Should you use a UV, clear, or haze filter on your camera lens, or is it just an unnecessary nuisance that may degrade the quality of your photos?
Good video and worth watching. It is what I have done for years.
While it sounds like a well reasoned discussion, the logic expressed in the video has some flaws, and some serious bias.
First of all, it implies that the issue against filters is a bunch of vocal people who have a strong bias against adding extra glass to the optical path. Essentially painting them as religious who take the position that if god (or the lens designer) had wanted that piece of glass there, then he would have put it there.
This is clearly not the case. As has been pointed out, there actually can be image quality issues when using filters. In fact the video does admit this when he points out that any time you really do need to get a good image you should remove the filter.
His next issue is that he claims that cleaning causes micro scratches. Therefore you should clean a filter, and not your lens. This is mostly an emotional argument. He obviously doesn't believe that this issue is significant. If he did, he would need to constantly replace his filters due to micro scratches. The fact that he shoots through his filters, even though they have micro scratches, indicates that he doesn't think micro scratches are really a problem.
Next he tries the scare tactic of implying that a filter can save you from thousands of dollars of damage. Imagine that you have a $3,000 lens, and the filter prevents front element damage. He implies that the filter can save you from a $3,000 loss. This is, of course, nonsense. If your $3,000 lens has a damage front element, you don't throw out the lens, you get the front element replaced.
He then told the story of a time when he got something on the coating of his filter, and the filter was ruined. Let's ignore the possibility that he simply had a filter with a cheap coating.
But let's assume this was a situation where the filter saved his lens. His claim is that a good filter should cost about 10% of the price of the lens. A front element repair should cost far less than half the cost of the lens. He has one reported issue. Assuming he has more than 5 lenses, he would have saved money by not buying all those filters, and just repairing that lens. But as he pointed out, people have a negativity bias. One bad apple spoils the barrel. If you read between the lines, his filter use really is costing him money in the long run.
He also goes on to claim that filters are particularly important when shooting in dusty environments or at the beach. This implies that in these circumstances a filter protects your lens. This ignores the real danger in these environments of dust or contamination getting into the internals of your lens. Filters don't help there. Of course, he does admit that if you are shooting at the beach with the sun setting behind the model, you should remove the filter.
But I do absolutely agree that there are some very vocal people who really want to convince others that their position on filters is the correct one. Some even go as far as to make YouTube videos.
He is also correct that most people's decisions on filters are based on emotion rather than reason.
The bottom line remains that the biggest difference a filter makes is usually emotional. If you feel better using one, then go ahead and use one. If they make you uncomfortable, then avoid them. Do keep in mind that whatever your preference, there are a few situations where you really should use them, and a few situations where you should avoid them. For the vast majority of situations it doesn't really matter, do what makes you feel better.
petapixel.com
www.shutterbug.com
