Filters

[torch]

Would like to pose a question to the photographers on the forum related to the use of filters, not for special effects but as lens protection. I have always used a UV or Skylight filter to protect my lens from scratches but it has always bothered me to pay $2000 for a lens and stick a $100 piece of glass in front of it. Interested to know who uses a filter on their lens at all times.
Second point - with film cameras, there was a purpose to a UV filter in addition to protection in that it filtered out UV rays. I understand that it is not required in Digital Cameras as the sensor ignores UV light. So, if you want to use a filter for protection, should you use a UV or a NC filter?
Interested to hear your thoughts

[megatop412]

Either type is fine for protection. Every once in a while you'll hear someone's story about how their filter saved their expensive lens, but don't look at it like it's a requirement. I use Hoya and Tiffen UV filters and have no complaints. Just remember to take them off when shooting night scenes

[Zee71]

Most of my glass has UV filters and its predominantly used to protect the glass. I use Hoya, Heliopan and B+W. I am one of those individuals in which the filter saved my glass. For whatever reason my nifty 50mm lens didn't lock right into the camera body and fell off. The filter I think suffered the most damage. Till this day the lens works like a champ. Moral of the story is make sure your lens locks into your camera body.

[wunaladreamin]

I refuse to use UV filters. It is only another element to have to shoot through and in more cases then I care to have are detrimental to the image. Use common sense, don't drop your lens or touch the elements and you won't need the UV waste of money any longer.

[Cary]

I used to be in the UV filter for protection camp, until I bought top-of-the-line B+W filters for all of my lenses. Well, at some point, I noticed most of my photos from a specific lens had a small slightly blurred area in the same area of each photo, throughout a whole year. I eventually narrowed it down to a bad spot on the filter, which couldn't be seen (but the problem went away when I removed the filter). I took all my filters off after that. Lens glass and the coating is pretty resilient, and as long as you always use a lens hood, and are careful with your gear, you should be fine. A filter can even damage the front element more, if it shatters and scrapes the lens. I would say to forget about a filter for protection, unless you have to shoot in some ridiculously dusty or other hazardous condition, where the front element will be blasted by debris.

[threeholerglory]

some people don't have common since Kenny...it's not as common as you imply!

[wunaladreamin]

some people don't have common since Kenny...it's not as common as you imply!
Well then if you have no since then use the filter at full false.

[Aviation.High.Guy]

Hey Trevor- I use B+W brand UV filters. I hear ya about the concern with putting extra glass infront of expensive glass. I don't buy the sell filter manufacturers put out there about the value in reducing UV. Protection is my only motivation. And like Mark, a UV filter saved a lens for me as well. In fact, this was just a few weeks ago- I was running down from the top of the mounds and a waist high, dried reed jammed up into my lens. The UV filter cracked, but the lens itself was spared. Whew!

[gonzalu]

No filters... The big lens makers properly make front elements ... trust your manufacturer. A $1500+ lens has a good front element protection. Think to yourself how many times you have someone come near your lens with sandpaper. Then you can consider a different approach, such as an underwater housing. Otherwise, naked is the only way you should go...

One rule of thumb: REDUCE the number of air-to-glass surfaces for the ultimate in photo quality.

Other rule of thumb: If you're worried more about your gear than the photo, you are not really taking photos.

[Cary]

Granted, this front element has a small surface area, but this is a must watch (if you have a strong stomach :tongue:)


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vzOLbMPe0u8

[Aviation.High.Guy]

If you're worried more about your gear than the photo, you are not really taking photos.

Hey Manny, I think this is just one of those subjects where there is no right or wrong answer. It really comes down to personal preference. I've shot commercial jobs using highly respected photographers that don't use filters and with those that do. With the latter, I wouldn't say they cared more about their gear than the product they deliver. The quality of work certainly didn't suggest that.

[wunaladreamin]

Cary it was only Canon glass. I managed lol.

[Cary]

Cary it was only Canon glass. I managed lol.

I thought I saw a similar Nikon video, but it only lasted 8 seconds :tongue:

[wunaladreamin]

I thought I saw a similar Nikon video, but it only lasted 8 seconds :tongue:
Lol you prick :p

[gonzalu]

Carry PRICKS, but he is not [a] PRICK :tongue:

[Cary]

Sense when does Cary carry pricks? You guys make no cents.

[wunaladreamin]

No since at all!

Btw I ****ing love you Cary. Lol

[gonzalu]

Hey Manny, I think this is just one of those subjects where there is no right or wrong answer. It really comes down to personal preference. I've shot commercial jobs using highly respected photographers that don't use filters and with those that do. With the latter, I wouldn't say they cared more about their gear than the product they deliver. The quality of work certainly didn't suggest that.

Don, trust me, I am right on this one :smile: and before you toss me into the ******* bucket, consider that I, too, have worked with some of the respected names in the industry. Those that care about their craft know that gear is to be sacrificed in order to achieve a goal if it needs to be.

I want you not to misinterpret me. Believe me RED cameras are well protected as they are very expensive and rare. So are unique cars and other props. How many times have you seen gear or props sacrificed for the shot? Plenty. My point being, we think we have to protect our gear because we spend so much money on it. It is understandable. I too used to think this way and I noticed it would limit me.

I take great care of my gear and if it has to suffer a horrible death to get [the] shot, it will be sacrificed just as soon as it needs to be. If indeed the shot is more important to you than the gear.

Even Peter Jackson himself would sacrifice one of his beloved REDs to get a shot :smile:

[gonzalu]

No since at all!

Btw I ****ing love you Cary. Lol

Nah, you're in love with the legend, the mystique that is, Cary. The [man] is quite normal and mundane (and a prick) :tongue::tongue::tongue:

BTW, anyone who thinks we are joking, wait until you're at the other end of one of his dry insensitive snappy comebacks! Even the well respected Moose has been hurt... ROTFL

[jerslice]

For years I never used filters, period. After having a close call when shooting a news event I now use them, but sparingly.

I use filters under the following conditions:

-When letting someone borrow them.
-When I'm using the 24mm or 17-40mm in conditions in which the front element is likely to get dinged or scraped because the hood isn't big enough: protests, mosh-pits, etc...places where either I'm not paying attention and/or others are not going to be paying any attention to me. (you got it all wrong Manny - folks put a filter on the lens when they KNOW they aren't paying attention to the safety of the gear)
-Jobs near salt water, glitter (think parades), or other damaging substances.
-ND filters for daytime long exposures (I know, not totally in context here, but worth mentioning).

But for spotting, most sports, walk around shooting, lenses with large hoods, etc...never.

[wunaladreamin]

Nah, you're in love with the legend, the mystique that is, Cary. The [man] is quite normal and mundane (and a prick) :tongue::tongue::tongue:

BTW, anyone who thinks we are joking, wait until you're at the other end of one of his dry insensitive snappy comebacks! Even the well respected Moose has been hurt... ROTFL
Lmao. I know Moose has kicked me off of the therapists couch more than once lol.

[gonzalu]

Jeremy,

Like it or not, protection or not, the lens [is] designed to take a hit on the nose. But filters NEVER will be.. unless they come with the lens as an OPTICAL component, they are only one more air to glass surface to distort light and potentially add unwanted reflections and / or reduce contrast by scattering light even more than it should be. I take care of my lenses in other ways.

Most of us here are talking about situations that do not require protection from Sand, Dirt, Mud, Oils, Sprays, etc. If indeed under conditions that will damage the gear, by all means protect it. But if I am in that situation, I bet I am protecting not just the lens but the rest of the gear as well.

I use a full rain cover with proper front lens filter when shooting Football under full rain. But the camera itself may get damaged during the event so I must finish the shoot :) Otherwise, I have had many waterlogged lenses and cameras when it is just a slight sprinkle.

Looks like there are some well entrenched positions on the use of the filters. I want to let everyone know I am not saying I am right or wrong but seriously trying to argue on a purely technical basis. Do think about the reasons and the tradeoffs you make when using filters all the time for protection that may never come to bear while perhaps reducing the quality of your images all the while they are on the lens!

:D

[jerslice]

Like it or not, protection or not, the lens [is] designed to take a hit on the nose. But filters NEVER will be.. unless they come with the lens as an OPTICAL component, they are only one more air to glass surface to distort light and potentially add unwanted reflections and / or reduce contrast by scattering light even more than it should be. I take care of my lenses in other ways.

I'm well aware of that, but there's no sense in needlessly sacrificing it either. Even you admit to that.


But if I am in that situation, I bet I am protecting not just the lens but the rest of the gear as well. I also wrap mine in bubble wrap prior to certain events to avoid dings and scrapes along with always using a waterproof housing under a steady rain...do you? If you're not taking those common sense steps, I just don't know that you're caring for your gear enough.

Which is my sort of sarcastic way of saying you're not telling me anything I don't already know :-)

And also that, on the rare occassion that I'm using one it's because there's a high chance of damage and I don't have the $$ to replace (and often not even repair) it should it actually get damaged.

[Aviation.High.Guy]

Don, trust me, I am right on this one :smile: and before you toss me into the ******* bucket, consider that I, too, have worked with some of the respected names in the industry. Those that care about their craft know that gear is to be sacrificed in order to achieve a goal if it needs to be.

I want you not to misinterpret me. Believe me RED cameras are well protected as they are very expensive and rare. So are unique cars and other props. How many times have you seen gear or props sacrificed for the shot? Plenty. My point being, we think we have to protect our gear because we spend so much money on it. It is understandable. I too used to think this way and I noticed it would limit me.

I take great care of my gear and if it has to suffer a horrible death to get [the] shot, it will be sacrificed just as soon as it needs to be. If indeed the shot is more important to you than the gear.

Even Peter Jackson himself would sacrifice one of his beloved REDs to get a shot :smile:

I hear ya Manny. Believe me, I'm not advocating that putting a 100.00 piece of glass over a 2,400.00 lens is the only way to go. You have to consider your personal situation. And yeah, I realize feature films will account for trashing a half dozen 5Ds to get that shot of an exploding oil rig. However, until I have that kind of budget, I'll weigh the risks vs. benefits. I kid you not about my run down the hill at the mounds that cracked my filter (better my filter than my ankle :tongue:). If the front element didn't crack from the blow, I'm sure the coating would have been marred at the very least.

I feel it's up to the discretion of the photographer to make the choice that's right for him. For instance if you are shooting a model you may want a softer look, so the filter is really a non-issue. When shooting planes, I can see losing the filter at times- and I do. Although I can't ever recall taking a shot from the mounds that was worth sacrificing a lens for. Now, if I were shooting from a chopper over LAX with Sam Chui, I would probably go "filter-less". I like living dangerously that way. ;)

[gonzalu]

Don, Jeremy, I hear you both... I am on your side. I am also just as practical as the next guy and have to also weigh the budge [I] have vs. that of a pro. Why I am advocating for is the knowledge one should have and the desire and capacity for what is most important which is to get the shot. Every situation is different. I want those who have never considered the negative effects of an always-on filter and make that decision a bit more wisely. This discussion always ends up with me going nutso when I hear someone putting on a UV filter in front of their lens to protect it :smile:

I am just passionate about it. Same goes with the cheap tripods. If you care enough about sharpness, don't spend $1,000 on three cheap tripods only to end up spending $1,000 more on the right one in the end.

Folks, listen to me or not, do your own research, learn about glass and optical design and about optics in general and do some learning about the physics involved [if you care] about the science behind the pictures you take. Understanding this will make you a better photographer even if by so little, hopefully by a lot. Glass to air surfaces is a very interesting subject as is the related diffraction subject :cool:

[Aviation.High.Guy]

Thanks Manny I appreciate your passion for the craft and always trust your technical knowledge. You've piqued my interest now to read up on the science of light and optics. I've always found it fascinating and could use a "refresher course" on the subject.:tongue: