-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Why "protective" filters are a bad idea:
- Thread starter Steve H
- Start date
thebardteacher
Forum Enthusiast
Fellow photographers,
I teach as well as work as a photojournalist for a daily paper. This last year my camera and lenses have been subjected to ocean spray (fishing story), bull saliva (rodeo), human sweat (medieval sword fighting reenactment), blowing sand (various beach assignments), snow and rain, etc. While I agree in principle that protective filters aren't necessary, what I tell my journalism and photography students is that it is better to start with them on then take them off as necessary or desired.
Of course, every photojournalist has his or her stories, but protective filters have saved expensive lenses for me twice. For example, once when I picked up my (unwittingly open) backpack from the bed of my pickup and my camera with my 70-200 f2.8L lens on it fell from about four feet and landed lens first onto the bed of the pickup. It didn't have its hood on (too long for the backpack). The lens cap was smashed, the filter element was broken, but the lens came out perfect. Had I not used the filter it would have meant a $500 fix, plus the loss of my lens for a month.
As a teacher I loan my cameras and lenses to students quite a bit too, so I keep filters on them just in case. I've had student take low angle shots on the football field and the lens comes back all mud spattered, but the UV filter protected the front element.
That said, if I'm making critical shots that will be used as artwork, portraits, macro, etc., I simply unscrew the filter and take the shots. To me, it is a no-brainer. Protective filters are good, simply because they work if you are an active photographer. Most photographers, amateurs and weekend shooters, don't get out in the elements enough to need protective filters, but if you do, they are useful. You can always take a filter off when its not needed, but you cannot unscratch a lens. All I know is that when I picked up my 70-200 and unscrewed the broken (but precious) filter I sighed in relief and gratitude for having put one on the lens in the first place.
Ciao!
--
'Imagination is more important than knowledge.' Einstein
I teach as well as work as a photojournalist for a daily paper. This last year my camera and lenses have been subjected to ocean spray (fishing story), bull saliva (rodeo), human sweat (medieval sword fighting reenactment), blowing sand (various beach assignments), snow and rain, etc. While I agree in principle that protective filters aren't necessary, what I tell my journalism and photography students is that it is better to start with them on then take them off as necessary or desired.
Of course, every photojournalist has his or her stories, but protective filters have saved expensive lenses for me twice. For example, once when I picked up my (unwittingly open) backpack from the bed of my pickup and my camera with my 70-200 f2.8L lens on it fell from about four feet and landed lens first onto the bed of the pickup. It didn't have its hood on (too long for the backpack). The lens cap was smashed, the filter element was broken, but the lens came out perfect. Had I not used the filter it would have meant a $500 fix, plus the loss of my lens for a month.
As a teacher I loan my cameras and lenses to students quite a bit too, so I keep filters on them just in case. I've had student take low angle shots on the football field and the lens comes back all mud spattered, but the UV filter protected the front element.
That said, if I'm making critical shots that will be used as artwork, portraits, macro, etc., I simply unscrew the filter and take the shots. To me, it is a no-brainer. Protective filters are good, simply because they work if you are an active photographer. Most photographers, amateurs and weekend shooters, don't get out in the elements enough to need protective filters, but if you do, they are useful. You can always take a filter off when its not needed, but you cannot unscratch a lens. All I know is that when I picked up my 70-200 and unscrewed the broken (but precious) filter I sighed in relief and gratitude for having put one on the lens in the first place.
Ciao!
--
'Imagination is more important than knowledge.' Einstein
M
MarkJH
Guest
This debate's attempt to cover a huge variety of photographic situations with a single solution ("No Protection/UV Filter, EVAR!" or "ALWAYS!") often trumps its usefulness.
That said, perhaps a better question is something like this: what's the most useful "default" setup--i.e., what's on your lenses when you put them in your bag and head off to a job, recognizing, of course, that you'll adjust as conditions and artistic goals develop? Also, if we're talking about reducing flare and CA, maximizing contrast and focus performance, and front-element protection as the real ends of any lens accessorization, then really this conversation includes lens hoods as well.
Obviously I want the best possible image quality for my clients. But I also recognize that "best possible image quality" often has more to do with acquisition workflow and your response to opportunity cost than it does with having that "perfect," ideal, according-to-hoyle lens filter-hood-cap etc. combination.
In other words: if you have to reverse a lens hood to fit a lens in your bag, then you'll be fumbling to get it on right when you mount the lens, and you'll therefore probably either miss that critical shot or drag a fun shoot's energy while you're twisting-and-reversing. Lens caps are the same way: if you're fumbling with a cap, you're going to miss a shot.
Long-and-short is that I've found, through many happy paying clients and plenty of comparison experience:
(a) Hoods and caps provide worthwhile protection for your gear, but can also often GET IN THE WAY of critical shot opportunities and session rhythm / energy. Clients expect you to be able to mount a lens and GO--every second you fart around with hoods or caps equates to opportunity, energy, and good will lost. As a photographer, you need to be patient with your clientelle--if they ever have to be patient with you, you're sunk!
(b) Front lens elements need protection if you use your gear day in, day out, professionally--especially if you recognize rule (a) and eschew inconvenient caps and hoods. I use bags with microfiber interiors (Boda and Crumpler) and I'm quite careful with my gear, but I also recognize that interesting pictures come from shooting at interesting angles, in interesting places. That means dirty front elements, and if you're cleaning them every day (or a few times every day), you'll be wearing those critical coatings down in no time. A high quality UV / Protection filter therefore makes for an easy way to extend your lens life.
(c) For all the talk, I have never seen a valid, professional comparison shot that shows image degradation or unpleasant flare augmentation from the addition of a high quality UV / Protection filter. I've seen plenty of shots showing the dangers of cheap filters, but these threads never seem to show comparison shots with something like a B+W MRC 010. For the record, and again, for all the talk, I've also never seen a valid, professional comparison shot that demonstrates a still photographic lens hood cutting flare. (I've seen plenty of comparison shots showing photographers effectively cutting flare with their hands.) People often cite this article ( http://toothwalker.org/optics/lenshood.html ) as "proof" that hoods make important image quality contributions, but they don't read it carefully enough to realize it says and shows nothing of the kind. (It does show that hood shape needs to be carefully considered to avoid vignetting.)
Different things work for different people, but when I go out on assignment, my "default" setup has my 70-200 f/2.8, 50 f/1.4, and 16-35 f/4 in my Boda wearing B+W MRC 010s, no caps, and no hoods. Getting great shoots means having the right gear at the right time!
Cheers!
M.
That said, perhaps a better question is something like this: what's the most useful "default" setup--i.e., what's on your lenses when you put them in your bag and head off to a job, recognizing, of course, that you'll adjust as conditions and artistic goals develop? Also, if we're talking about reducing flare and CA, maximizing contrast and focus performance, and front-element protection as the real ends of any lens accessorization, then really this conversation includes lens hoods as well.
Obviously I want the best possible image quality for my clients. But I also recognize that "best possible image quality" often has more to do with acquisition workflow and your response to opportunity cost than it does with having that "perfect," ideal, according-to-hoyle lens filter-hood-cap etc. combination.
In other words: if you have to reverse a lens hood to fit a lens in your bag, then you'll be fumbling to get it on right when you mount the lens, and you'll therefore probably either miss that critical shot or drag a fun shoot's energy while you're twisting-and-reversing. Lens caps are the same way: if you're fumbling with a cap, you're going to miss a shot.
Long-and-short is that I've found, through many happy paying clients and plenty of comparison experience:
(a) Hoods and caps provide worthwhile protection for your gear, but can also often GET IN THE WAY of critical shot opportunities and session rhythm / energy. Clients expect you to be able to mount a lens and GO--every second you fart around with hoods or caps equates to opportunity, energy, and good will lost. As a photographer, you need to be patient with your clientelle--if they ever have to be patient with you, you're sunk!
(b) Front lens elements need protection if you use your gear day in, day out, professionally--especially if you recognize rule (a) and eschew inconvenient caps and hoods. I use bags with microfiber interiors (Boda and Crumpler) and I'm quite careful with my gear, but I also recognize that interesting pictures come from shooting at interesting angles, in interesting places. That means dirty front elements, and if you're cleaning them every day (or a few times every day), you'll be wearing those critical coatings down in no time. A high quality UV / Protection filter therefore makes for an easy way to extend your lens life.
(c) For all the talk, I have never seen a valid, professional comparison shot that shows image degradation or unpleasant flare augmentation from the addition of a high quality UV / Protection filter. I've seen plenty of shots showing the dangers of cheap filters, but these threads never seem to show comparison shots with something like a B+W MRC 010. For the record, and again, for all the talk, I've also never seen a valid, professional comparison shot that demonstrates a still photographic lens hood cutting flare. (I've seen plenty of comparison shots showing photographers effectively cutting flare with their hands.) People often cite this article ( http://toothwalker.org/optics/lenshood.html ) as "proof" that hoods make important image quality contributions, but they don't read it carefully enough to realize it says and shows nothing of the kind. (It does show that hood shape needs to be carefully considered to avoid vignetting.)
Different things work for different people, but when I go out on assignment, my "default" setup has my 70-200 f/2.8, 50 f/1.4, and 16-35 f/4 in my Boda wearing B+W MRC 010s, no caps, and no hoods. Getting great shoots means having the right gear at the right time!
Cheers!
M.
JulesJ
Forum Pro
I just speak from experience Steve. it's not an argument! 
Jules
Julesarnia on twitter
Jules
--I guess it's possible but I didn't think a greasy finger could damage a front element. I guess the next most likely scenario is that the whole camera/lens/tripod assembly goes over, probably lens first, in which case the smashed filter really will make a mess of the front element. I assume that with all the poking and flying hazards capable of damaging a front element you wear eye protection on the job?
But to each his own....
--
Steve H
Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too? - Douglas Adams
Julesarnia on twitter
JulesJ
Forum Pro
Yes Chuxter, a cheap filter is not worth using. Hoya are good.
Jules
Julesarnia on twitter
Jules
--
Julesarnia on twitter
JulesJ
Forum Pro
Some interesting points bard, also having a good filter means you don't have to always put the lens cap back on which can be a bore between frequent shots. When I'm out and about shooting, the lens cap is usually in my pocket.
jules
Julesarnia on twitter
jules
--
Julesarnia on twitter
TechOutsider
Senior Member
I find it intriguing that none made any comment about the samples I posted concerning flare and UV filters :O.
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/techoutsider
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/techoutsider
cheezit
Forum Enthusiast
Bard and MarkH: Well said.
As for me I'll keep my filter on and remove it when the situation calls for it.
Cheers, people!
As for me I'll keep my filter on and remove it when the situation calls for it.
Cheers, people!
F
f8BeThereToo
Guest
It gave me a good laugh to see the various image samples showing no difference in flaring between filtered and unfiltered lenses, which is exactly what I have experienced. (I have been known to remove a filter from time to time to check the difference in tricky light...)
If truth be told, I try to avoid flare at all cost. I don't like it and I don't think that it adds anything to an image. If I think that I will be shooting with point light sources in the frame I use lenses that have minimal flare to begin with, staying away from zooms being my first rule.
I remember reading that article extolling the Hoya filters. When I started out I used Hoya MC filters because they were relatively inexpensive: around $10 if memory serves me. Cheap filters went for less than $5. The Hoyas did a fine job... The scuttlebutt in those days was that Hoya manufactured Nikon filters, but I never found any evidence to convince me that it was true...
When I started making some money I switched to Nikon filters and later to B&W, but I eventually went back to Nikon. The Nikon MC filters were much less expensive than comparable B&W and I could not see a difference between them. I also prefer the thinner mounts on the Nikon filters.
Unfortunately it appears that Nikon is pretty much done with Skylight filters, so I may be returning to Hoya sometime in the future...
If truth be told, I try to avoid flare at all cost. I don't like it and I don't think that it adds anything to an image. If I think that I will be shooting with point light sources in the frame I use lenses that have minimal flare to begin with, staying away from zooms being my first rule.
I remember reading that article extolling the Hoya filters. When I started out I used Hoya MC filters because they were relatively inexpensive: around $10 if memory serves me. Cheap filters went for less than $5. The Hoyas did a fine job... The scuttlebutt in those days was that Hoya manufactured Nikon filters, but I never found any evidence to convince me that it was true...
When I started making some money I switched to Nikon filters and later to B&W, but I eventually went back to Nikon. The Nikon MC filters were much less expensive than comparable B&W and I could not see a difference between them. I also prefer the thinner mounts on the Nikon filters.
Unfortunately it appears that Nikon is pretty much done with Skylight filters, so I may be returning to Hoya sometime in the future...
AnandaSim
Forum Pro
Yes. And I think such threads are NOT about objectivity or clarity. People who argue incessantly are otherwise intelligent, normal people. Often they are not even arguing over the same point or with the same emphasis on the the point. They just want to argue.
Or Olympus. Charlie (Chuxter) says that I like Olympus colours and they are not what he likes. And that is true. There is no absolute or better and it is not meant to be.
The point of filters is that people have a modus operandi and they encourage other people to have it to. Same as the fans of a brand of camera.
And that was necessary in film. Although in film even with normal man-in-the-street priced lenses, I never saw fringing of any kind except on those el cheapo Diana type cameras.
Now you can go scour the web and its numerous fora and find dozens of people claiming a UV filter reduced purple fringing on their lens
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=uv+filter+purple+fringing
- Some of the top hits talk about film days. Be careful about using that statistic to include digital complaints. I just put a roll of film into a film camera. I took off the UV filter and then realised it was film and put it back on. But then, the filter does not help when I am shooting indoors....
- Classic notions of CA are that it is a visible light and glass phenomena. We have green and reds usually. So some people, when you mention CA only focus on these aspects.
- Fringing due to UV is something that many people don't call CA. They call fringing
- Fringing due to lens and sensor interactions (allegedly the Fuji cams with their special sensors) is a new digital thing which again old timers don't think of as CA.
Ananda
http://anandasim.blogspot.com
https://sites.google.com/site/asphotokb
'There are a whole range of greys and colours - from
the photographer who shoots everything in iA / green
AUTO to the one who shoots Manual Everything. There
is no right or wrong - there are just instances of
individuality and individual choice.'
Steve H
Senior Member
All good reasons to fit a protective filter - as I would in the same conditions.
This is where we start to differ. You leave yours on at the end of each of these assignments, I take mine off because they're no longer needed and could cause other problems.
Ironically, this is exactly the example I used of a case where a "protective" filter doesn't protect a lens - the shards of broken filter glass are likely to be sandwiched between the cap and the front element and do more damage than the cap alone ever could. It's interesting that examples of this usually surface every time this debate comes up.
Secondly, there is an assumption (I think a specious one) that the filter "saved" the lens. Why? If the lens survived a drop with the filter attached, why would it not survive the same drop without one? "Smashed filter" does not equal "saved lens". In a similar vein, if you were going to be in a car accident, would you prefer to be protected by an airbag, or a sheet of thin glass then an airbag?
Good idea - I'd do the same.
Equally, often you can't re-shoot a photo ruined by flare, ghost reflections, compromised focus etc. My argument would be that you can easily identify the conditions under which a filter is a good idea but you can't so easily identify the conditions under which it will compromise IQ. There are links in this thread where hundreds of shots using an L-series lens have been ruined by a "quality" filter (the Bigma/100-400L thread, for example)
You probably felt pretty pleased, but not for the right reasons
Having said all that, to each his own. You've obviously given the issue some careful, reasoned thought and come to a position which is right for you. No problem for anyone else, obviously.
My major concern is those beginners who have not thought it through because they've only heard one side of the story - the dire consequences of not buying this U-Bute protective filter and fitting it to your new lens. If just a handlful of beginners think this issue through before going shopping so they can make an informed choice when the salesman says "and you want a protective filter with that, don't you", I'll be happy
--
Steve H
Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too? - Douglas Adams
Yes, I've never seen any image degradation with the one UV filter I put on my telephoto lens. I've taken over 35,000 photos with that lens and UV filter too. I remember I paid a lot of money for it at a camera store. Later I found out from people here, that having a quality UV filter makes all the difference, so hopefully I paid more for something that was quality...it appears to be the case.
I've also yet to see a valid comparison either between pictures taken with a high quality UV filter and pictures without the filter, so that they would show image degradation. Is there a comparison we could see?
I've also yet to see a valid comparison either between pictures taken with a high quality UV filter and pictures without the filter, so that they would show image degradation. Is there a comparison we could see?
I didn't say that I didn't like Oly colors. I like all the colors that modern dSLRs produce. Some of the P&S variety are too vivid for my taste, but it isn't only Oly!
Some dSLRs are a tiny bit better than others, but as you say, this is a subjective judgement that everyone makes. BUT, saying that some are better doesn't translate to some are bad... :-0
--
Charlie Davis
Nikon 5700, Sony R1, Nikon D50, Nikon D300
HomePage: http://www.1derful.info
"Quantum Mechanics: The dreams that stuff is made of..."
AnandaSim
Forum Pro
Thanks for clarifying. In a later post I say "BEST". But you and I understand each other well at this stage.
--
Ananda
http://anandasim.blogspot.com
https://sites.google.com/site/asphotokb
'There are a whole range of greys and colours - from
the photographer who shoots everything in iA / green
AUTO to the one who shoots Manual Everything. There
is no right or wrong - there are just instances of
individuality and individual choice.'
Vitantonio Dell'Orto
Active member
They aren't.
32 years now using them on each and every lens, not a single problem, any kind of test made for optical flaws and quality decrease without finding any difference; on the other hand, some expensive lenses saved from a sad faith. As a nature photographer I'm often in the mud, sand, snow, rain etc.
--
Regards
Vitantonio Dell'Orto
http://www.exuviaphoto.com
32 years now using them on each and every lens, not a single problem, any kind of test made for optical flaws and quality decrease without finding any difference; on the other hand, some expensive lenses saved from a sad faith. As a nature photographer I'm often in the mud, sand, snow, rain etc.
--
Regards
Vitantonio Dell'Orto
http://www.exuviaphoto.com
René Schuster
Forum Pro
I agree, Digi, no valid comparison so far. It´s either comparisons showing the negative effect of very low quality UV flters or it´s about showing pictures taken with UV filters in situations when nobody with a little brain would use one.
But even if there were valid comparisons, no matter what the results were, I will go on using my B+W MRC UV or Clear, as I always prefer cleaning a filter and not the front element of a lens! Even more so if it is about the not so perfect coatings of some of my old manual lenses!
Seen it too often on ebay when looking at a great old lens, that the seller had to admit there are cleaning marks on the front or rear element. I always prefer those sellers that can say that from day one there was a filter on the lens, no matter which one as I am not going to use that one if I will buy this lens!
René
M
Mark B.
Guest
Long story short, I dropped a camera with 80-400 zoom mounted. Fell lens first - the hood took the impact; didn't break, just took a chip out of one of the bayonet mounting slots. It still mounted however, and there was no harm done to either the lens or camera. Filter would have done absolutely nothing.
BTW, here's a good example of how a filter can adversely affect IQ - focus in this case:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1029&message=37282139
BTW, here's a good example of how a filter can adversely affect IQ - focus in this case:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1029&message=37282139
While I totally agree that using bad protective filters on better lenses is a bad idea, your overall meaning is nonsense. Good for you that you have good experience with not using filters, but I think you exaggerate almost everything "bad" about the filters. I work in the biggest camera store in my country, and we deal daily with a lot of people who have something for repair. I think I can share a better "experience", because it's not my own experience but of thousands of people.
And of course, anything that you put in your optical path will degrade IQ theoratically, but you will never notice it in real life. I've literally never had anybody that said "now that I'm using a filter my IQ dropped". Never!
I agree about the harsh conditions, and that you could easily do without a filter. But if you have a filter, and it doesn't affect IQ, why not leave it 24/7 on? There are lots of people who don't want to bother put them on and off. Moreover, most of the "accidents" happen in normal environment (I guess because that's where 98% of the people shoot 99% of their shots, and that they are less cautious than in "difficult environment").
What you talk about here, is right if you use a $20 filter on a $2000 lens. But if you use an appropriate filter for a lens, you could get a little more flare at the max, depending on the angle like you said. But that is very very uncommon.
And of course, anything that you put in your optical path will degrade IQ theoratically, but you will never notice it in real life. I've literally never had anybody that said "now that I'm using a filter my IQ dropped". Never!
I think your eye-analogy is pretty stupid. You take your eyes on and off, put them in bags, swing them around between plants/people/rocks/etc., put them on a table, etc.?
I agree about the harsh conditions, and that you could easily do without a filter. But if you have a filter, and it doesn't affect IQ, why not leave it 24/7 on? There are lots of people who don't want to bother put them on and off. Moreover, most of the "accidents" happen in normal environment (I guess because that's where 98% of the people shoot 99% of their shots, and that they are less cautious than in "difficult environment").
I agree that in few cases (depending on the cap and filter) fitting a lens cap can be a little bit less convenient than before.
Your damage scenario is worthless though. If a lens falls on the cap, the only solid contact of the cap with the filter are the edges (which are made from metal on non-crappy filters). Simple physics say that the "arm"there is 0, so that's the most difficult part to break. If the cap can break the filter's glass in the middle, than it could also break the lens' glass if there was no filter. I'd rather have my filter broken and have the filter's glass floating between my lens and cap, than having my lens broken. If you are suggesting that the cap could break two layers of glass, well, than the cap must break too in order to go that deep. And then it is a question between having a filter and the front element broken, or more elements on the lens.
But also this is worthless, because I've never seen a broken cap. Or that a cap would break a filter or lens. So when you have a lens cap on, it doesn't matter much if you have a filter fitted or not. But if you don't have a cap on, a filter could save a lens when falling. I think I get one person a month who has a completely broken filter but with the lens intact.
But a filter is no 100% protection from falling of course, it's mostly about scratches.
Also exaggerated I think. "Significantly improve" is way to much exaggerated. I think "help save the degradation IQ in some difficult light environments" is a better description. But with lots of sun, spot-lights, etc. a hood is a must-have. And it's good to have one anyway, but "significanly improve" is nonsense for 95% of the shots an average person takes.
I agree that they can protect the lens very well! But that depends on the design. A wide-angle lens hood won't do much for example.
But "filters transmit the full force of the impact" is nonsense. Unless you have a custom filter molded over your front element, filters don't make contact with the front element. So the glass of the filter will break first, so it absorbs a percentage of the impact. And you'd rather have your front element broken than have your filter broken whose broken glass could make some scratches on your non-broken front element?
By the way, in some rare cases the front element is buldged and it can hit the filter (depending on the zoom/focus distance). It depends on the filter though, so check this out before buying a filter on such a lens.
As I stated before, they do make sense, and they absolutely won't damage your lens. That they damage your lens is your most stupid statement. Insurance is also a very good idea though.
Your advice is your advice, your experience is your experience.
My advice is that if you want to protect your front element from scratches, don't hesitate to buy a filter. If you have good lens, buy a good filter. If your lens is not that good, you can settle with a cheaper filter. The only cases that I personally think a filter is less important is on very cheap lenses (why spend $20 on a filter for a $70-lens for instance) or on lenses whose front element is deep inside the housing (mostly (macro) primes).
And this is very personal, exactly like paying for extended guarantee or extra insurance. There are some people who don't like risks, others are willing to risk. Very simply said, it's a question between the little chance that something happens and you're glad you spend little money on protection/insurance (and if nothing happens you've "lost" that little money); and the higher chance that nothing happens and you're glad you didn't spend extra money (and if something does happen you'll have to spend a lot of money on repair).
Personally, I do recommend a filter on most cases. 80% of the used lenses we sell whose owners didn't use a filter a scratched, non of the filter-users is scratched.
So bottom line is, if you want protection, get protecction. Just get a good filter for your good lenses, otherwise Steve is right about degradation in IQ.
M
Mark B.
Guest
Ok, I think we can stop here. So you're not at all biased in favor of filters because you benefit from filter sales?
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum