Topic: Filter or no Filter (Read 7921 times)

guy1 · « **on:** November 02, 2006, 04:51:53 pm »

I have just purchased a Canon 30d Camera and have received differing opinions as to whether I should use a filter to protect the camera lenses.

I purchased a Canon 70-200 f4 L lense and a Tamron 17-50 f2.8 lense. Both these lenses use a 67mm filter and the salesman recommended one on sale!!!

Since I know better to buy on impulse, I have deferred this purchase until I can research the best path to take. I don't want to detract from the image (especially what the L lense is capable of) but at the same time, I don't want to contaminate or damage my lenses.

What are your opionions and recommendations???

Thank you

Eric Myrvaagnes · « **Reply #1 on:** November 02, 2006, 05:51:49 pm »

Quote

I have just purchased a Canon 30d Camera and have received differing opinions as to whether I should use a filter to protect the camera lenses.

I purchased a Canon 70-200 f4 L lense and a Tamron 17-50 f2.8 lense. Both these lenses use a 67mm filter and the salesman recommended one on sale!!!

Since I know better to buy on impulse, I have deferred this purchase until I can research the best path to take. I don't want to detract from the image (especially what the L lense is capable of) but at the same time, I don't want to contaminate or damage my lenses.

What are your opionions and recommendations???

Thank you
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

There have been a few threads about this topic over the past year or two. My impression is that most of the photographers that I respect prefer to avoid filters except when they are needed, but a vociferous minority favors them. Take a look at the following thread, for instance:

[a href=\"http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=11142&hl=]http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index....topic=11142&hl=[/url]

That's my two cents.

Eric

indianavince · « **Reply #2 on:** November 02, 2006, 09:35:24 pm »

This is not a tall tale!

I have owned several camera systems and am a seasoned professional of some 20 years now.

I quite using filters to "protect" lenses a decade ago.

I was outside in the mist and wind today with my Hasselblad and 50mmFLE lens that can still fetch $3000 on the used market. I use no filter. I only put the cap on when I am done shooting for the day. I always put the rear cap on when placing it in the gear bag. I do the same with my Nikkor 70-200 f2.8 . A lens that should be "protected" is my Nikkor 10mm-- an element that realy does need to be spotless, else you see the dirt! There is no filter available for this or many wide lenses.

None of my Hassey lenses are worse the wear... they get spotty, I clean them once a month and move on.

Slight cleaning marks with eventually be gathered long after spectacular photos!

Hey, I just think I conviced myself to go running nude!

marcmccalmont · « **Reply #3 on:** November 03, 2006, 12:00:44 pm »

It is cheap insurance so why not? I prefer a filter to a lens cap, probably an old habit. I did confirm that a UV filter will decrease the resolution of a digital camera so be sure to use a protective filter like the Hoya Pro 1d protection filter not the UV equivalent.
Marc

indianavince · « **Reply #4 on:** November 03, 2006, 03:35:14 pm »

Cheap insurance against what?

I shoot 30,000 exposures a year and the only time I had a filter crack-the lens was damaged anyway.

I gave up on filters (other than B+W enhancement or Polarizers or CC).

Why put a $15 piece of glass in front of a $3000 lens... you don't shoot through windows...

do you unless it can be helped!??

--- I always found filters hard to keep clean, and I abused them.

DarkPenguin · « **Reply #5 on:** November 03, 2006, 04:50:28 pm »

Skip filters if you can. Just another piece of glass to induce flare.

Eric Myrvaagnes · « **Reply #6 on:** November 03, 2006, 06:52:04 pm »

Quote

Skip filters if you can. Just another piece of glass to induce flare.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=83556\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I'm actually thinking of taking a filter or two with me on a trip next January to Death Valley. If I'm out on the dunes and the wind is blowing hard, I may want to protect the lens from blowing sand, even at the cost of a little more flare or a little less resolution. But the filter won't go on unless conditions get bad.

Eric

BlasR · « **Reply #7 on:** November 03, 2006, 07:35:56 pm »

So why they sell filter for? in why canon 400 do have a filter in the back? what do i need to do, take it away, don't used it?

BlasR

marcmccalmont · « **Reply #8 on:** November 03, 2006, 07:52:56 pm »

Quote

Cheap insurance against what?

I shoot 30,000 exposures a year and the only time I had a filter crack-the lens was damaged anyway.

I gave up on filters (other than B+W enhancement or Polarizers or CC).

Why put a $15 piece of glass in front of a $3000 lens... you don't shoot through windows... do you unless it can be helped!??

--- I always found filters hard to keep clean, and I abused them.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=83543\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Cheap insurance against damaging the front element or its coating.

Marc

Carl Harsch · « **Reply #9 on:** November 03, 2006, 08:26:25 pm »

and the endless debate continues...........

I'm still trying to figure out who started the myth that the front element was so fragile. In 30 years of using lenses, I've never damaged the coating of one by cleaning, nor have I broken one from normal use (and sometimes abnormal use). I'm not too sure about the old wife's tale about dropping a lens and the filter preventing the front element from shattering. I do have a friend who dropped his camera and broke the filter, the lens, and his camera. Go figure.

Andrew W · « **Reply #10 on:** November 04, 2006, 12:30:47 am »

My answer is NO. I am not a pro, and with some of my own simple tests I have found that adding UV filters diminishes resolution and thus sharpness.

Just take care of your gear and you will be fine.

Andrew

K.C. · « **Reply #11 on:** November 04, 2006, 01:22:05 am »

The age old debate continues.

I've been a pro for 30+ years and put UV filters on when the conditions might damage the front element of my lens. I use B&W filters that are made with Schott glass and there is no significant reduction in quality as a result.

marcmccalmont · « **Reply #12 on:** November 04, 2006, 03:38:53 am »

I think we are confusing UV filters with protection filters. I used UV filters to protect my lenses with film but they adversly affect image quality with digital cameras. One of my points was if you care to protect the front of your lens that is mounted on a DSLR use a Hoya/Kenko (or other brand) protective filter not a UV filter. The increase in flare and decrease in image quality are minor. Granted in normal use the protection is not necessary (either is car insurance) it is during abnormal use and accidents that the protective filter is cheap insurance.
Marc

howiesmith · « **Reply #13 on:** November 04, 2006, 02:12:01 pm »

Quote

So why they sell filter for? in why canon 400 do have a filter in the back? what do i need to do, take it away, don't used it?

BlasR
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=83569\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Canon filter slots in the rear have two purposes. The first is cost. Lenses with reer slots would usually require a very large and expensive filter if it were on the front of the lens. I had a Canon 500mm f/4 once. Huge front element.

Second, the lens is designed with a plain glass element in the slot in the light path. When a filter is inserted, the design is complete. Don't leave the blank out. It probably makes very little difference, but its there for a reason.

geesbert · « **Reply #14 on:** November 04, 2006, 03:22:16 pm »

a better way to protect your lens is a lenshood, it will improve the image quality in many situations.

i never use protective filters. although all my lenses don't show any marks after years of cleaning them with my t-shirt i do not really care about the super cleanliness of my front elements. i strongly believe that it doesn't make any difference.

just for fun, do this little test: take a small piece of a post-it note, the size of a pea. look through your lens, then stick the paper onto the front element and look again. do you see it? i doubt. if such a big thing doesn't show up, what will a small ding or rub do? the shorter the focal length and the higher the f-stop, the more there will be a change that you see it, and the danger of flare might increase, but if you use a hood this is neglectable.

of course resale value is diminished, but if you buy second hand, you can get fantastic lenses with tiny marks for good prices.

BernardLanguillier · « **Reply #15 on:** November 04, 2006, 08:59:06 pm »

PL filters are the only ones I still use when shooting digital, and that is when the sun is not in the frame.

When shooting 4x5, grad density filters/center filters are still a must in many cases.

Either way, no protective filters for me, whatever the lens.

Cheers,
Bernard

indianavince · « **Reply #16 on:** November 05, 2006, 04:47:06 pm »

Good point about the hood!... I never leave home without one for each lens! Except for that 10mm Nikkor... I gotta clean that one before I use it again!

I am embarassed to tell this story:

About a month or so before I stopped using filters I bought a NEW Hasselblad/Zeiss 150mm CF. I was afraid to opent the box of this $2300 baby, but it was mine!

I took it out of the box, took the caps off, noticed a speck of dust on the rear element- blew it off (with my mouth-- and SPIT CAME OUT!!! ) I was sick! I got the lens paper, got to cleaning. I then used some lens cleaner and after two of three passes I was satisfied it was good as new. I stil have that lens.. glad I am not afraid to use it and just go out and shoot pictures!

Thats what I should be doing now instead of typing this dribble.

(ps these micro fibre cloths work very well)

guy1 · « **Reply #17 on:** November 06, 2006, 11:01:23 am »

A big thank-you to all of you for your help and comments. I especially like the comment that stated you would not shoot a picture through a window pane.

I think I will go without a filter and try to use a hood in most cases. If I plan to go to the beach or someplace I can expect dust, etc. I will then use a protective filter.

Any further recommendations for a protective filter and polarizing filter (brand/type) ??

Thanks again

howiesmith · « **Reply #18 on:** November 06, 2006, 11:20:37 am »

Quote

I especially like the comment that stated you would not shoot a picture through a window pane.

[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=83811\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I don't use filtres to protect lenses. Ever.

But a reasonably well made filter is probably much better than a "window pane." Windows are not especially concerned with flatness and quailty of glass used. (Some even try to look old and wavy with bubbles.) Windows are usually mass produced for low cost. Even poor filters would use pretty good glass, by window standarts, and be pretty flat. Where inexpensive filters cut cost is usually in the pass/don't pass area. "UV" filters pass varying wave lengths of light. They are not all equal. Some warm the light a bit to look less blue.

I have taken some very good images through windows. A window can make a good stand in for a tripod if you press the front of the lens against a window to steady the camera.

wood · « **Reply #19 on:** November 07, 2006, 09:35:51 am »

The probalility to have FLARE and/or OUT OF FOCUS with filter is bigger.
If you want reduce the risk, hazard, danger, probability, etc, etc.....don´t use filter.

Wood

Author Topic: Filter or no Filter (Read 7921 times)

guy1

DarkPenguin

howiesmith

guy1

howiesmith