What filter should I use to protect lenses?

[ammtar]

Your message is clear and well-written, but I can help you refine it a bit for better flow and clarity. Here’s a revised version:

I’m traveling next month and plan to use my camera as much as possible. However, I need to protect my lenses from scratches, dust, sand, and fingerprints. It’s easier to clean or replace a filter than the lens itself.

Could you recommend a brand? Also, would a polarizing or UV filter be a better choice over plain-glass filters, or are they necessary?

Thanks,
Afan

 

[DVF Photography]

Your message is clear and well-written, but I can help you refine it a bit for better flow and clarity. Here’s a revised version:

I’m traveling next month and plan to use my camera as much as possible. However, I need to protect my lenses from scratches, dust, sand, and fingerprints. It’s easier to clean or replace a filter than the lens itself.

Could you recommend a brand? Also, would a polarizing or UV filter be a better choice over plain-glass filters, or are they necessary?

Thanks,
Afan

In general, a lot of people use a UV filter for front lens protection.

Then again, a lot of people don't, and I'm one of them. I protect my lenses by being very careful with them, and continuously maintaining them. In my opinion it is much more important to have a good quality lens cloth, a soft paintbrush and a lens blower with you than a UV filter. Another reason not to have a UV filter on my lenses is this: any extra glass you put in front of your lens has the potential to have a negative effect on your lens sharpness. Especially when the filter used is of a questionable quality (for whatever reason there actually are people who choose to 'protect' their $2,000 lens with a $20 filter...).

When you deliberately put a filter in front of your lens because the light conditions or your creative intentions dictate the use of one, that is one thing. I for one am very fond of using ND filters for backlight or long exposure situations. But I have never found any good reason to constantly have an extra piece of glass mounted on my lens just for protection.
But hey, that's just me ;-)

--
Tempestas Furit Cum Omni Vi
Tempestas In Capite Meo

 

[ammtar]

Your message is clear and well-written, but I can help you refine it a bit for better flow and clarity. Here’s a revised version:

This paragraph was created when I used ChatGPT to make my post more clear since English is not my first language :-O
I couldn't find how can I edit the post, remove the paragraph - can the Admin remove it please?

Thank you.

 

[ammtar]

In general, a lot of people use a UV filter for front lens protection.

Then again, a lot of people don't, and I'm one of them. I protect my lenses by being very careful with them, and continuously maintaining them. In my opinion it is much more important to have a good quality lens cloth, a soft paintbrush and a lens blower with you than a UV filter. Another reason not to have a UV filter on my lenses is this: any extra glass you put in front of your lens has the potential to have a negative effect on your lens sharpness. Especially when the filter used is of a questionable quality (for whatever reason there actually are people who choose to 'protect' their $2,000 lens with a $20 filter...).

When you deliberately put a filter in front of your lens because the light conditions or your creative intentions dictate the use of one, that is one thing. I for one am very fond of using ND filters for backlight or long exposure situations. But I have never found any good reason to constantly have an extra piece of glass mounted on my lens just for protection.
But hey, that's just me ;-)

I agree on the tech aspect, that a filter can have mess up the sharpness of the image. But I should've add too that most of the time, when taking photos, I'll spend on street, in crowded areas where are much bigger chance to leave a mark on the lens than when taking wildlife or nature photos, right? I would not use it in these cases too.

Thanks.

 

[ammtar]

I just found a thread very similar to mine: Are protection filters really needed? (I swear I was digging through the Forum before I posted my)

Since there is a huge chance that the responds would be pretty much the same (I liked the very first one ) I would "shorten" my question to just one part and in case I go with a filter: What brand would you recommend?

Thank you,
Afan

 

[ZilverHaylide]

Your message is clear and well-written, but I can help you refine it a bit for better flow and clarity. Here’s a revised version:

I’m traveling next month and plan to use my camera as much as possible. However, I need to protect my lenses from scratches, dust, sand, and fingerprints. It’s easier to clean or replace a filter than the lens itself.

Could you recommend a brand? Also, would a polarizing or UV filter be a better choice over plain-glass filters, or are they necessary?

Thanks,
Afan

In general, a lot of people use a UV filter for front lens protection.

Then again, a lot of people don't, and I'm one of them. I protect my lenses by being very careful with them, and continuously maintaining them. In my opinion it is much more important to have a good quality lens cloth, a soft paintbrush and a lens blower with you than a UV filter. Another reason not to have a UV filter on my lenses is this: any extra glass you put in front of your lens has the potential to have a negative effect on your lens sharpness. Especially when the filter used is of a questionable quality (for whatever reason there actually are people who choose to 'protect' their $2,000 lens with a $20 filter...).

When you deliberately put a filter in front of your lens because the light conditions or your creative intentions dictate the use of one, that is one thing. I for one am very fond of using ND filters for backlight or long exposure situations. But I have never found any good reason to constantly have an extra piece of glass mounted on my lens just for protection.
But hey, that's just me ;-)

I do often use a filter, in part because I live in a desert area, where fine sand has a way of working itself into undesired places, and can be very abrasive. I might not use a filter as much elsewhere, and wherever I may be will often briefly remove it if I'm photographing on a tripod (which, in good light, often carries the implication that I'm seeking maximum quality).

I think you need to consider not only the location and situation, but also the final use you intend for your photos. If online display, a small photo book, or an A4-size print is your intended maximum, I truly doubt you'll be able to see any adverse effect from most filters. Not sure where negative effects start to manifest, but you can always test, with digital it's free, just a bit of your time.

For lens protection, with or without filters, a lenshood is a valuable piece of kit.

 

[ZilverHaylide]

A few interesting blog posts, from Roger Cicala over at Lens Rentals:

https://wordpress.lensrentals.com/blog/2013/10/bad-times-with-bad-filters/

https://wordpress.lensrentals.com/blog/2011/06/good-times-with-bad-filters/

https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/20...anking-of-the-major-uv-filters-on-the-market/

https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2016/12/front-element-lens-protection-revisited/

https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2017/05/yet-another-post-about-my-issues-with-uv-filters/

https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2017/09/looking-at-clear-and-uv-filter-spectrograms/

https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/20...tertaining-circular-polarizer-filter-article/

https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2010/12/the-glass-in-front-of-your-glass-all-about-filters/

A glance at one of those articles also reminded me that bad effects from filters can also be dependent on lens focal length, and since I seldom shoot longer than 105mm (and mostly, closer to "normal"), there's another reason why I've probably seen fewer bad effects from filters than some photographers have.

 

[Phaser]

I prefer Hoya Fusion Antistatic Protectors. These are not UV filters. I haven't noticed any degradation of sharpness.

 

[ericbowles]

Don't get a UV filter unless you are shooting film or possibly for very high altitude landscapes. There is plenty of UV and IR filtering on sensors of digital cameras, so UV filtering is not needed and may harm your image slightly.

If you get a filter, use a clear filter that is multicoated. Coatings can help with a variety of things, but the idea is protecting from reflections when you are shooting toward bright light or reflections, and making it easier to clean your filter.

While there is debate about the need for a clear filter, a Circular Polarizing filter has value and cannot be matched in post processing. It is especially effective in taming reflection - such as reflected light on foliage or water. It has a potential downside of slowing your exposure. You also need to avoid using when you have blue skies across the horizontal axis of the frame if your focal length is 35mm or wider. In this scenario it can produce both maximum and minimum polarization which makes skies look blotchy.

I use B+W filters, Marumi filters, and Nikon filters. All have multicoated versions. You don't have to buy the most expensive version - but don't buy the cheapest either.

Be careful about buying from companies that use vague marketing terms - such as Digital filters which are just regular filters. Also watch for companies that suggest you get a UV filter - because you don't need UV filtering at all.

If you are concerned about lens protection, be sure you are using your lens hood with every lens unless you are using a flash. Also be sure to use your lens cap when appropriate - it's the best protection.

Don't ever clean your lens or filter with window cleaner or similar ammonia based product. Ammonia causes fogging on some filters and coatings that include polycarbonate, styrene, acrylic, or similar materials. Once fogged, the filter or lens cannot be fixed.