Filter or No Filter???

Started Feb 13, 2013 | Discussions thread
CqCasting New Member • Posts: 8
Re: Filter or No Filter???

Rickj23 wrote:

Nigel Wilkins wrote:

Alberto Tanikawa wrote:

This has been going on for ages, and the people that say filters are useless will never change their minds, and vice versa. I use them. I've broken four or five in over a decade of shooting weddings, engagements, and miscellaneous events. My lenses need the protection from flying sand, sea spray, vodka/whiskey/beer spray, getting too close to someone doing break dance, the corner of a marble kitchen counter, flying rocks off cars doing donuts or drifting around corners. It's so easy to clean a filter, and it's really cheap insurance: compare $40 to $300 + tax + 7-10 days (or more) to get an expensive lens fixed. No one can tell me otherwise because it's my equipment on the line, not theirs. And the image degradation is so miniscule as to be a non issue. It's your equipment, treat it however you desire.

-- hide signature --

Alberto T.

Same as anything photographic...if it suits you & your methods, carry on. However, many people do these things without giving it much thought. It's good to hear both sides so they can make their own mind up either way.

The UV filters were necessary to use "in daylight" with film cameras ... as the UV light affected the silver halide. Digital sensors are not affected by the UV light ... and if anything, the UV filter makes the pictures look washed out, specially in early morning haze. I have never used the UV filters at night with film anyway, because of reflections ... but with digital sensor, the UV filter will confuse the TTL metering and autofocus as well as add the ghosting etc.

In addition, if you drop the camera square on the lens, the filter will break and it is likely to damage the front element more, than if you just had the lens cap and the lens hood on. I generally use only infrared and circular polariser as screw on filter. For any special effects I use the Cokin P filter system. If you worry about the lens damage or dust, use the lens cap and get the all risk insurance for your equipment ... that usually covers you for £2500.00 [or $3500.00 per item] and can be added to you house content insurance policy. I have whole load of kit and in the period of 45 years I have ever dropped one of my Nikons on the lens once from the 2 feet height [with the lens hood and filter on] and the camera bounced off on the prism. The Nikon in Richmond replaced the F4 prism and had to replace the front barrel section of the lens because the filter embedded itself into barrel ... The hood cracked and fell of. The point I am making is that, as it was, Nikon service has repaired the lens and it gives me the intermittent problems ever since. If I haven't had filter and hood on the lens, the Insurance co. would have paid for the new lens !

I was about to ask on a new post about the use of UV filters on digital cameras. I think the hardest part in asking questions is knowing what to ask. Thanks to you Rickj23 your answer addressed the effects on Digital cameras and their sensor capabilities.

When it comes to damages, I tripped and the telephoto lens broke off at the mounting ring. My wide angle fell apart from daily use, never did work quite right after I got it back from the shop. Finnaly got rid of my screw-on camera and gear.

Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow