pipspeak wrote:
Some people talk about how dust, dirt etc. on the front element will not affect IQ.... well in that case how is a piece of multi-coated glass that lets 99% of available light through gonna affect the quality either?! Repeated cleaning of the front element will, however, potentially impact the coating at some point, which will affect IQ. At least that's how I justify using a filter
I'm in the no filter unless I need it crowd. Also, keep in mind that dust specks on the lens aren't adding another piece of glass to the optical formula like a filter is - that's where the quality degradation can come in. Especially true if you consider flare resistance. I've never had a filter reduce flare, and in fact they seem to encourage it.
I've been using UV/Skylight protection filters for 29 years now. No problems with reflections etc at all, and shallow may it appear its nice to have front lens elements that always look factory fresh.
Hate scratched/dirty optics.
But as has been said if you do decide to use filters, buy the best you can afford. Thats key!
No matter how careful, I find my lens bumping something -- but so far not hard enough to break anything. Taking pictures along the sea coast will cause a deposit of fine residue to settle on the lens filter surface. I shudder what this residue may do over time to the exposed lens surface. The lens filter seems like insurance. I use one.
you would be wrong. the front coating on most lenses is much harder than many filter coatings, assuming that you spent enough for multicoated filters in the first place, until you pay a lot for a very good filter. such a filter could cost about half that of a replacement front element even on an expensive lens.
Herb...
pipspeak wrote:
I always slap a high-quality filter on the front, and you'd be amazed at the crud it gets coated in on a regular basis... crud I'd otherwise be cleaning off the more delicate coating of the front element.
In addition, I've read that the lens filter completes the weather-sealing on some better lenses.
Let's say, yes, the front lens element costs less than a lens filter to replace. This kind of response assumes if damage occurs, then it will limit itself to this lens part. The lens filter may prevent worse damage to the lens.
For my part, I view lenses as precious objects deserving of due care, while of course using them for their intended purpose.
I use filters most of the time, but a good chunk of my shooting is outdoors in fairly abusive conditions. Once I'm setup for a shot I'll take them off if they're not needed, but I enjoy the peace of mind of having one on otherwise. As a learning amateur the cost of good glass is hard to swallow, and I intend to protect the few good lens I have.
On most lenses, the outermost element (objective) is not particularly expensive to replace. Having high qualify filters on the lenses is more expensive by far.
"On most lenses, the outermost element (objective) is not particularly expensive to replace."
Well, personally I am not comfortable about replacing front elements as if they were filters. Back in the 1990s (when I was with a brand different to the one I use now) I had a professional wide angle lens "repaired" by its manufacturer here in the UK (focus ring had become wobbly), the damn thing was never sharp again, even when sent back again. Since then I've never assumed that lens disassembly and repair, even by the manufacturer's own workshop, will result in a lens that works properly.
Perhaps I was just unlucky, but since then I regard lens surgery as a very last resort. I prefer swapping out UV filters. YMMV
Used to be you only saw "yes" and "no" responses to this question. Nowadays, I see a lot more "only when necessary for physical protection" answers. I personally used to always put filters on lenses, not I'm in the "only when necessary for physical protection" camp.
i see a lot of my images affected negatively by filters. yes, i have top of the line multicoated B+W and Hoya filters. i'm talking about veiling flare that leads to loss of contrast. i have to shade the lens to deal with these. if i remove the filter, the contrast goes up. i never let myself get into a situation where there are actual flare spots.
David Baldwin wrote:
"On most lenses, the outermost element (objective) is not particularly expensive to replace."
Well, personally I am not comfortable about replacing front elements as if they were filters. Back in the 1990s (when I was with a brand different to the one I use now) I had a professional wide angle lens "repaired" by its manufacturer here in the UK (focus ring had become wobbly), the damn thing was never sharp again, even when sent back again. Since then I've never assumed that lens disassembly and repair, even by the manufacturer's own workshop, will result in a lens that works properly.
Perhaps I was just unlucky, but since then I regard lens surgery as a very last resort. I prefer swapping out UV filters. YMMV
In 30 years, I've never replaced an outer element. I have, however, replaced a lot of filters. At $50-100 each, you spend way, way, way more than the damage you *might* do to your lenses. Add it up and see for yourself.
Use the hoods. They protect your lens much better.
Use filters when you need them - when junk is flying in the air or when you need them to complete the weathersealing on weatherproof lenses. Using them because you might get a finger print on them? Waste of money.
As for image quality, all they do is degrade it. The best you will do is get comparable quality and there is a big chance it will drop. UV filters used to matter back in the film days because was much more sensitive to UV than is digital (which isn't). There is no advantage and there is a great expense and lower IQ to be had by using UV filters indiscriminately.
So if you bump the glassless ring against something while it's attached to the lens, it will get jammed to the lens and be very hard to remove. How is that protection?
Since when did photography become a contact sport?
If your in a situation where your gear is getting abused then you are/should be a pro, in which case your gear is part of your job/business and should be fixed/replaced like any tool, as a business expense.
If your an amateur then why are you putting your expensive lenses in harms way? In 18 years of (amateur)shooting I have only once wished I had a protection filter. I was on the beach in blowing wind/sand, wishing I had had a filter(or 5) because cleaning the glass in those conditions is far gnarlier then any other potential damage. The lens would get filthy every few minutes. I spent more time cleaning then shooting.
Dust and moisture can get past the front element seal of a lens and this is why I will use a filter when there is wind present and I am in a dusty or sandy area or with fog blowing in off the ocean which adds salt to the equation.
I do not want to scratch the coating on the front element when there is dirt and dust blowing around and a UV filter is much less expensive to replace. I realize this something I do that is not based on real image degradation as a scratch on the front element is highly unlikely to show up in a picture for a variety of reasons. But good luck on selling the lens to anyone with a visible scratch across the front element.
A lens hood provides better protection and also blocks stray light at the same time. I have seen filters that were smashed and they scratched the front element as a result. With a sturdy hood this would not have happened which is why I think the collapsible rubber ones are a bad choice.
JohnJ80 wrote:
In 30 years, I've never replaced an outer element. I have, however, replaced a lot of filters. At $50-100 each, you spend way, way, way more than the damage you *might* do to your lenses. Add it up and see for yourself.
Use the hoods. They protect your lens much better.
Use filters when you need them - when junk is flying in the air or when you need them to complete the weathersealing on weatherproof lenses. Using them because you might get a finger print on them? Waste of money.
As for image quality, all they do is degrade it. The best you will do is get comparable quality and there is a big chance it will drop. UV filters used to matter back in the film days because was much more sensitive to UV than is digital (which isn't). There is no advantage and there is a great expense and lower IQ to be had by using UV filters indiscriminately.
Einstein once said nothing could exceed the speed of light. Apparently, he never saw a toddler with a piece of fried chicken in hand. It took dish soap and hot water to get the filter clean. NO WAY would I expose a lens element to that danger.
this one never goes away!