Reading mode: Light Dark

Is it crazy to not use a protective filter on my L lenses?

Go to last post
I never put a $40.00 piece of glass over a $1500.00 piece of glass.

If I have to be it shooting film and need to warm or correct I use on Multicoated Hoya or any of the other few high end filter makers, Hoya makes optical lenses for eye glasses and other things . They also make slim Polarizing filters for wide lenses.
So My rule is if you have to do it, only buy the best.
 
I use both a high-quality UV-filter and a lens hood.

If you'd really feel safer with the filter, but have doubts about the effects on shots, then take some test shots in a controlled environment both with and without the filters, then see if you can spot any differences.

Flare would seem to be the most probable problem one might encounter by using a high-quality UV-filter, but high-quality filters shoud minimize those concerns.--The Unofficial Photographer of The Wilkinsons http://thewilkinsons.crosswinds.net
 
tsp east said:
How many of you out there don't use any protective filters on your
expensive lenses?
Click to expand...
Expensive lenses? All lenses are expensive!

I used to think spending the money for "protective" filters was hooey until I went to the woods a couple weeks ago. It seemed like every tiny insignificant branch in the woods was reaching for my front element... and I was using a hood! No damage occured, but the filter would have given me piece of mind. I'm gonna order Hoya HMC UV filters before I go out again.

Hoods might protect from impact, but filters will protect from small objects getting to the front element.

JCDoss
 
While I can understand why the purists out there advocate using lenses without filters, the final image prints, IMHO, don't show any evidence of an installed high quality UV filter (I use Hoya Pro I's). So, what's the difference? IMHO, the only difference is that the purist without the protective filter runs the risk of scratching his/her lens. If you find that risk tolerable, go for it. You'll be pure as the wind (not that anybody'd notice). Otherwise, use a protective filter on every lens you own. It certainly saved me from losing an expensive zoom lens several years ago when I dropped it about 4 feet onto asphalt pavement. The filter was ruined and shattered but the lens was left in pristine condition. YMMV.

Mike Flaherty
tsp east said:
How many of you out there don't use any protective filters on your
expensive lenses?

I find it hard to bring myself to put anything between the lens and
the world. All I put on is a hood.

And I feel pretty good about it until people start gasping at my
unprotected $$$$ lenses and start making me feel paranoid...

So I'm curious how many of you guys don't use a filter? It's
probably a minority I would imagine, but how small a minority I
wonder?
Click to expand...
--Mike Flaherty
 
When I buy any lens I buy the appropriate filter and it never comes off. Never had a flare problem (I didn't want) neither should you if you use the correct hood. With a protective filter I am not worrying about the lens element all the time and I can just act freely to enjoy taking the pictures.--Neil http://www.neilbuchangrant.co.uk
 
Lee Rothman said:
For me it's like putting my shoes on before I go outside. LOL. I
RATHER doubt that a diamond cut piece of Schott (Zeiss) glass with
6 coatings on each side (one on each being a scratch resistant
coating) is going to optically ruin or deleteriously effect the
outcome of a picture being taken with one of my L or other lenses.
I would ONLY speak of those that use this superb high quality
glass. If it's good enough for Zeiss lenses, it's good enought to
use as a filter on my L glass. :-) I am just NOT one to throw
caution to the wind and would prefer to err on the side of
protection.
Click to expand...
Lee, where do you get those? What are they called? and are they better than the heliopan or some other "double-dipped tripple something or others"?
thanks.
Bob
 
tsp east said:
How many of you out there don't use any protective filters on your
expensive lenses?

I find it hard to bring myself to put anything between the lens and
the world. All I put on is a hood.

And I feel pretty good about it until people start gasping at my
unprotected $$$$ lenses and start making me feel paranoid...

So I'm curious how many of you guys don't use a filter? It's
probably a minority I would imagine, but how small a minority I
wonder?
Click to expand...
 
Is it crazy to not use a protective filter on my L lenses?

Its not just crazy its positively insane!
 
.

I agree, you do the math. "L" series lens $1,000-$2,000 or LBS. Vs a UV filter for $30/20 pounds. And all those posters that say UV filters distort their photos, please show me examples!--Jeff Morris
 
The big problem is not "distortion" but flare/light bouncing. Basically some of the light goes through the filter, then reflects off the front element to the back side of the filter and then back through the lens. You then get a secondary ghost. This type of "flare" (flare defined as unwanted secondary reflections of light) comes from light IN the field of view and can't be controlled by a hood. The effect is most pronounce if there are some bright and dark areas of what is being shot (the light areas end up ghosting in the dark areas).

More expensive Multicoated Filters (with anti-reflective coatings ala B&W or Hoya Super Multicoat) can greatly help. Cheaper filters can create a lot of problems. The big problem is that you may not notice the ghosting in the viewfinder.

Karl
Jeff Morris said:
.
I agree, you do the math. "L" series lens $1,000-$2,000 or LBS. Vs
a UV filter for $30/20 pounds. And all those posters that say UV
filters distort their photos, please show me examples!
--
Jeff Morris
Click to expand...
--Karl
 
The picture below is and example of flare caused by a cheap UV filter:

http://www.fototime.com/ {9C8CC287-CD39-444E-8B20-FDEF8D877226} picture.JPG
Karlg said:
More expensive Multicoated Filters (with anti-reflective coatings
ala B&W or Hoya Super Multicoat) can greatly help. Cheaper filters
can create a lot of problems. The big problem is that you may not
notice the ghosting in the viewfinder.

Karl
Jeff Morris said:
.
I agree, you do the math. "L" series lens $1,000-$2,000 or LBS. Vs
a UV filter for $30/20 pounds. And all those posters that say UV
filters distort their photos, please show me examples!
--
Jeff Morris
Click to expand...
--
Karl
Click to expand...
--Karl
 
LYS said:
So I'm curious how many of you guys don't use a filter? It's
probably a minority I would imagine, but how small a minority I
wonder?
Click to expand...
I usually do, except for an old Nikon 700 carry along digital that doesn't have a good lens cap.

I hate the lens caps on the Canon lenses. They are just terrible to get off. Is there anyone who makes a set of push on lens caps that I could get for my lenses. I have the 50 1.4 and the 24-85 3.5, 4.5. lenses. --Dave Lewis
 
Was it non-multi-coated? (And on what lens).

I'm sure none of us have a set of different UV filters around (same filter size) to try out one day. But that'd be an interesting experiment. Find a shot that causes flare (yea! for instant review on the LCD), then swap in a bunch of filters and see if any eliminate it or not.
Karlg said:
The picture below is and example of flare caused by a cheap UV filter:
Click to expand...
--The Unofficial Photographer of The Wilkinsons http://thewilkinsons.crosswinds.net
 
arem said:
I agree with the above. I've been shooting for over 35 years and
haven't used a protective filter in over 30 years now, without any
misshaps. Lenses were not designed to have an extra element added
to their design. Filters can only add flare and added distortions.
Click to expand...
 
The agree with Fred list goes on.

I was told to add a UV filter on the lens for protection. But then I have big flare problem when I use a UV filter on the 50 f/1.4 (with hood)

PS: Sorry for the previous empty message.
 
I convinced Delta International to start carrying them now. They now carry the B+W MRC (MultiResistantCoated) UV series of filters in the 77mm and 58mm sizes. The 77's are only $65 which is still better than B&H for now. Enjoy......
Robert Burkhalter said:
Lee Rothman said:
For me it's like putting my shoes on before I go outside. LOL. I
RATHER doubt that a diamond cut piece of Schott (Zeiss) glass with
6 coatings on each side (one on each being a scratch resistant
coating) is going to optically ruin or deleteriously effect the
outcome of a picture being taken with one of my L or other lenses.
I would ONLY speak of those that use this superb high quality
glass. If it's good enough for Zeiss lenses, it's good enought to
use as a filter on my L glass. :-) I am just NOT one to throw
caution to the wind and would prefer to err on the side of
protection.
Click to expand...
Lee, where do you get those? What are they called? and are they
better than the heliopan or some other "double-dipped tripple
something or others"?
thanks.
Bob
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top