Filter lens ?

O

Oll

Suspended / Banned
Messages
33
Name
David
Edit My Images
No
Newbie question

Do I need a filter lens on my camera ?
Will it degrade the photos or improve them ?

Thanks all
 
In a nut shell.

Cheap filters may degrade your photos.

I prefer to protect all my lenses with a protection filter, I favour Hoya for some reason.

It is cheaper for me to replace a scratched £20 filter than a scratched £400 lens.

Some filters are useful and what I would consider everyday filters (depending on what you shoot), for instance a Neutral Density graduated filter is great for landscapes where you are in danger of blowing out the sky by correctly exposing for the landscape.
 
Any filter is an extra piece of glass, and so theoretically might affect your images. Some are good and have no discernible effect, some are bad and some are truly awful. It is therefore wise to choose good quality filters.

If you don't have a filter and you scratch your lens, then think about what it might cost you to repair/replace the lens. Not nice! Perhaps it is wise to buy a good UV or plain glass filter. It will keep dust and grit off your precious lens surface at the very least.

Stan
 
I had Hoya filters on most of my lenses at a cost of around £40 each (so not cheapies) and had real problems getting a sharp photo on my 7D with my 100-400 L, 100 L macro and even a 55-250 IS amongst others. I decided to shoot one day without the filter on the 100-400 and when I got the pics onto the computer I was amazed.
The difference that piece of glass made to the lens was unbelieveable. From soft to sharp in one easy lesson. I've since took off all my filters and protect the lens with hoods and only use a UV filter now if it's dusty or wet when I'm shooting. I still use CPL filters on occasions but they don't seem to degrade the image as much
 
I've kept (top quality) uv's on my lenses for virtually every shoot I've done as a pro. That's quite a while now, and quite a few shoots. If the filter had caused any significant degradation, do you think I'd have kept on shooting, even though my shots were made worse?
 
I would probably choose the Hoya over the Hama, but others may think differently.
 
Haven't used filters in over 10 years apart from once and it severely degraded the image quality and never scratched a lens either. Just be careful and use the hood.
 
I have dropped cameras in the sea and onto concrete. I have also had motor drives seize because of desert sand. I am clumsy and need all the protection I can get.

Seriously though - if you use filters for protection then they should be good ones. The Hama and Hoya quoted sound cheap. probably better without them.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for all your advice, Still in two minds, probably will buy one and then check the results of the images.
 
Oll said:
Thanks for all your advice, Still in two minds, probably will buy one and then check the results of the images.
Click to expand...

When you do, you'll take a couple pictures with and without, decide that you can't tell the difference, so leave it on believing you've got something for no downside. But with respect, that's because you don't know what you're looking for, and sharpness is probably the least of the potential problems.

But there is a real downside. Try it shooting into the light, with a sunset, or bright street lights. Look for flare patterns and ghosting. Try it on a long lens and check the sharpness, and look for unusual patterns in the background.

To save having to do that, search on here for a few of the many comparison pictures. Then leave the filter off, take a little care and use a lens hood for protection. By all means get a protection filter, but only use it when you need to - dust, sand, flying mud, sea spray - that sort of thing.
 
Hi I have a Panasonic DMC-L1 with a Leica D VARIO-ELMART 1:2:8-3.5/14-50 ASPH. It has a Skylite 72mm UV screwed on the end. What is this please and how will it effect photos?. I have never tried without it.
 
BenUK said:
Hi I have a Panasonic DMC-L1 with a Leica D VARIO-ELMART 1:2:8-3.5/14-50 ASPH. It has a Skylite 72mm UV screwed on the end. What is this please and how will it effect photos?. I have never tried without it.
Click to expand...

Skylight is a UV filter with a very light pinkish-yellow tint added. Put it on a piece of white paper and you'll see.

It's a filter intended for film cameras in high UV situations, but since digitals already have a UV filter over the sensor, it has no effect other than to warm up the colour very slightly, and add the other undesirable things that all filters inevitably do.

I only use filters for beneficial effect, eg polariser.
 
That is very helpful, will use it just when I fear the lens may get dirty now. :)
 
Only time I've ever seen a filter cause a problem is in astrophotography - then there's a bit of a 'double-glazing' effect going on (but more pronounced - I think because of the high contrast between the stars and the sky...)
 
hunnymonster said:
Only time I've ever seen a filter cause a problem is in astrophotography - then there's a bit of a 'double-glazing' effect going on (but more pronounced - I think because of the high contrast between the stars and the sky...)
Click to expand...

That's exactly the situation - bright light against dark background. It bounces off the mirror-like surface of the sensor, and then back again from the rear of the filter to form a ghost image. Just one of a typical filter's undesirable tricks ;)
 
Judging by the distance between the image and it's ghost I think more likely we're talking about inference at the front of the lens assembly rather than sensor/filter interactions... the light hitting the front of the lens (after passing the filter) is refracted (good) through the lens and reflected (bad) back to the filter from the 'business' end of the lens and then reflected back again but of course slightly offset (hence the ghost)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top