Should I get UV filters for my new Pro lenses ... ?

[slncezgsi]

I am about to take deliver of E-M5II, 12-40/2.8 and 40-150/2.8. In the past I used to get high quality multicoated UV filters to protect the lenses. Now I am wondering whether I should do the same. My main concern is the protection of the front lens surface rather than filtering the UV light away. My choice util today always was Hoya HMC UV(0) as in one comparative these those came out the best (in regard to coating performance).

Just curious about your opinion and experience.

P.S. I do realise that additional surfaces in the optical path may (and will, question is only by how much) increase internal reflections.

 

[Martin Ocando]

Hoods are optional on most Olympus lenses, and they are indeed a necessity. And most people don't hesitate to purchase them.

 

[Tom899]

Hoods are optional on most Olympus lenses, and they are indeed a necessity. And most people don't hesitate to purchase them.

 

[Airmel]

Personally, I always use a protection filter and lens hood when I am shooting in a dusty or muddy environment such as MX races. I simply have no interest in cleaning the gunk off of my fancy front element.

When conditions are better, I continue to use a lens hood but I am on the fence about the protection filter.

The ultimate cost of the filter is what... $20-50 vs. a MZ 40-150mm Pro lens repair at $132 + shipping (and time).

 

[Midwest]

I always, always use both. A hood is not much protection from a fluid or projectile.

Not critiquing your gallery, but if the small number of photos in it are representative of your kind of shooting, you seem to be at virtually no risk of fluids or projectiles hitting your lenses in the first place.

 

[LMNCT]

Use your lens hoods. They will help protect the element and also prevent unwanted extraneous light.

 

[Martin Ocando]

Gidday Martin

After using filters on every lens, back in my first film days (late 70s), I went to no filter, due to the possibility of image quality degradation. It made some sense, since I didn't have enough money to afford good quality filters.

I saw this video from David Hobby the other day: here and it got me thinking about the whole UV filter idea.

Next step, I got B+W F-PRO filters for all my lenses, and did some sharpness tests. Results? Not a single sign of image degradation. There might be some issues with flare, but since I also use hoods on all my lenses, there is less to worry.

There are some reports of ghosting on night photography with bright lamps, and if I see them, I'll simply remove the filter. But for the rest, I just use them.

And I also hate lens caps. So, when I'm shooting, I remove them all, and put it on my bag. Back home, I clean and recap them.

--
Martin
"One of the biggest mistakes a photographer can make is to look at the real world and cling to the vain hope that next time his film will somehow bear a closer resemblance to it" - Galen Rowell

My thoughts/experience too. The one lens I always re-cap is my FT 7-14. I also hold the cap when the lens is on my camera! The lens cap for this lens costs a fortune to replace, and it also keeps me aware of where the end of the lens is!

--
Regards, john from Melbourne, Australia.
(see profile for current gear)
Please do not embed images from my web site without prior permission
I consider this to be a breach of my copyright.
-- -- --
.
The Camera doth not make the Man (nor Woman) ...
Perhaps being kind to cats, dogs & children does ...
.
I am a Photography Aficionado ... and ...
"I don't have any problems with John. He is a crotchety old Aussie. He will smack you if you behave like a {deleted}. Goes with the territory." boggis the cat
.
Gallery: http://canopuscomputing.com.au/gallery2/v/main-page/

Bird Control Officers on active service.

Same with my Samyang 7.5 FE. Is the only lens I can't put a filter on.

--
Martin
"One of the biggest mistakes a photographer can make is to look at the real world and cling to the vain hope that next time his film will somehow bear a closer resemblance to it" - Galen Rowell

 

[Brucies Heroes]

If you buy filters, then buy good ones. I bought some cheap filters and i didn`t think about until i compared with and without. The cheap filters (25,- a piece) lowered the micro contrast severely and also increased flaring.

PS: Same goes for lens hoods. You will have lower contrast without a lenshood in more situation than you might expect (given a strong light source outside the frame).

--
Flickr
Astrobin

 

[misolo]

Olympus themselves are selling what they call protection filters so there should not be any reason to hesitate

If there was no reason to hesitate, it would be included in the lens. Of course they're going to sell it if there's money to be made. It's an option rather than standard because many people (most?) choose not to.

Hoods are optional on most Olympus lenses, and they are indeed a necessity. And most people don't hesitate to purchase them.

--
Martin
"One of the biggest mistakes a photographer can make is to look at the real world and cling to the vain hope that next time his film will somehow bear a closer resemblance to it" - Galen Rowell

I don't use hoods any more other than for long teles. Modern lenses with sophisticated coatings have excellent flare resistance. On the rare ocasion I need to shade the lens, I use my hand. And for those who mostly do indoor work, all this is all the more true.

 

[JohnLock]

....good decision.

JL

 

[John King]

Gidday Tom

I agree that it's as inexcusable as not shipping a full manual with the E-M1.

All my FT kit lenses came with hoods, as did all my HG and SHG lenses. So has every other lens I have ever bought. The 12-50 didn't ... :-( .

It's not even the $11 for an aftermarket hood that bugs me, it's the $11 P&H all the way from the other side of Melbourne that pees me off! All for an object that would cost no more than a dollar or two when mass produced for mass produced lenses!

 

[RedDog Steve]

Hoods are optional on most Olympus lenses, and they are indeed a necessity. And most people don't hesitate to purchase them.

 

[John King]

Gidday CW

However, I recommended to a friend that he chuck away the cheap (Indonesian made) Hoya filters he had and replace them with Hoya HMC filters. He was absolutely amazed at the difference this change made to the IQ of his images!

I am the worst, I don't use filters for protection, and when I do use them for photographic effects (PL pretty much any time I use a lens that will take them), its almost all cheapest-level Hoya linear PL's ("coatings, what coatings?") even on REALLY expensive lenses. Amortized over the 10s of thousands of landscapes even a "pro" filter would have been effectively free... but without those side-by-side comparisons, I have never figured out what I was missing. I actually do have one pro Hoya 58 CPL still sitting in the bag (purchased in those early DSLR "well, it says PRO! on it" days), but I don't use it anymore because the lens threads are too short to keep a lens cap fixed.

 

[Roger Engelken]

I am about to take deliver of E-M5II, 12-40/2.8 and 40-150/2.8. In the past I used to get high quality multicoated UV filters to protect the lenses. Now I am wondering whether I should do the same. My main concern is the protection of the front lens surface rather than filtering the UV light away. My choice util today always was Hoya HMC UV(0) as in one comparative these those came out the best (in regard to coating performance).

Just curious about your opinion and experience.

P.S. I do realise that additional surfaces in the optical path may (and will, question is only by how much) increase internal reflections.

 

[Josh152]

insurance is much better protection than any filter. If you dont' already have insurance for your expensive pro lenses and cameras, forget about filters and fix that first. Even a short drop can destroy a lens/camera. One mistake with no insurance and you're out a ton of money.

 

[John King]

insurance is much better protection than any filter. If you dont' already have insurance for your expensive pro lenses and cameras, forget about filters and fix that first. Even a short drop can destroy a lens/camera. One mistake with no insurance and you're out a ton of money.

Quite right.

But best to have both, as most insurers won't touch "normal wear and tear" with a 40 foot barge pole.