UV/Protection lens filters?

[csa mt]

I've always used one to protect my lenses; but with getting all new equipment in a few months, I was curious as to how may do/do not use them for protection? I've seen many posts regarding as to whether the image might be degraded with "extra" glass, but again, that is debatable.

Thanks in advance, for your thoughts on this!

[Kodiak]

I've always used one to protect my lenses; but with getting all new equipment in a few months, I was curious as to how may do/do not use them for protection? I've seen many posts regarding as to whether the image might be degraded with "extra" glass, but again, that is debatable. Thanks in advance, for your thoughts on this!

My lenses are very important investments so I always keep a protective glass
over them. All except my 14-24 ƒ2,8… this bulgy guy drives me crazy at times.

[Manfred M]

Carol - this is an oft debated issue (here and elsewhere) and there is no right or wrong answer; just a personal choice.

I own four lenses that cannot take filters on them (two are ultra-wide angle, one is a fish-eye and one is a very long lens with a drop-in slot for a filter); so I use these expenive lenses without "protection". I've also had one lens get damaged when the filter broke (the filter glass was harder than the glass in the front element and it made a small scratch that creates NO performance issues at all. There have been reports that cheap filters can scratch the front lens element and do real damage.

In theory, a filter is just another optical element that WILL degrade optical performance; but that is so small that for all intents and purposes it is non-exisitant (i.e. you won't notice any degradation if you use decent quality filters). The only issue that I've ever seen is that I had increased reflections when I used an uncoated filter; but that was under very specific lighting conditions.

I do use filters on my lenses and generally whenever I shoot outdoors, I use my polarizer, rather than a clear or UV filter. I only remove it when the shutter speeds get too low. I use either clear or UV filters at other times.

Bottom line is use good quality, multi-coated filters. These are far easier to clean than a dirty front element of a lens.

[Manfred M]

. All except my 14-24 ƒ2,8… this bulgy guy drives me crazy at times.

I have the same lens and understand. My Leica f/2.8 19mm Elmarit-R has the same issue, as does my f/3,5 8mm Samyang fisheye. The f/6.3 400mm Leica Telyt is designed to take a Series 7 filter in a drop in slot, behind the iris and is not designed for a filter over the front element either. I've had the two Leica lenses for over 30 years and have cleaned them many times. No optical issues from all the cleanings they got.

[csa mt]

Thanks Kodiak and Manfred! Your replies prompt me to go ahead & invest in quality UV filters for my two upcoming lenses!

[Kodiak]

Thanks Kodiak and Manfred! Your replies prompt me to go ahead & invest in quality UV filters for my two upcoming lenses!

…and just what will that be?

[JR1]

The debate will NEVER be settled.

ALL my gear has filters, All has for 45 years, No one in daily normal life would ever ever be able to tell the difference between a shot with and without.

When I shoot at the coast, on a boat, and at podiums I would rather have sea spray or champagne on a filter and NOT on the front element.

You can see the blur bottom left where it went on the filter, Nikon 14-24mm

[csa mt]

…and just what will that be?

I've been using B+W filters.

[DanK]

ALL my gear has filters, All has for 45 years, No one in daily normal life would ever ever be able to tell the difference between a shot with and without.

When I shoot at the coast, on a boat, and at podiums I would rather have sea spray or champagne on a filter and NOT on the front element.

I agree. I only take them off when there is a reason to, e.g., light sources in front of the lens, as in some night photography.

I've been using B+W filters.

An excellent brand, but in my opinion, it's not necessary to spend that much. First, since UV filtering itself is not important for digital, you can save $$ by buying protective filters rather than UV. Second, there are a number of companies that make excellent multi-coated protective and UV filters that cost less. I have a mix of B+W, Marumi, and Hoya, and I doubt anyone could tell you from looking at the images which is which. If I am not mistaken, B+W uses brass rings rather than aluminum, which is a plus. You can't go wrong with B+W, but if you look at others, get good multi-coated ones from well-regarded brands.

[csa mt]

"you can save $$ by buying protective filters rather than UV."

Dan, thanks for that great tip!

[JR1]

I agree B+W great.

Please NO ONE buy ebay specials, the "green" filters

I Use Kood, Hoya Revo

And for those who can not get filters for very wide lenses, on my Nikon 14-24 I use Lee

http://www.wexphotographic.com/buy-l...1kebocuebw_wcb

[JR1]

Carol - this is an oft debated issue (here and elsewhere) and there is no right or wrong answer; just a personal choice.

I own four lenses that cannot take filters on them (two are ultra-wide angle, one is a fish-eye and one is a very long lens with a drop-in slot for a filter); so I use these expenive lenses without "protection". I've also had one lens get damaged when the filter broke (the filter glass was harder than the glass in the front element and it made a small scratch that creates NO performance issues at all. There have been reports that cheap filters can scratch the front lens element and do real damage.

In theory, a filter is just another optical element that WILL degrade optical performance; but that is so small that for all intents and purposes it is non-exisitant (i.e. you won't notice any degradation if you use decent quality filters). The only issue that I've ever seen is that I had increased reflections when I used an uncoated filter; but that was under very specific lighting conditions.

I do use filters on my lenses and generally whenever I shoot outdoors, I use my polarizer, rather than a clear or UV filter. I only remove it when the shutter speeds get too low. I use either clear or UV filters at other times.

Bottom line is use good quality, multi-coated filters. These are far easier to clean than a dirty front element of a lens.

+1

[JR1]

My lenses are very important investments so I always keep a protective glass
over them. All except my 14-24 ƒ2,8… this bulgy guy drives me crazy at times.

!!!!!

No probs I use this

http://www.wexphotographic.com/buy-l...1kebocuebw_wcb

[rpcrowe]

IT ALL DEPENDS! It depends on the lens and the environment in which I am shooting as well as the protection afforded by a lens hood for that lens. It also has to do with the price of the lens itself...

As an example, I seldom use a protective filter on my 70-200mm f/4L IS lens because the lens hood is deep enough to (in my opinion) to afford a sufficient degree of protection to the front element of that lens. I also quite often use a polarizing filter on the lens. However, I always carry a protective filter as well as an Optech Rain Sleeve in case I am shooting in an environment dangerous to the camera/lens (such as a dust storm)...

OTOH... I frequently use a protective filter on my 17-55mm f/2.8 IS lens because the lens hood does not (again this is my opinion) provide sufficient physical protection for the front element...

I always shoot with a lens hood mounted (both indoors and outdoors) because of the degree of physical protection it affords the lens on which it is mounted. Even (or especially) when I am using a protective filter or a CPL (I don't double them up) I will still use a lens hood. In this case it is primarily used to protect from flare...

I have recently purchased a used Fuji XP-60 Underwater camera which I will use in rough environments like on a fishing boat. Last month, I received some green water waves over the gunnels of a fishing cruiser while fishing in the normally placid Sea of Cortez in Mexico's Baja California del Sur. A fast moving weather front caught us by surprise and it was only due to the skill of the fishing cruiser captain that we made it back safely. Luckily I did not have a camera with me on that trip - we were all totally drenched to the skin. Carrying the XP-60, I won't have to risk my expensive DSLR gear. The IQ of the XP-60 is certainly not up to my Canon 7D with a top-line lens but, it is sufficient for many uses...

Finally, any filter that I place in front of my lens is the always very best I can afford. There can be a point of diminishing returns when buying an expensive filter to protect a cheap lens. As an example, I have both a 50mm Canon f/1.8 Mk-1 and a 40mm f/2.8 pancake lens. I don't use a protective filter on either of these lenses because the cost of a top-line protective filter is close to what I paid for either lens on the used market. I do, however use hoods on these lenses as well as all my other lenses...

[MrB]

...I always shoot with a lens hood mounted (both indoors and outdoors) because of the degree of physical protection it affords the lens on which it is mounted. Even (or especially) when I am using a protective filter or a CPL (I don't double them up) I will still use a lens hood. In this case it is primarily used to protect from flare...

+1

I have yet to notice a problem with light reflections from a protective filter, and that is probably because my lenses also have hoods. For the latter, I do buy the cheapest folding rubbery ones from eBay, checking that each one is opened as far as possible but is not causing any vignetting (one of mine needs its last section folded back on itself to avoid this effect). These make excellent shock absorbers if I accidentally get my camera too close to a gate, fence or wall.

Cheers.
Philip

[blakemcguire]

As someone who works in a camera store, I frequently see people who have dropped their gear to have it saved by a UV filter. People may think I'm a heartless salesperson, but they come around eventually

[rpcrowe]

I fell one day while wearing my 40D with a 70-200mm f/4L IS lens on a neck strap. The lens hit the concrete, lens hood first. The hood which was a round screw-in variety (see top camera) was destroyed but the lens was not scratched and remained in perfect condition...

[travis4567]

I've been using B+W filters.

The best..don't put cheap glass over an expensive lens.

[loosecanon]

First I always keep a hood on a lens to give protection when reversed and when fitted it affords both glare reduction and protection.
I also fit good protection filters - the last one was Canons own 82mm with was cheaper than many others.
I do periodically give filters more than a wipe clean - a brush, a wash in mild detergent, rinse and final rinse in iso propyl alcohol and a good dry. Couldn't do that to the front element of a lens.
However I also know that after a few years I may replace them if they get scratched or the coating deteriorates.