Filters debate - should I have fought my corner?

Eddzz!!

Eddzz!!

Suspended / Banned
Messages
1,120
Name
Eddy
Edit My Images
Yes
Okay, so I was working a shoot today at a University graduation. Near the end I was approached by another photographer. This was the conversation:

Him: "Oh, you're not using a UV filter? You should get some!"

Me: "I don't really find much use for them. The ones I've used in the past have just degraded my image quality."

Him: "HA! What RUBBISH! It PROTECTS the front element! That's what you need them for!"

Me: "Well I use my lens hoods for protection. Besides, like I said, they seem to do more harm than good. Unless I spend a lot of money on a UV filter, I find they just degrade my image quality."

Him: "NO! You need both for protection; a lens hood AND a filter! You're just asking for your lens to get broken! A UV filter will improve your images as well. I use them on every lens!"

Me: "... ... ..." *gives up*



So, should I have fought my corner better? Or was I in the wrong on this occasion? I've not scratched any of my lenses. I think there may be a hairline scratch to the coating of one, but you need a magnifying glass to see it!
 
Last edited:
Personally, I am with you, and I say that as someone that HAS scratched the front element of a very expensive lens, I am still not going to stick even a £100 piece of glass infront of the £2k's worth I have paid for thankyou very much - I'll takes me chances. The scratch on mine was, I think, caused by something in the bottom of the camera bag [possibly a set of keys I had let slip into the main section instead of pocket] knocking the the lens cap off, in normal operating conditions, never damaged a front element whilst lens hood was on.

No point arguing it though, some people swear by them, some people loathe them, horses for courses ;)
 
Last edited:
Yv said:
No point arguing it though, some people swear by them, some people loathe them, horses for courses ;)
Click to expand...

I wouldn't say I loathe them, but I did notice an increase in performance when I stopped using them i.e. less flaring, less CA... I dunno :thinking: This guy seemed very adamant! I do agree that they offer peace of mind with regards to lens scratches etc... But like you said, I'd rather not stick a chunk of inferior glass in front of my £1.5K lens!
 
I used mine for months before getting it repaired, just couldn't spare the time without it and a 3/8ths inch scratch on front element had absolutely no detrimental effect on any images [you can imagine, I was looking quite hard for any] than any UV filter would have done. ;)
 
If its so important.. how come theres no such thing for my 6 thousand pound lens? You cant screw anyhting in front of a long telephoto.. filters slip in at the back.. not the front on those.. so your right.. and hes been reading too many forums haha.. yes i see the irony...

I use all manner of lens.. none have extra glass stuck on the front...
 
I've had a similar "conversation" where the filterer was absolutely adamant. Eventually I just turned my back on him and walked away leaving him ranting.
 
Nod said:
I've had a similar "conversation" where the filterer was absolutely adamant. Eventually I just turned my back on him and walked away leaving him ranting.
Click to expand...

Haha! That's exactly what I did! *Back to the buffet*
 
You don't need to fight your corner, he is entitled to his opinion and you are entitled to yours.
Personally, I never use one for the reasons given - flare and image degradation.
And when it comes to non UV filters, the only filter that hasn't been made redundant by PS is a polarising filter - which isn't even strictly a filter.
 
Garry Edwards said:
And when it comes to non UV filters, the only filter that hasn't been made redundant by PS is a polarising filter - which isn't even strictly a filter.
Click to expand...

I don't see why you can't call it a filter. It just filters by polarisation rather than wavelength.
 
My default stance on filters is that if it's got a hood or deeply recessed front element I'll definitely not bother with a filter. And as I have hoods for all my lenses so I don't bother with a filter. With a hood on it's dead hard to scratch a front element, and there's no issue cleaning the front element with a little bit of propan-2-ol and a clean bit of microfibre cloth.

Now if I was going walking about with my 50mm or UWA and I was only doing snapshot type things (holidays etc) and I didn't want to have to worry about the lens cap I'd have no qualms about wiping the filter on my shirt to wipe off dirty finger prints. I'd only use the expensive filters though. However My 50mm and 18-35 are dead cheap to replace so I just don't bother with a filter.
 
No point in fighting your corner with ignorant minds. Only filters I use are for black and white film. I would have laughed in his face :D
 
Eddzz!! said:
So, should I have fought my corner better?
Click to expand...

IMVHO no, what's the point? I'd just be polite but try and shut the conversation down ASAP or move it on to something else if in the mood to talk.

Personally I use "protection" filters on some of my lenses and I've never noticed any degradation in image quality. The only problem I've ever seen is ghosting when shooting at night with a light shining at the camera and if that's going to be an issue the solution is simple... take the filter off.

It's not worth arguing with anyone though.
 
The two round filters I use are the polarizer and the one that fits on the coffee thingy I do use Lee square filters but am thinking of selling them also.
 
I'm a clumsy oaf, often found trailblazing through forests etc where I think my uv filter is essential for protection. I too have damaged a front element and would hate to damage another (especially as my lenses are more expensive now), so they go on
I keep meaning to remove it for studio shoots etc, but I haven't yet and not noticed anything wrong with photos. I keep threatening to compare with/without, but can't say it bothers me enough
Each to their own, I wouldn't argue with either viewpoint
 
As a relative newbie, I have found this thread very informative and that link that Steve has provided showed something I'd never have guessed. Needless to say, I do use a UV filter simply because I have followed what I thought was the "received wisdom".

Not surprisingly, I do feel a bit daft using a UV filter on a kit lens when people who have lenses that cost more than my car don't use them.

You live and learn. :)
 
Last edited:
The apparent "need" for UV filters often comes from shop staff at certain camera retailers insisting you need one as if its life or death.

The reason for this... Profit.

They get a huge markup on filters and are probably more profitable than the camera bodies.

They serve no purpose other than protection, which in itself can be argued, as glass shattering against glass means scratches. I've been shooting 10 years + and have never damaged a front element, and I don't treat my gear with cotton gloves.
 
No use arguing with anyone who has made their mind up. He is probably on another forum moaning about you :)

I keep UV filters on my lenses so they are protected in the bag, lens caps do come off. I remove them when taking the majority of shots but sometimes use them when there are children's sticky hands about or blowing sand which is very abrasive.

The use or non-use of UV filters is normally based on opinion rather than fact, as such it is a faith which is the same as religion and therefore discussing them should be banned on TP :D
 
Last edited:
I learnt along time ago not to waste time arguing with idiots. You will never be able to enlighten them, you get frustrated and you waste your time.
 
omens said:
I learnt along time ago not to waste time arguing with idiots. You will never be able to enlighten them, you get frustrated and you waste your time.
Click to expand...

This^
You had no chance of 'winning'.
 
omens said:
I learnt along time ago not to waste time arguing with idiots. You will never be able to enlighten them, you get frustrated and you waste your time.
Click to expand...

Well, you have to pick your fights. I see the point in arguing against a racist idiot as there is a chance something may get through (even subconciously) even though it may be frustrating and I may be wasting my time.

I don't see the point in arguing with someone over the pluses and minuses of UV filters (unless I have time to kill and would just do it for fun)
 
I have to admit, when I was very new to the DSLR world and had just spent £1000 on a lens I did use UV filters all the time to protect the front element. The only time I ever do now though is if conditions are very bad, particularly in dusty/sandy condition in high winds for example.

Eddy, I don't think you needed to fight your corner more, absolutely nothing to fight over on this one.
 
TCR4x4 said:
The apparent "need" for UV filters often comes from shop staff at certain camera retailers insisting you need one as if its life or death.

The reason for this... Profit.
Click to expand...

haha, yep. Bought a £100 Tamron lens from a well known recently reopened shop, 50% off on filters with the lens, and the sales guy was so surprised that I didn't want any.

No filters on most of my lenses, only use one on 17-40mm to complete its weather seal. Rarely do I use lens hood either because of the hassle, but I do bring it along and use it when I notice flare or don't have chance to retake a shot.

Gear heads love to be prepared for everything and have all the gear, working to take the gear. Photographers only take the basics and work to get that photo. Gear is only there to be used.
 
wuyanxu said:
No filters on most of my lenses, only use one on 17-40mm to complete its weather seal.
Click to expand...

this is the only argument for using a UV filter for me, protecting the front element isn't

if he had mentioned weather sealing he would have had a lot stronger case to argue

no point in standing your ground people have to listen and understand what your saying to make it worthwhile
 
Last edited:
I agree the hood offers protection and I don't usually use a UV filter, however I do have one for hazardous environment situations.
 
Should I mention that he shoots with Olympus cameras? :p
 
salty/sandy spray is a time for a filter on the front IMO - I know that the salt shouldn't tarnish the coatings but they are situations where I worry
 
Eddzz!! said:
Should I mention that he shoots with Olympus cameras? :p
Click to expand...

No, not really. It's still a camera at the end of the day. Owning a specific camera doesn't make you a spanner. Genetic's do :P
 
So why don't they make uv filters for big expensive prime lenses would've been my reply.
 
I have a 240 dollar filter (expensive) on a 2500 dollar lens. I was on vacation recently and while out shooting it got dirty so i just removed it. Well I forgot all about it and shot for several more days with it off. I can not tell any difference in my pictures with or without a filter.

To each is own. I don't think it's right for people to force feed you their opinion but I think you avoiding any future disagreement was the thing to do. :thumbs:
 
Maybe it's time to stop being polite when some random guy walks over and offers advice, then starts an argument because you don't agree with them.

I used to use hoya pro1 uv filters on all my lenses but have taken them off recently. I can't say I've noticed any diffence though. I've kept them for now in case I need them for sand protection or similar.
 
shaylou said:
Well I forgot all about it and shot for several more days with it off. I can not tell any difference in my pictures with or without a filter.
Click to expand...

Modern (and old for that matter) lenses are multi coated on all surfaces. I don't believe that the coatings on a UV filter offer anything which the lens manufacturer forgot to add.

To me they are the equivalent of a boy racer bolting a set of fog lamps from Argos to the front of a Ford Escort!


Steve.
 
If they were soo important, the manufacturers would have either recommended the use or treat the lens for Uv. There's also no grounding proof that UV filters prevent UV damage if I remember correctly? I would have stood my ground for a little while but then give up, I've met too many idiots with cameras, especially the all gear no idea brigade!

Onwards and upwards guys :-)
 
Steve Smith said:
Modern (and old for that matter) lenses are multi coated on all surfaces. I don't believe that the coatings on a UV filter offer anything which the lens manufacturer forgot to add.

To me they are the equivalent of a boy racer bolting a set of fog lamps from Argos to the front of a Ford Escort!

Steve.
Click to expand...

Yes I understand that the lens already has it. What some have said is that the filter effects image quality. That I did not see. Although I do realize how it can have this effect as well. I only use one for protection though.
 
I know many people who are just now, or recently have come to digital from film. With film a UV filter often "improved" an image while it also "protected" the lens.
It's hard to accept that something that was "right" for so long is all of a sudden "not right." ( I did not say "wrong")

W/ digital a UV will not help an image, but it might detract.

In typical use my lenses have the hood installed, no front filter. I wear a ThinkTank Speed Racer (V1) with up to two additional lenses and one spot open in the main compartment. The lenses get dropped inside hood first, no rear cap. I can swap lenses in ~2sec.

I've dropped lenses off of cliffs and drowned a D3 kit in a river...that's what insurance is for. I've never broken a lens where a filter would have helped.

I guess it kind of comes down to: are they "tools" or are they "toys."
It's kind of like owning a sports car/sport bike. If you're a racer and you think it will go faster with some piece hacked off of it, that's what you do. But there's nothing wrong with owning one and "babying it" because you just like it.

For protection (i.e. blowing sand) I have a clear filter (coated), not a UV. The coatings on filters are there to help minimize effects they might otherwise cause (i.e. glare/ghosting) as well as to perform their function (i.e. UV).
 
KIPAX said:
If its so important.. how come theres no such thing for my 6 thousand pound lens? .
Click to expand...

Er, there is.

Canon's big white tele lenses include a front element that is a simple meniscus, designed to be relatively cheap to replace. It is, essentially, a protective filter. However, it is different from ordinary 'protective' filters in several ways. Not only is it thicker that the normal flimsy filters, it is also designed to match the optics of your lens and, most importantly, it's curved. The fact that it's not flat means that it's much easier for the designers to avoid the flare and contrast reduction that one sees with flat filters.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top