What do you think about using a protective filter on a premium lens?

[Gato Amarillo]

Anyone trying to make up their minds about the pros and cons of protective filters and what -- if anything -- to buy should check out Roger Cicala's blog:

https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/20...anking-of-the-major-uv-filters-on-the-market/

https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2017/05/yet-another-post-about-my-issues-with-uv-filters/

The TL;DR summary is that if you buy a high-quality filter, you're giving up very little image quality, and you'll gain protection from the environment if not your own clumsiness.

One of the few solid tests of filter quality. Another thought from Roger, on how the increasing cost of lens repair has changed his thinking a bit.

https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2016/12/front-element-lens-protection-revisited/

Gato

 

[453C]

I use hoods, and leave the (mounted) lens cap off until I'm done shooting for the day. I use a filter if the conditions warrant it. We were talking about this elsewhere in reference to the TG-5. It's a tough little bugger, but the external glass can still be damaged.

If it's living in a case or pocket, there may be little need for a filter or lens cap.

If it's being tossed in a bag full of sharp things, a lens cap makes sense.

If it's mounted to the front of a truck where road and trail debris could pit the external glass, adding a filter makes sense to me.

Maybe this was already mentioned, but Roger mention the use of "protective" filters on the LensRentals blog. Iirc, he mentioned that it's becoming more common to find lenses that make replacing the front element more expensive, so that may be a factor when deciding to use a filter, too.

Roger has a few others, but these are fairly recent; both are worth a read.

Front Element Lens Protection Revisited

By Roger Cicala Published December 29, 2016

My Not Quite Complete Protective Filter Article

By Roger Cicala Published June 3, 2017

 

[Glen Barrington]

But I don't care if you do. It won't hurt to buy it, and test it out. You can always stop using it if you don't like what it does. The thing is, a premium lens will require a premium filter. Just don't buy a P.O.S.

 

[syberman7]

Maybe I'll just use the lens hood and take a risk. What would you do?

Thanks.

That's what do. I have bashed the lens hood against peoples hands and poles and the like many times, and have saved the front element with the protection of the lens hood. I think it's actually superior because it extends further out and there's no glass to hit anything like with a filter, and they usually come with the lens.

 

[453C]

But I don't care if you do. It won't hurt to buy it, and test it out. You can always stop using it if you don't like what it does. The thing is, a premium lens will require a premium filter. Just don't buy a P.O.S.

Yep. Another LensRentals article points to this, and some of the comments are worth a look.

 

[Sergey_Green]

If the lens falls, and the filter breads (which they often they) it will scratch the front element of the lens.

The best protection is the hood, when the lens is in use; cap when it is stored or transported.

The premium lens would be the last I would ever put the filter on. Unless it is the specialized and for different purposes filter.

--
- sergey

 

[glassoholic]

..how many anti protective filter people are happy to use a polariser or ND which are amongst the worst for reflections and other aberrations. Only recently have decent multi coatings and optical clarity come to polarisers... if you know what you are looking for. I have seen uncoated or single coated polarisers and even worse ND filters being put on very expensive lenses for commissioned work and the photographer having no concerns and then removing it and no protective filter being put on because that will degrade his lens!

 

[Sdlv]

Do I need protective filters? All I have to do to answer the question is to look at the dust, flying junk, and fingerprints that sometimes accumulate on the filters in windy or less than ideal conditions. I'd rather have the filters taking this stuff than the front elements of my lenses.

With them (using B+W, I haven't noticed image degradation.

. . . Steven

 

[Boss of Sony]

Hi, I received my secondhand PL 12mm f1.4 lens yesterday. This is the first premium lens I've ever owned. Absolutely amazing lens, and I'm seeing the M43 system in a completely new light after playing with it for a few minutes. I'll never buy a FF camera after seeing what this lens can do.

I'm not usually interested in protective filters, because they affect IQ, they're a waste of money, they're ugly, and lenses rarely get scratched anyway. But this lens has a massive front glass element, and it's quite an expensive lens. On the other hand, I don't like the idea of paying another $100 for a filter if it's not necessary. I'm a bit undecided. Maybe I'll just use the lens hood and take a risk. What would you do?

Thanks.

https://rover.ebay.com/rover/0/0/0?mpre=https://www.ebay.com.au/ulk/itm/231826253937

Official Aus importers Fleabay site.. $48 takes 2 days.. stop worrying about cleaning and damage.

Wide angle lenses are not sensitive to filter quality and in any case this Hoya has the best or equal to the best coatings and optical quality (filters are a hobby of mine and I could bore you for an hour). This one is also the new type that cleans easy... what lens makers put on the outside elements these days as well. And it is a clear non-UV bulldust type which is not applicable to digital anyway.

 

[RobbieBear]

..how many anti protective filter people are happy to use a polariser or ND which are amongst the worst for reflections and other aberrations. Only recently have decent multi coatings and optical clarity come to polarisers... if you know what you are looking for. I have seen uncoated or single coated polarisers and even worse ND filters being put on very expensive lenses for commissioned work and the photographer having no concerns and then removing it and no protective filter being put on because that will degrade his lens!

A lens which, I would suggest, is often way more capable than many of us need anyway.

--
M43 equivalence: "Twice the fun with half the weight"
"You are a long time dead" -
Credit to whoever said that first and my wife for saying it to me. Make the best you can of every day!

 

[brianric]

Dropped my camera with a 12-100PRO lens with protective filter and lens cap all inside a Think Tank holster. Jammed the lens cap into the filter and smashed the filter. Once I got the filter off the lens was undamaged. Lens cap on it's own would probably not have saved the front element.

Worth any imagined IQ reduction.

Neil

I'm sorry about you dropping your camera.

Now here is another fine example of why one should put a protective filter on the front of a lens. I've discussed this before, and I still can't believe that there are those that refuse to put one on in fear of depleting IQ. Balderdash!!! If you purchase a good quality filter, say a B+W, for example, there is no issue whatsoever. But some say there is. I have tested it out on all of the filters I put on with shots taken with and without the filter and there is NO difference. Perhaps it's like some who refuse to wear protective helmets when they either ride a motorcycle or a bicycle. Years ago, I witnessed an accident were a motorcycle rider t-boned a car coming out of an apartment building parking lot. The rider was not wearing a helmet. Not a pretty sight. A bystander had to hold his head together before an ambulance arrived. I never did find out how the rider fared. I hope he survived. I know this is off topic, but a lens filter can protect the front of a lens much like a motorcycle helmet protects a riders head.

This is OT. June 13, 1987 Seabrook NH. I was an avid bicycle rider. I always wore a bicycle helmet except this one day. I was working the 6 AM to 2 PM shift at the M&TE Cal Lab at Seabrook Nuclear Station. It was a rainy spring that year but day the weather was sunny. I called this bicycle store in Newburyport Massachusetts to see if a certain new bicycle helmet was in stock. It was a Bell hard shell with a smoked visor. I called it my Darth Vader helmet. I lived 500 yards from the north gate to the nuclear plant. I decided I was going to ride my bicycle to the bicycle store since it was only 10 miles from where I lived. I was riding on a racing bicycle with no fenders. There was no way I could carry two helmets back from the store. It was only ten miles to the store, so I went without a helmet. What could possibly go wrong. I was crossing the Gillis Bridge about 1.5 miles from the store, I just did go up on the incline of the bridge, getting ready to go down on the decline and was getting ready to drop to a lower gear and push hard on the pedals when my front wheel dropped into an expansion joint. Thrown off the bicycle head and face first into the pavement. It was nice of the ambulance driver to put my bicycle in the ambulance. It was the first and only time as an adult that I rode without a helmet on a bicycle.

Well, all I can say to those who poo poo the idea, I hope a day doesn't come when you wish you had put one on.

--
A smart person knows what to say, a wise person knows whether or not to say it.

 

[Carlos U]

Nature photographer John Shaw, quoted from one of his books:

"Some photographers leave UV or haze filters permanently mounted on their lenses, saying that doing so offers protection for the lenses. I've often wondered what they are protecting against. If it is dirt, moist and fingerprints, then the filter should be taken off before every shot, otherwise, they are shooting through all that dirt. Of course, they could keep the filter clean, but why not then just keep the lens clean?"

Obviously, if you are shooting near the sea where there's water spray or wind and sand, or shooting a bike race where there could be mud splash, or any other circumstance that could harm the lens coatings or even the glass itself, it's a good practice to put a protective filter in front of the lens. But other than that, which in my case is most of the time, i take Mr. Shaw's advice.

I only use filters for the specific effect provided, which most of the time is a polarizer or ND. Almost never for protection, and never regretted.

 

[ahaslett]

Nature photographer John Shaw, quoted from one of his books:

"Some photographers leave UV or haze filters permanently mounted on their lenses, saying that doing so offers protection for the lenses. I've often wondered what they are protecting against. If it is dirt, moist and fingerprints, then the filter should be taken off before every shot, otherwise, they are shooting through all that dirt. Of course, they could keep the filter clean, but why not then just keep the lens clean?"

Obviously, if you are shooting near the sea where there's water spray or wind and sand, or shooting a bike race where there could be mud splash, or any other circumstance that could harm the lens coatings or even the glass itself, it's a good practice to put a protective filter in front of the lens. But other than that, which in my case is most of the time, i take Mr. Shaw's advice.

I only use filters for the specific effect provided, which most of the time is a polarizer or ND. Almost never for protection, and never regretted.

 

[Skeeterbytes]

Yikes!

On a ride once my front tire got caught in a gap between the bike trail and shoulder, sending me over the bar and down to the pavement. While I didn't smack my noggin on the ground the bike arced around the front axle and smacked me on the back of the (helmetless) head hard enough to bend a seat stay. Don't actually know if a helmet would have stopped that but probably would have at least deflected it.

At least we're around to tell our tales!

Rick

 

[453C]

Nature photographer John Shaw, quoted from one of his books:

"Some photographers leave UV or haze filters permanently mounted on their lenses, saying that doing so offers protection for the lenses. I've often wondered what they are protecting against. If it is dirt, moist and fingerprints, then the filter should be taken off before every shot, otherwise, they are shooting through all that dirt. Of course, they could keep the filter clean, but why not then just keep the lens clean?"

Some filters are easier to clean than a lens, and shed water better, too. The B+W MRC-Nano series comes to mind, but I'm sure there are others. Maybe John wasn't familiar with those coatings when he wrote that book.

Obviously, if you are shooting near the sea where there's water spray or wind and sand, or shooting a bike race where there could be mud splash, or any other circumstance that could harm the lens coatings or even the glass itself, it's a good practice to put a protective filter in front of the lens. But other than that, which in my case is most of the time, i take Mr. Shaw's advice.

And it's good advice. Filters aren't (or don't have to be) permanently installed. I've found Roger Cicala's series of blog posts very helpful for illustrating the whats, whens, & whys of protective filter use.

I only use filters for the specific effect provided, which most of the time is a polarizer or ND. Almost never for protection, and never regretted.

--
Saludos,
Carlos.

 

[Skeeterbytes]

Yep, I don't have any qualms rinsing a filter under a faucet. Lenses, not so much (sealed notwithstanding). They do vary in how easily they shed smears, streaks and debris and I sometimes find it takes lens cleaning fluid to get the coating back to factory-fresh.

Cheers,

Rick

 

[Vetteran]

95 responses in basically two days to a simple question about whether or not to use a filter

Good grief

 

[glassoholic]

Nature photographer John Shaw, quoted from one of his books:

"Some photographers leave UV or haze filters permanently mounted on their lenses, saying that doing so offers protection for the lenses. I've often wondered what they are protecting against. If it is dirt, moist and fingerprints, then the filter should be taken off before every shot, otherwise, they are shooting through all that dirt. Of course, they could keep the filter clean, but why not then just keep the lens clean?"

Some filters are easier to clean than a lens, and shed water better, too. The B+W MRC-Nano series comes to mind, but I'm sure there are others. Maybe John wasn't familiar with those coatings when he wrote that book.

Obviously, if you are shooting near the sea where there's water spray or wind and sand, or shooting a bike race where there could be mud splash, or any other circumstance that could harm the lens coatings or even the glass itself, it's a good practice to put a protective filter in front of the lens. But other than that, which in my case is most of the time, i take Mr. Shaw's advice.

And it's good advice. Filters aren't (or don't have to be) permanently installed. I've found Roger Cicala's series of blog posts very helpful for illustrating the whats, whens, & whys of protective filter use.

I only use filters for the specific effect provided, which most of the time is a polarizer or ND. Almost never for protection, and never regretted.

 

[Wu Jiaqiu]

95 responses in basically two days to a simple question about whether or not to use a filter

Good grief

 

[glassoholic]

95 responses in basically two days to a simple question about whether or not to use a filter

Good grief