cap couldn't?
Yes. Do you know what sandpaper is? It's basically "dust"--ground silicon. Silicon is harder than the lens coating. Yes, you can sand off the lens coating, and in fact, the most lens coating damage you can ever see is from people cleaning their lenses.
Already thats one reason it offers protection, you don't have to do anything to your lens, you clean the filter.
If a person doesn't know how to clean the lens, doesn't know how to clean the filter.
RDKirk wrote:
You understand there is a difference between a scratch and a ding, right? I said "ding," you're talking about scratches. Can a rock--a chuck of silicon--scratch a lens? Yes.
So, what's your point? A filter offers no protection against things so minor that they can't hurt the lens in the first place? Duh...
. 