In need of advice regarding lens filters?

[ajax]

I hope it might be fairly simple for experienced photographers to help this amateur to better understand what are probably pretty basic ideas regarding lens filters.

Using a UV filter on my lenses is something I've always done. The motive has been to provide an extra measure of protection. In that, prevent anything from coming in contact with the surface of the lens. As best I can tell this is pretty common practice. However, if this has an affect on the resulting pictures I'm NOT aware of it. Therefore, the first question might be, "what effect do UV filters have on resulting pictures?".

With that said, I recently opted to experiment with polarizing filters. The effect has been pretty positive, which in my case applies to landscape shots that often attempt to include scenic cloud formations which often involve reflections from bodies of water. To date my approach has been just to install the polarizing filter onto the existing UV filter. The idea being that I can remove it in the field, if desired, without having to worry about reinstalling the UV filter along with cleaning that may typically accompany such an operation. However, it has occurred to me that there may be some downside to using multiple filters at the same time. Any thoughts when it comes to the effect of this on resulting pictures?

Finally, and likely most important, when shopping for these filters I've noticed rather substantial disparities in price. For example, UV filters start at or below $20 but can also be more than $100. I've settled for the less expensive ones given that I have NO idea what improvement is provided by spending more money. It kind of looks like there must be something at play which I do NOT appreciate. What might that be? I have recently upgraded my equipment with the intention obtaining better quality pictures more suitable for producing larger print sizes.

[Geoff F]

Everybody seems to have a different opinion regarding filters on digital cameras.

I mostly fit a UV filter for protection but UV filters have little impact on digital camera images, so plain glass will probably work just as well in most situations. In theory, any added glass is likely to have a negative effect but in my tests I can't see any difference.

Back in the film camera days I did use polarizing filters but I haven't got on well with them nowadays with digital and achieve better results in other ways such as exposure bracketing, white balance correcting or simply doing a merge of two or more conversions from one Raw file.

Plain/UV filters can certainly be expensive. For example, a mid range UV filter for my 150-600 Sigma Sport lens cost £150.

Whether they are necessary may come down to how well you treat your equipment. Some people are very careful with their cameras and never have any problems without protection filters; but I tend to be rougher in my quest to capture something different.

[DanK]

The difference in prices in part stems from the presence or absence of anti-glare coatings and the quality of those coatings. However, within a quality level, there is also a substantial price variation among brands.

I use either a UV filter or a simple glass protective filter most of the time. However, I only use high-quality multi-coated filters, and I remove them in situations where flare is likely--for example, when point light sources are in front of the lens, as is usually the case in urban night photography.

I have several brands, mokstly Marumi, Hoya, and B+W (usually the most expensive of the ones I have). Brass frames are less likely to get stuck than aluminum, but almost all of mine are aluminum. It varies from filter type to filter type and over time, but I have found Marumi to be a good choice: high quality and not too expensive. The brands also differ in terms of how easy or hard the are to clean.

I virtually never stack filters. In addition to optical issues, such as reflections between the filters, there is a risk of vignetting. I carry my filters in little pouches that I can buckle to my belt to make swapping easy.

[Manfred M]

+! to Dan's comments.

The only time I use filters clear filters on my lenses is when I am shooting outdoors in a dirty, dusty or wet environment. I find it is generally easier to clean a filter than the front element of a lens, so I will use them when it makes sense to.

Indoors or when shooting in the direction of the sun, the they increase the amount of lens flare and veiling flare in an image, so unless you are trying to soften the shot that way, not using a filter makes sense. A lot of my lenses are expensive pro lenses with advanced anti-reflective coatings, so using a filter negates some of the advantages of these lenses.

I know a couple of well known nature and landscape photographers that use a polarizer, rather than a plain or UV filter on their lenses. Outdoors, the reflection of grass and leaves, even under overcast conditions makes using a polarizer important to them.

I have had the front element of a lens damaged by a broken filter. The nick is quite minor and does not affect the performance of the lens in any noticeable way, but the scratch on the glass is visible. Had the filter not been in place when the door hit the lens, I would not have a damaged unit.

+1 to not stacking the filters. Not only do you add an unneeded optical surface into the image, I find that two stacked filters are more likely to get stuck together and can be hard to separate, especially if the filter mount is made of aluminum.

The rule of thumb with any filter is that you buy the best one that you can afford. Some of the very inexpensive ones may not even use high quality optical glass and may not be flat (I have seen some pretty awful examples that have been purchased online.)

I prefer B+W or Heliopan (even more expensive than B+W). I have a few less expensive Tiffen filters, which are okay, but they tend to not get used when I have the higher end filters available. Both B+W and Heliopan use brass fittings and use Schott glass (Schott are owned by Zeiss and is a highly regarded optical glass maker and B+W is owned by Schneider - Kreuznach, Both Zeiss and Schneider are highly regarded optical manufacturers). Hoya is the largest optical glass manufacturer in the world and they make a very reputable product as well. Check the web sites of the filter makers to see if they write about the materials they use in their filters; if they are not mentioned, perhaps that brand should be avoided...

[inkista]

Using a UV filter on my lenses is something I've always done. The motive has been to provide an extra measure of protection. In that, prevent anything from coming in contact with the surface of the lens. As best I can tell this is pretty common practice.

Yes. I do this, too. But a piece of glass is lousy at protecting another piece of glass from breaking. A lens hood is actually better at shielding your front element from possible breakage. What a UV filter is doing is protecting your front element's coatings, which are plastic and can be scratched by embedded grit in a microfiber cloth or lenspen head.

I use UV filters all the time because 90% of my shooting is in dusty back canyons or at the beach here in Southern California, and I used to have a really bad habit of using my shirt to wipe off a lens or clean my glasses (I now carry Zeiss wipes to eliminate this urge).

For someone who shoots in a studio and doesn't do the careless shirt tail thing? Going without filters on the front elements may make more sense. Replacing good UV filters multiple times can cost as much (or more) as replacing the front element on the lens; it's just faster/easier to replace the filter than sending a lens in to a service center.

Also front-element scratches may not have that much effect on image quality. But it's kind of like how you really want to avoid that first scratch on a new car...

However, if this has an affect on the resulting pictures I'm NOT aware of it. Therefore, the first question might be, "what effect do UV filters have on resulting pictures?".

Yes. UV filters can have an effect. If they're very cheap, they can cut the light transmission and even add softness. Good ones, less so. And the additional glass surfaces always make it easier to get flare when you shoot into a light source. But you can, of course, just remove the filter if you're running into the flare issue.

...it has occurred to me that there may be some downside to using multiple filters at the same time. Any thoughts when it comes to the effect of this on resulting pictures?

Yes, stacking filters can do the same thing: cut down transmission and introduce more glass surfaces to make flare more likely. It's usually best to avoid stacking if you don't need to for some specific purpose (i.e., neutral density (ND) filters to get the correct amount of light reduction).

Finally, and likely most important, when shopping for these filters I've noticed rather substantial disparities in price. For example, UV filters start at or below $20 but can also be more than $100. I've settled for the less expensive ones given that I have NO idea what improvement is provided by spending more money. It kind of looks like there must be something at play which I do NOT appreciate. What might that be?...

Coatings, performance, and build quality. Roger Cicala did an exhaustive round of testing on the light transmission qualities of specific UV filters. But the $100+ B&W/Heliopan filters are higher build quality than, say, my $40 HMC Hoyas. Also, as the size of the filters goes up, so does the price. Generally, stay away from the super cheapies and you may not really need what the high-end expensive models can offer. Also with UV filters, remember if you do damage one you'll be replacing it. This may not be a one-time purchase, so what your budget can stretch to may alter if you think of it that way.

It may make more sense to pay more for the "effects" filters (infrared, neutral density, circular polarizer) vs. UV-for-protection. We also don't need UV any more since our sensors are built with UV/IR blocking filters on top of them.

[DanK]

I largely agree with Kathy. I don't expect protective filters (plain coated glass or UV) to protect from breakage. I use them to protect against grit, slime, and to some extent scratches (in combination with a hood). For example, years ago, I was photographing an engagement party and briefly left my camera on a clean counter. When I came back, the filter had some sort of greasy mark on it that I couldn't clean off with any method safe for the coatings. I threw it out and replaced it. So mid-priced high quality seems sensible to me. I'm willing to pay more for things like CPL and ND filters, which I don't treat as protective devices. (In addition, their quality varies more than the quality of multicoated protective filters.)

A good review source is lenstips, https://www.lenstip.com/113.1-articl...ters_test.html. I think that may have been where I first encountered Marumi, which is not all that common in the US. I have had more Hoyas than anything else, but while it may just be my technique, I find Marumis easier to clean. I don't think you can go wrong with either, as long as you get multi-coated.

By the way, I actually tested for myself whether a good filter makes an appreciable difference when there isn't a light source in front of the camera. I took two identical shots with a Canon 50D and an EF-S 60 mm macro lens (chosen for its flat field), one with no filter and one with a multi-coated UV filter, I think a Hoya. I have no idea which is which, which I think answers the question of whether there is a problem using a good filter under appropriate conditions.. I'll post the full-size images below, but I think even in the lightbox, CiC will reduce the size.

[ajax]

VERY NICE (HELPFUL)! Thanks to all.

My own intuition was telling me that stacking filters could be a bad idea. I will stop doing that.

When it comes to quality I think my interest is primarily in optimizing the optical performance as opposed to durability or maybe ruggedness. It might be worth pointing out that the only lenses I have now are zoom lens that I recently upgraded and I'm at least expecting that they have pretty good quality optics.

Sounds like there is pretty good consensus that I should also spend more money and upgrade my filters. In this regard, I think the references to different brands and what your experience has been is a big help when it comes to getting started on that.

[William W]

I think you have received great advice above.

I think these points haven't been mentioned -

RE:

. . I recently opted to experiment with polarizing filters. . .

1. For photographic application, we can group Polarizing Filters into two categories: Linear Polarizing Filters; and Circular Polarizing Filters.

Linear polarizing filters were used first and are still available, especially second hand, and are typically the least expensive.

Importantly, if a Linear Polarizing Filter is used cameras with through-the-lens metering (TTL) and autofocusing (AF) systems: basically all 'modern cameras' then there can be problems to the functionality of the TTL and/or the AF systems. Circular polarizing filters do not produce these adverse effects.

Circular Polarizing Filters, usually are coded "CPL"

2a. Circular Polarizing Filters have a limited FoV (Field of View) of effect. That is to say, as a CPL is used on a wider lens one might see the effect of the CPL in a patch of the scene and not across the whole scene. Two typical examples of this:

i> when using a CPL on a Landscape Scene for the purpose of enriching the sky, when using a wide lens the sky might have a good patch of rich blue, but that rich blue will not extend across the whole area of the skyline

ii> when using a CPL on a Water Scene for the purpose of removing the reflections on the water, when using a wide lens the water might have a good patch of clarity with no reflections, but that clarity will not extend across the whole area of the water.

2b. Circular Polarizing Filters are typically thicker than most other filters - they can produce an Optical Vignette when used on wide lenses.

3. CPL Filters have two bits. One bit rotates. If you are using a Lens Hood and a CPL, then you might come to grief trying to rotate the CPL, especially if you have chunky thumbs (like me). One work around is to carefully cut a window in the Lens Hood (at the underneath as it sits on the camera) so you can get one finger on the front bit of the CPL Filter, to rotate it.

WW

'By the way' info:

I use UV or Clear filters, ('protection') always, including in the studio.
I use mostly the top end lines of Hoya and Marumi brands.
I take all filters OFF when necessary: i.e when the disadvantages out-way the advantages - for examples -they are likely to exacerbate Flare, render Ghost Images, etc.
I use Lens Hoods always, including indoors. (and never mounted backwards - gosh that is a silly practice, must be trendy thing).
I rarely stack Filters - think the last time it was necessary was when using film.
I have few brass ringed Filters, even though I live and work close to the sea, I don't have much trouble with the Aluminium ringed Filters binding tight: I use the 'fat rubber band' method of release when necessary. Also small wiggle every now and again, seems to dissuade the Aluminium Oxide getting a grip on the thread.
My Rule of Thumb - be careful when using CPL on a lens FL=35mm and wider on a 135 Format Camera - i.e a 'full frame' camera (and, obviously, all the FoV equivalents for other camera formats).

[DanK]

One mundane note: Marumi filters, which is now what I usually buy, are harder to find in the US than some other brands. B&H, for example, where I buy most of my gear, stocks very few. I bought mine online from a store in New Hampshire, www.2filter.com. I think they have become more widely available since I last purchased some.

[ajax]

Those extra details offered by Bill strike me as potentially very helpful. Something I especially like about these forums is that I don't have to remember all of it now but can come back and review as desired.

My curiosity, at this point, primarily pertains outdoor nature shots. In that, landscapes that very often turn out to be waterscapes. My own experience is that nice (picturesque) cloud formations are critical to getting a good result. My prior research suggested that this is the situation that polarizing filters can be helpful. At present I only have a zoom lens for my newer full frame (50 megapixel) camera. Its' range is 24 to 105mm. I'd say a lot of my shots are done between 24 & 35 mm. The lens hood in this case seems pretty short which I'm thinking offers minimal affect but I don't know of any reason NOT to use it. The one exception would be when the opportunity to take the shot is immediate and I don't want to take the time to mount it and the sun (light source) is directly behind me. I hope that makes sense.

What you refer to as field of view (fov) affect is something that I find interesting. Something, not mentioned, that I'm thinking could be relevant pertains to the ultimate goal. I think the term scene referred pertains to how accurately the original scene is reproduced in a resulting picture. I'd say that in most cases, at least for the scenes I'm shooting, scene referred is NOT the goal. I'm just about always able to make improvements during post processing. Therefore, when it comes to distortion the question is NOT so much about whether it exists but rather does it harm rather improve the opportunity to end up with a better picture than would have otherwise been the case. In this context, the judgement about what is better or worse has only to with what someone viewing the picture who knows nothing about the original scene would think.

[ajax]

One mundane note: Marumi filters, which is now what I usually buy, are harder to find in the US than some other brands. B&H, for example, where I buy most of my gear, stocks very few. I bought mine online from a store in New Hampshire, www.2filter.com. I think they have become more widely available since I last purchased some.

I have now done some shopping which starts on the B&H site and I can concur with this statement. Interestingly, while the referenced site does have a good many Marumi options it is very limited when it comes to some of the other brands recommended herein (e.g., B+W, Heliopan, Hoya) for my 82mm lens.

[William W]

Some other points you might find worthwhile:

. . . My curiosity, at this point, primarily pertains outdoor nature shots. In that, landscapes that very often turn out to be waterscapes. My own experience is that nice (picturesque) cloud formations are critical to getting a good result. My prior research suggested that this is the situation that polarizing filters can be helpful. At present I only have a zoom lens for my newer full frame (50 megapixel) camera. Its' range is 24 to 105mm. {my 82mm lens}

An 82mm dia. filter is "big". If you purchase an 82mm Filter now, in the future, if and when you buy another lens, which has a smaller filter dia., consider a Step Up Ring to mount the CPL on the new lens. Especially if the new lens is a telephoto lens, because with a telephoto lens there is less likelihood of an Optical Vignette occurring when using a Step Up Ring.

. . . Its' range is 24 to 105mm. . . I'd say a lot of my shots are done between 24 & 35 mm. The lens hood in this case seems pretty short which I'm thinking offers minimal affect

Indeed. It is intrinsic to the design of nearly all zoom lenses. In my travels I have found only one Lens Hood / Zoom Lens combination which offers the 'maximum' stray light protection into the lens at all Focal Lengths and that's the Canon EF 24 to 70 F/2.8 L USM, all others are quite hopeless in shielding the lens from stray light at any FL, other than the widest.

. . . but I don't know of any reason NOT to use it (the lens hood). The one exception would be when the opportunity to take the shot is immediate and I don't want to take the time to mount it and the sun (light source) is directly behind me. I hope that makes sense.

I makes complete sense. On the other hand, my lenses travel with their the lens hoods on them all the time. I suspect your camera bag mightn't allow space for that - but if it does, consider just leaving the lens hood on all the time - what's the down side?

. . . What you refer to as field of view (fov) affect is something that I find interesting. Something, not mentioned, that I'm thinking could be relevant pertains to the ultimate goal. I think the term scene referred pertains to how accurately the original scene is reproduced in a resulting picture. I'd say that in most cases, at least for the scenes I'm shooting, scene referred is NOT the goal. I'm just about always able to make improvements during post processing. Therefore, when it comes to distortion the question is NOT so much about whether it exists but rather does it harm rather improve the opportunity to end up with a better picture than would have otherwise been the case. In this context, the judgement about what is better or worse has only to with what someone viewing the picture who knows nothing about the original scene would think.

I think I might not have explained precisely enough.

Firstly, I do appreciate you last point: "the judgement about what is better or worse has only to with what someone viewing the picture who knows nothing about the original scene would think."

However, on the other points I have underlined and bolded: if a WA or UWA lens is used with a CPL and the polarization of the light is not applied evenly across the whole scene, there will be a variance in (as one example) the 'blue' of the blue sky. Lots can be achieved in Post Production, no argument. Also mentioned for clarity and disclosure, Post Production is a necessary function, at which I believe I am reasonably versed and skilled, but I don't like doing it all that much. That stated, I have found getting a sky looking natural once it does have the the CPL artifact I described, has been for me, very difficult and most annoying.

WW

[ajax]

Bill's elaboration is a nice addition to this discussion. I've now ordered a B+W Circular Polarizing Filter. Based on this discussion there are lots experiments to be performed. I'm most grateful for all of the helpful information provided herein.

[rpcrowe]

I tend to use UV or clear filters only when the environment might be dangerous to the front element of my lens such as when there is or might be blowing sand or dust or salt spray. I never use both the UV and polarizing filters at the same time.

However, I virtually always use a lens hood to protect my lens from spray light rays and from physical danger.

When possible, I will use a generic screw-in lens hood, This type of hood has several advantages:

1. I can use a lens cap directly on the front of the hood - making removal and attachment of the cap quick and easy.

2. When I use a CPL filter, I can attach the filter to the front of my lens and then screw the hood directly into the front threads of the filter. That way, I can adjust the polarization by simply rotating the hood - no need for skinny fingers to fit inside the hood to reach the front element of the filter.

3. Experience has shown this type of hood will protect my lens quite well from physical damage and will protect from stray light rays at all focal lengths.

4. The screw-in generic hoods are usually quite inexpensive in comparison to OEM hoods and when used on some lenses will not vignette at any focal length.

5. The hoods are black making this lens less obtrusive than when I use the white OEM hoods.

As I mentioned, these generic screw-in hoods cannot be used on all lenses. Usually, longer lenses are the ticket for this type of hood.. I use this type of hood on my 70-200mm f/4 and 85mm f/1.8 lenses.

This image shows the hood on my 70-200mm f/4 lens with lens cap attached to the hood.


BTW: this lens has a black generic tripod ring which is equipped with a Arca Compatible tripod base.