I disagree with this too. The filter saved my 17-40L when I dropped it on the road. It broke the filter ring and smashed the glass but there was not even a scratch on the lens barrel, nor on the front element of the lens.
Do filters degrade quality? Of course they do ..... if you you use cheap-and-nasty filters. I use only the best filters (currently the Hoya SHMC Pro-One series) and they DON'T degrade the quality of my images. I have done some tests with and w/o the filter, and I see no difference. I have a Pro-1 UV filter on all my lenses, all of the time.
RDKirk wrote:
A filter provides ZERO ding protection. None, nada, zilch, nary a smidgen.
i use B+W MRC filters. i notice their effect immediately when there is flare inducing light. no amount of cleaning of lens or filter prevents it. most of my lenses stop flaring as soon as i remove the filter. as for protection, a drop enough to break the filter is a drop large enough to misalign the lens and require service. just because the lens looks OK doesn't mean it is OK.
Your comment about the alignment is a valid one ..... but my response to that is maybe, and maybe not. I did check my focus after that, and it focussed perfectly - so it didn't affect the alignment.
HerbChong wrote:
i use B+W MRC filters. i notice their effect immediately when there is flare inducing light. no amount of cleaning of lens or filter prevents it. most of my lenses stop flaring as soon as i remove the filter. as for protection, a drop enough to break the filter is a drop large enough to misalign the lens and require service. just because the lens looks OK doesn't mean it is OK.
focus isn't the only important aspect of alignment, and unless you tested by taking pictures and looking closely, you don't know if focus was affected or not.
Consider this...Hoya makes a number of lines of filters, that vary in price and number of coatings, etc. The improvement from one line to another is rated in TENTHS of a percent, with some having (I forget precisely, but you'll get the idea from these examples) 99.7%, 99.8%, and 99.9% light transmission. So even the VERY BEST will not pass 100% of the light thru. So any filter, even the best, is not the same as air, allowing 100% light transmission. So any filter 'degrades' (i.e., 'less than perfect')
Can you SEE a difference of 0.1%...that is the real question. I have seen poor filters that cause reflections of candle flames, so those certainly degrade the shot. Is 0.1% difference enough to cause you to take it off except when absolutely necessary? Is a protective UV filter, which you can clean with no worry of ever scratching the coatings of your lens and throw away when there is any visible sign of filter damage, worth it? Only you can decide for yourself. Just remember there is no 100% transmission filter!!!
i never see filters degrade by transmission problems. i see them degrade by flare all the time, even the super multicoated ones. a little bit of dirt and it's much worse.
Thanks for this thread. I debated buying a filter for my only good lens, and finally bought one.
The deciding factor wasn't all of your great arguments as much as a 2nd grader drawing on the front element of my "disposable" lens with not just a permanent marker, but a crayon as well. Never turn your back on a second grader...
I've found image degradation issues to be of relatively little concern, though I have certainly noticed an increased incidence of flare with some filters. While I can understand that, theoretically, putting another optical element in front of your lens is bound to affect quality, my own experience shows that a high quality filter exacts a modest, imperceptible penalty in IQ.
It is in my sense all about protection.
In 20 years of photography, I never damaged a lense or a filter, just like in 20 years of driving I never had a car crash. Doesn't mean I will never have one...
For this reason, having heavily invested in very expensive lenses, by default I will always use filters. High end lenses deserve high end filters of course and the effectiveness of coating has long been demonstrated.
Now protection comes with a price in a non perfect world, and the price to pay in my opinion is the time needed to remove the filter and fold it before shooting (in safe conditions), and to put it back afterwards...
cjjmst wrote:
It is in my sense all about protection.
In 20 years of photography, I never damaged a lense or a filter, just like in 20 years of driving I never had a car crash. Doesn't mean I will never have one...
True. But then again if you haven't damaged a lens or filter in 20 years what makes you think you will in the next 20?
In my opinion the chances of damaging the front element of a lens are quite remote
(hood use assumed) and this outweighs the (possible) loss of imagequality, cost and hassle when using filters on all lenses.
HenkvdT wrote:
True. But then again if you haven't damaged a lens or filter in 20 years what makes you think you will in the next 20?
In my opinion the chances of damaging the front element of a lens are quite remote (hood use assumed) and this outweighs the (possible) loss of imagequality, cost and hassle when using filters on all lenses.
The cost issue I accept but what hassle are you referring to? With some very few exceptions like shooting bright lights at night you just put the filter on the lens and forget about it, don't you?
HenkvdT wrote:
True. But then again if you haven't damaged a lens or filter in 20 years what makes you think you will in the next 20?
In my opinion the chances of damaging the front element of a lens are quite remote
(hood use assumed) and this outweighs the (possible) loss of imagequality, cost and hassle when using filters on all lenses.
It's a matter of risk management :
- First I take every action so that an unfortunate event doesn't happen (hurting my lenses),
- Second I take measures just in case it happens anyway (filter).
The level of risk you accept for your gear is a personnal issue. Pros are usually more likely to consider gear as expandable and put it at risk due to their specific constraints.
I'm a hobbyist, it took me years of savings to get what I have today, and just thinking of how I would feel like if I damaged one of my lenses is a strong motivation for me to use filters preventively and take the time to take them off evrytime I can.
Now I can fully understand that you prefer a "pro" approach.
i just damaged my first lens this weekend, after 30 years of shooting SLRs. it fell onto a flat rock from about 2 ft and landed sideways. not a scratch on the barrel, a minor scratch on the plastic hood, and nothing else visible. the lens is slightly out of alignment, enough for the lens to function, but also enough to notice it is slightly out. no filter would have been scratched or dented, let alone broken. it still needs to go in for repair. i wonder how many "saved" lenses actually are functioning factory perfect? i doubt many.
cjjmst wrote:
[It's a matter of risk management :
- First I take every action so that an unfortunate event doesn't happen (hurting my lenses),
- Second I take measures just in case it happens anyway (filter).
The level of risk you accept for your gear is a personnal issue. Pros are usually more likely to consider gear as expandable and put it at risk due to their specific constraints.
I'm a hobbyist, it took me years of savings to get what I have today, and just thinking of how I would feel like if I damaged one of my lenses is a strong motivation for me to use filters preventively and take the time to take them off evrytime I can.
Now I can fully understand that you prefer a "pro" approach....Show more →
I think your way of looking at it is very valid. Taking good care of your gear is something everyone who has a passion for photography understands and supports.
So don't get me wrong, I would also kick myself if I broke one of my lenses. It hasn't happened the last 15 years though, so that probably gives me some sense of reassurance.
Maybe the day that one of my lenses crashes into a stone wall I will reconsider ... and take that Risk management class again
... and take that Risk management class again 