Best practice: filter or not?

PSGimages

Senior Member
Messages
2,461
Solutions
3
Reaction score
695
Location
ME, US
Having been practicing photography at some level for 3+ decades, I've always been in the habit of putting a skylight or UV filter on the front of my glass.

However, I recently heard from a pro photographer friend that at some event (and sorry I don't know which), lens manufacturers were basically saying "for DSLRs, it is recommended NOT to use protective filters"

I'm just curious if there are some more definitive articles our discussions on this. Old habits - like using a UV filter to protect the front element - are hard to break.

Regards,
Peter Guyton

--
P. Guyton
http://www.pbase.com/corsairvelo
 
--

phototk - I never use a UV filter. I took the Leica course years ago and they showed how a filter degrades a good lens. Camera stores use the line -" Do you want a filter to protect your lens? "
 
I recently got the new 24-70 2.8 Nikon lens and the shop sold me a slimline UV filter and as I had not heard of the manufacturer I decided to test it, in the UK we have to display a disc in the windscreen of our cars showing we have paid our road tax, I took a shot with and without the filter of the entire car and when I zoomed in I couldn't see any difference in quality, as it rains here rather a lot its easier to dry the filter than the front element.
Do your own tests and then decide.
Regards,
Bruce.
 
A filter can degrade image quality and introduce flare. I used to buy very expensive filters ie Nikon, B+W, Heliopan but I find that I tend to shoot a lot against the light source and my lenses specially zooms flare more when I use filters.

If you are shooting in harsh environments it would be appropriate to use a filter to protect the lens from dirt and water. Otherwise I recommend the use of lens hoods as an alternative.
 
Having been practicing photography at some level for 3+ decades, I've
always been in the habit of putting a skylight or UV filter on the
front of my glass.
There's nothing wrong with using a decent filter on your lens. My way of thinking is keeping it on pretty much all the time. If you are concerned about image degradation you can simply unscrew it for that once in a lifetime money shot or in situations where you know it might be problematic. I'm pretty rough on my gear and opt to protect the front element as much as possible.
 
Studio portrait? Sandstorm? Wedding chapel? Hurricane makes landfall? Peaceful sunrise over the mountain top? Value of a protective filter depends entirely on the circumstances.

The old UV and Skylight filters seem to have passed into history. Nikon now sells a clear glass protective filter. This likely means the benefits of UV and Skylight filters for film are not necessary on DSLRs.

Any filter could degrade image to some degree. This might range from really bad - obvious in a 4x6, to can't see it in a poster size print - need a microscope and computer to show there was any difference. The the "how much" any filter degrades image quality is purely subjective, so you'd need to make test shots with/without the filter yourself to judge if it matters in practice for your use.One person on the internet will tell you they are bad, another will say they see no difference and the peace of mind makes it worthwhile.

Regards,
JB
Having been practicing photography at some level for 3+ decades, I've
always been in the habit of putting a skylight or UV filter on the
front of my glass.

However, I recently heard from a pro photographer friend that at some
event (and sorry I don't know which), lens manufacturers were
basically saying "for DSLRs, it is recommended NOT to use protective
filters"

I'm just curious if there are some more definitive articles our
discussions on this. Old habits - like using a UV filter to protect
the front element - are hard to break.

Regards,
Peter Guyton

--
P. Guyton
http://www.pbase.com/corsairvelo
 
I've also read that the AA filter is so reflective that some light reflects back through the lens, and is re-reflected by the flat, rear surface of the filter into the lens. Hence the argument not to use filters.

Personally, I'd rather that happen than scratching or otherwise marring the surface of the primary optics.

The source further notes that is why Nikon has modified optics to apply a special coating to the rear surface of lenses as well as build in a slight curvature.
 
if you are anal about you optics, that means you probably keep your front element pristine...that means constant dusting and cleaning and polishing...

over time even the best of cleaning technique can abrade the coating...

whereas with the filter on, you can use your shirt tail and feel ok about it..
 
Try it both ways and decide for yourself. ANYTHING in front of the lens will change and slightly degrade the image. A flat front surface is especially prone to a high degree of flare at the right angle. I only use a protective filter when on a boat or similar situations where salt water or sand spray is expected. The front elements of my lenses are easily cleaned with no ill effect. My old Rolleiflex from around 1968 looks great after thousands of cleanings. BUT the choice is yours.
 
I've also read that the AA filter is so reflective that some light
reflects back through the lens, and is re-reflected by the flat, rear
surface of the filter into the lens.
yes
Personally, I'd rather that happen than scratching or otherwise
marring the surface of the primary optics.
maybe. depends on how valuable that capture you just missed is. i hear this comment often from hobbyists but not often from working non-studio pros. keep your lens hood in place and the protective benefits of a filter are largely eliminated

...dav

--
don't wait for technology -- it won't wait for you
 
Thanks all. Good discussion and appreciate your comments. What am I going to do? Well, I think I'll think about using my lens hood, without a filter as appropriate (e.g. on dry days) but will leave the filter on when the weather or circumstances dictate caution to protect the glass. if I get the opportunity, I'll try to do some tests (filter vs no filter) worth sharing.

Regards,
PG

--
P. Guyton
http://www.pbase.com/corsairvelo
 
Having been practicing photography at some level for 3+ decades, I've
always been in the habit of putting a skylight or UV filter on the
front of my glass.

However, I recently heard from a pro photographer friend that at some
event (and sorry I don't know which), lens manufacturers were
basically saying "for DSLRs, it is recommended NOT to use protective
filters"

I'm just curious if there are some more definitive articles our
discussions on this. Old habits - like using a UV filter to protect
the front element - are hard to break.

Regards,
Peter Guyton

--
P. Guyton
http://www.pbase.com/corsairvelo
Just my opinion, but why would I want to place a $10, $20, or even a $100 filter in front of a $1,500-$4,000 lens? I never use and filter, other than my circ.-pol., and I alway use my lens hood.
--
http://www.pbase.com/Troye413
http://www.troyemoorephotography.com
 
Just my opinion, but why would I want to place a $10, $20, or even a
$100 filter in front of a $1,500-$4,000 lens? I never use and filter,
other than my circ.-pol., and I alway use my lens hood.
My 500/4 Nikkor came with a factory installed protective glass/filter. Should I remove it?
 
Just my opinion, but why would I want to place a $10, $20, or even a
$100 filter in front of a $1,500-$4,000 lens? I never use and filter,
other than my circ.-pol., and I alway use my lens hood.
My 500/4 Nikkor came with a factory installed protective
glass/filter. Should I remove it?
What you never removed that filter at all? Oh my God you must have very degraded photos with lots of flare!
 

Keyboard shortcuts

Back
Top