Filters debate - should I have fought my corner?

[Marc]

I'm not particularly convinced that there was a 'right' or 'wrong' outcome to the debate, but there comes a time when it is best to 'agree to disagree'... Anyway, this thread has probably run its course now.

We don't lock threads unless it's necessary Eddy. As long as everything is ket civil, which it is, then the debate can continue on or die a natural death as it slides down the pages.

 

[Bugler77]

I agree with the lens flare and increased CA occurrences, however a filter did save me a large cost a few weeks ago when a client accidentally drive his car into my tripod with camera attached and the wheel was about to go over my lens, thankfully only damage was a cracked and distorted filter... Phew!!! 10 Sec earlier it could have been me under the car

 

[Phil V]

Do not argue with an idiot. He will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience

This is my favourite line on this subject.

 

[Eddzz!!]

This is my favourite line on this subject.

Might have that in my sig!

 

[Oscellaris]

I've never bothered with a UV and rely, rightly or wrongly, for my lens hood to protect the glass when I'm out shooting.

 

[ernesto]

This is my favourite line on this subject.

I don't know about that, I wouldn't have anyone left to argue with

 

[philwillmedia]

...a 3/8ths inch scratch on front element had absolutely no detrimental effect on any images...

http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2008/10/front-element-scratches
Steve.

Then there's this article...
http://kurtmunger.com/dirty_lens_articleid35.html

 

[ernesto]

But people still don't want scratches and marks on their front element even if they make no difference. Just as people don't like scratches on their car when in reality it makes absolutely no difference to how the car drives.
More about the money used to buy the lens or car than anything else I expect. If a lens cost £1 would anyone use a filter or care about scratching their lens?

 

[FlyingShrapnel]

Then there's this article...
http://kurtmunger.com/dirty_lens_articleid35.html

interesting article

 

[Strapps]

A few years ago I was at a bike dealer who was having a promotional day and there was a photographer present. It was a bright day and he was using a polariser for the outside shots. He then came inside and carried on shooting, so I pointed out that he'd left the polariser on.

"Well, yeah", he replied, "the colours in digital images are quite flat so I use the polariser all the time to lift them a bit".

I didn't mention RAW processing or Potatoshop, I nodded and said, "ah-ha, right" and wandered off to look at the shiny motorcycles.

 

[ernesto]

He should have just said it was to cut reflections from the shiny motorbikes, that would have shut you up

 

[Strapps]

He should have just said it was to cut reflections from the shiny motorbikes, that would have shut you up

If he hadn't been taking pictures of people nowhere near the shiny motorbikes, I probably wouldn't have said anything in the first place

 

[jon ryan]

I wouldn't think a polariser would make any difference indoors- artificial lights aren't polarised, are they? It would just be a sort of weak nd.

 

[ernesto]

If he hadn't been taking pictures of people nowhere near the shiny motorbikes, I probably wouldn't have said anything in the first place

Okay, how about bold people with shiny heads? (clutching at straws to defend someone I don't even know who was clearly a fool)

 

[boyfalldown]

Okay, how about bold people with shiny heads? (clutching at straws to defend someone I don't even know who was clearly a fool)

How do you know they're bold, just because they have shiney heads ??

 

[sk66]

I wouldn't think a polariser would make any difference indoors- artificial lights aren't polarised, are they? It would just be a sort of weak nd.

Most of the polarization of light that we can deal with using a CPL is polarized by the act of being reflected. Most surfaces (water/glass/paint) allow some light to pass thru them and only reflect back a portion; the reflected portion is polarized. Things like chrome reflect (almost) all of the light and it is not polarized and a CPL will not help.

IMO, a CPL is like walking around with sunglasses on. Even if it is not "cutting glare" it is affecting colors. The choice to use one for such a purpose is "reasonable" IMO.



**in reality, all light is polarized to some extent simply by passing thru the air. But this is essentially "negligible" within the terms of things we can affect. Furthermore, if you are photographing chrome etc, you can polarize the light source with a filter and then remove the glare w/ a CPL.

 

[PMN]

So, should I have fought my corner better? Or was I in the wrong on this occasion?

No-one was right or wrong, it's just a simple difference of opinion. I've never once used UV filters to prevent damage to the end element for the same reasons others have mentioned - sticking a cheap bit of glass on the front of a nice lens to avoid damage doesn't make any sense to me and I'm not prepared to spend loads on something that I don't really need. Even if I do end up getting a bit of a scratch on the end element it's unlikely to have any real devastating effect on image quality anyway.

As for fighting your corner, it sounds like whatever he said you wouldn't have been convinced and whatever you said he wouldn't have shifted either. In situations like that it's generally just best to agree to disagree as further discussion/argument won't achieve anything!

 

[Steve Smith]

How do you know they're bold, just because they have shiney heads ??

From personal experience I can confirm that it is a good indication!


Steve.

 

[Lyonspride]

UV filters are like the VW Golf of the photography world, massively over rated and expensive for what they are.

You will always come across some numpty whose head is full of standard gossip derived nonsense, better to walk away and let them get on with it.

Remember "Never argue with an idiot, they'll drag you down to their level and beat you on experience"

 

[barratt1988]

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!

digital camera DONT suffer from the same issues as film with degards Uv light but i argee with the other guy. your hood will pop off instantly when bashed and thus is pointless. also if you use anyother filters (ND's / CPL) you will be waring out the thread on the uv filter and not the one on your lens. you may not realise that the threads are very soft and over time they will become loose.

buy a decent UV filter and dont look back

 

[Phil V]

digital camera DONT suffer from the same issues as film with degards Uv light but i argee with the other guy. your hood will pop off instantly when bashed and thus is pointless. also if you use anyother filters (ND's / CPL) you will be waring out the thread on the uv filter and not the one on your lens. you may not realise that the threads are very soft and over time they will become loose.

buy a decent UV filter and dont look back

You're missing the point, when the hood is knocked off it's displacing the energy, which is exactly what you need it to do - so the opposite of pointless. Just think crash helmet or crumple zone on a car

I'd happily swap a damaged front element for 200,000 images that might have been better without a filter. Not to mention that 1 damaged front element is loads cheaper than a good quality filter for each of my lenses? (a full set of Hoya Pro 1's comes oout at close to £300) and covered by insurance

 

[justinminns]

Bit of a pointless argument to get involved in... I don't personally use them but don't care if anyone else wants to

Although I haven't fitted UV filters on any of my lenses when I've bought a used lens that already had one on it I haven't really noticed it being particularly detrimental to IQ.

 

[barratt1988]

You're missing the point, when the hood is knocked off it's displacing the energy, which is exactly what you need it to do - so the opposite of pointless. Just think crash helmet or crumple zone on a car

I'd happily swap a damaged front element for 200,000 images that might have been better without a filter. Not to mention that 1 damaged front element is loads cheaper than a good quality filter for each of my lenses? (a full set of Hoya Pro 1's comes oout at close to £300) and covered by insurance

so undo your helmet *** when you hit the ground you dont need it again?
and the fact that you people are so worried about poor image quality makes me wonder do you only use L series lens. canon 1D x's lee filters? no you probably dont. and what do you do when you have to use ND filters? because you cant use your o so faithful hood . stop worrying about such pointless things . id rather stay protected my images are fine. simple

 

[HoppyUK]

You're missing the point, when the hood is knocked off it's displacing the energy, which is exactly what you need it to do - so the opposite of pointless. Just think crash helmet or crumple zone on a car

I'd happily swap a damaged front element for 200,000 images that might have been better without a filter. Not to mention that 1 damaged front element is loads cheaper than a good quality filter for each of my lenses? (a full set of Hoya Pro 1's comes oout at close to £300) and covered by insurance

Me too.

A guy on another forum posted an interesting idea. Every time he bought a new lens, he put £40 or whatever in a pot. Soon adds up to the cost of replacing a front element.

If I'd done that when I first started out all those years ago, not sure how much I'd have in the pot, but well over £1000 and never touched. Probably a lot more than that

Edit: and no, I didn't use a UV filter even shooting film - the benefits there are mostly an illusion too.

 

[HoppyUK]

so undo your helmet *** when you hit the ground you dont need it again?
and the fact that you people are so worried about poor image quality makes me wonder do you only use L series lens. canon 1D x's lee filters? no you probably dont. and what do you do when you have to use ND filters? because you cant use your o so faithful hood . stop worrying about such pointless things . id rather stay protected my images are fine. simple

Have you ever tried shooting with and without a protection filter, side by side? Into the light, in strong side lighting, a sunset, or a street scene at night?

 

[Phil V]

so undo your helmet *** when you hit the ground you dont need it again?
...

You probably need to read up on how all that physics stuff works, it might help you stop saying daft things

Speaking of which:

...
and the fact that you people are so worried about poor image quality makes me wonder do you only use L series lens. canon 1D x's lee filters? no you probably dont. and what do you do when you have to use ND filters? because you cant use your o so faithful hood . stop worrying about such pointless things . id rather stay protected my images are fine. simple

Did you read my post? The 'protection' of a filter is a totally stupid reason to buy one, it makes no sense - replacement front elements are not only cheaper than a set of filters, they're also covered by insurance. Not to mention that most things that would trash a lens element would necessitate a lens service anyway.

So a £300 filter set will stop my £150 front element getting damaged but my lens will still need the £180 service and I'll need to replace the £50 filter (the replacement and the service will be covered by my insurance)

Use them if you want, but don't try to justify it against simple physics and economics prioncipals .

 

[sk66]

do you only use L series lens. canon 1D x's lee filters

No, I shoot Nikon. But the lenses I use are the best of their type. And in reality they would tolerate a crappy filter better than a lesser lens, but I don't use them. I also don't always use a strap or even lens caps. And I almost never use a bag unless it's holding lenses (without caps); bags are for storage/transportation. My gear gets wet and abused at times. And yes, I've lost gear...dropped a lens off of a cliff and drowned a D3 in a river. That's what insurance is for. I've never damaged a piece of equipment where a filter would have saved it.

Well, maybe once. I dropped my 24-70 f/2.8 and it cracked the (plastic) filter threads. It had the lens cap on at the time (hood on but reversed) and that didn't prevent the threads from getting damaged....maybe having a metal ring screwed in there would have helped; maybe not. I don't know. But I do know that having a thin piece of glass in front would not have helped...a good step up ring probably makes more sense for protecting filter threads (and allows using one filter on all of your lenses).

But I've damaged more camera bodies (cracked/scratched LCD covers, etc) than lenses. And Ive seen more lenses go bad (electrical communication, AF motors, etc) than I've ever physically damaged.

Again, it comes down to; is your gear "tools" or "toys," or is it somewhere in the middle? The more of a "toy" it is, the more you baby it and protect it from every possible danger, and the less likely it is that you will need gear insurance. The "gear" matters more than the work you're wanting/trying to accomplish....and that's fine. In fact, for many it probably makes more sense than treating their gear like I do.

FWIW, I won't use any filter, of any type, unless I "need to." And I will use a clear/UV when I need to (i.e. blowing sand/salt water spray). I don't have complete disregard for my gear. After decades of photography I just don't believe having a UV filter on provides much of any protection in most cases.

 

[barratt1988]

if your paying so much for a UV filter than you clearly love getting ripped off. this is such a pointless post that im out.

rather than moaning about the 1% decrease in IQ why not get out and shoot

 

[Steve Smith]

A guy on another forum posted an interesting idea. Every time he bought a new lens, he put £40 or whatever in a pot. Soon adds up to the cost of replacing a front element.

If I'd done that when I first started out all those years ago, not sure how much I'd have in the pot

If I started doing that thirty years ago, I expect there would be about £3.27 and a couple of shirt buttons in there by now.


Steve.

 

[Phil V]

if your paying so much for a UV filter than you clearly love getting ripped off. this is such a pointless post that im out.

rather than moaning about the 1% decrease in IQ why not get out and shoot

You're funny - my main point was never IQ And the point made by filter 'lovers' is always 'buy decent filters then' so I priced my example on decent filters If I'd priced it on cheap ones someone would have said 'no wonder you're losing IQ :bonk:'

But my points were 'lens hoods offer much better protection AND improve IQ too'.

And 'filters are just a waste of money'. But you'd prefer to attack 'snooty photographers whinging about image quality', and I'm not one of those

I'd love to be out drinking shooting - but I'm stuck in a sweaty office.

 

[barratt1988]

o so you never use ND filters then? and the best quality filters arent £50 .

to be honest mate I think you should just get on with things and stop tryin to fight your point on here. where i go i use the front filter to protect the lens. simple. it doesnt affect the IQ it doesnt cost the earth and I cant use a hood as im using ND's

you dont wana use them then wonderfull give yourself a pat on the back. but for me they have saved my lens before. so for everone out there who doesnt like them.. DONT USE THEM!

IF you are like me and like to protect the front then buy a decent one (maybe hoya pro) for about £20 and get on with it..

 

[Phil V]

o so you never use ND filters then? and the best quality filters arent £50 .

to be honest mate I think you should just get on with things and stop tryin to fight your point on here. where i go i use the front filter to protect the lens. simple. it doesnt affect the IQ it doesnt cost the earth and I cant use a hood as im using ND's

you dont wana use them then wonderfull give yourself a pat on the back. but for me they have saved my lens before. so for everone out there who doesnt like them.. DONT USE THEM!

IF you are like me and like to protect the front then buy a decent one (maybe hoya pro) for about £20 and get on with it..

The point you're missing is that you started this 'debate' with me, picking at my point re lens hoods :shake:. I really don't give a monkeys what you or anyone else does. However you seem to think I should be using filters because I don't understand their magical properties

And don't try to make me out to be stoopid, I've been doing that for 50 years with no help, 77mm Hoya Pro 1's cost £46 from Wex and the 82mm ones are £52, I'd need 3 77's and an 82, plus a selection of smaller ones so I figure approx £50 for a filter is an accurate description Maybe your's are £20 because you're not protecting decent sized lenses

I based my assumed costs on those facts - it doesn't matter whether I could get one for 27p or £20 though, because I don't need any do I? :bang:

BTW, nor do I feel the need to use ND filters on a regular basis - please don't assume we all shoot the same things and require the same kit.

 

[pepper1786]

you did ok, i never use them either

 

[Purpleflanger]

I do use Nikon clear filters for protection, but that's neither here nor there, if someone was to tell me that I should do the same as they do, because they are right, then I would just have to knock them out. You should have stood your ground. LOL.

 

[hollis_f]

where i go i use the front filter to protect the lens. simple. it doesnt affect the IQ

Every filter will affect the IQ adversly. It's the laws of physics.

they have saved my lens before

Really? How?

 

[FlyingShrapnel]

what if when you dropped your lens it went through the front FEW elements and a filter in there might have saved one of them, because it is an extra piece of glass?

 

[Phil V]

what if when you dropped your lens it went through the front FEW elements and a filter in there might have saved one of them, because it is an extra piece of glass?

Notwithstanding how unlikely this is, what kind of force will go through several cm of glass without damaging the casing. A lens with several damaged elements is probably a doorstop.

 

[boyfalldown]

You're missing the point, when the hood is knocked off it's displacing the energy, which is exactly what you need it to do - so the opposite of pointless. Just think crash helmet or crumple zone on a car

I'd happily swap a damaged front element for 200,000 images that might have been better without a filter. Not to mention that 1 damaged front element is loads cheaper than a good quality filter for each of my lenses? (a full set of Hoya Pro 1's comes oout at close to £300) and covered by insurance

 

[SiWatts90]

As a newbie to all things dslr I have to say I fell for a lot of the crap the sales people 'sold me' and bought UV filters for all my lenses for protection.. since then I have removed them unless i'm somewhere really muddy or sandy and just have the hood on, I personally haven't noticed any difference between quality with or without but I don't exactly have super expensive lenses anyway.

 

[old bloke]

I don't want to upset anyone but hasn't this subject been done to death.