Lens filters, yes or no ?

Liam_89

Liam_89

Suspended / Banned
Messages
183
Name
Liam
Edit My Images
Yes
As I mentioned in a previous thread,
I was looking to buy the Sigma 18-35mm 1.8,
I went ahead and purchased it and now waiting delivery,
Just wondering what people’s thoughts are on filters for this lens,
I know it’s a 72mm thread and I have also purchased a Hoya 10 stopper to accompany it as I like to do long exposure,
My main question is,
Is it practical to add on a U.V filter whilst not using the 10 stop, just for everyday use ?,
Or does using a U.V filter degrade the quality of the lens optics,
I may be talking silly but thought I should ask before I go ahead and buy a U.V,
Any input is appreciated as always,
Thanks
 
You will get mixed responses. I never* use "protective" filters preferring to use the lens hood. The hood will provide physical protection and increase IQ (via reduced flare and increased contrast). Front elements are a lot tougher than some people think too.

* If I was shooting in an incredibly hostile environment and not using other filters then I might ...
 
^^^^ That all the way!
 
On a short lens like that a high quality UV is virtually undetectable. An added protection may be worth if used in humid or dusty environments, or perhaps if you like getting too close to the rocks :)
 
My view is similar to Pauls, but I would word it as "I only use a protective filter if I'm shooting in a siltation which warrants it"

Protective filters (and I would suggest a specific protective filter, rather than a general UV one) are intended to stop damage from things like mud (and possibly small pieces of gravel), salt spray, etc - stuff that might scratch directly or indirectly (IE when trying to clean it off).
Bigger impacts can be enough to break a protective filter, such as dropping a lens, a larger stone impact, bashing the front of the lens into the corner of a table, etc. - so try to avoid them! This is where a lens hood will prevent or minimise damage.

If you're shooting where it's unlikely that something will splash onto the lens, then leave the filter off, as all it will do is increase the risk of IQ degradation, flare, etc.
 
PaulButler said:
You will get mixed responses. I never* use "protective" filters preferring to use the lens hood. The hood will provide physical protection and increase IQ (via reduced flare and increased contrast). Front elements are a lot tougher than some people think too.

* If I was shooting in an incredibly hostile environment and not using other filters then I might ...
Click to expand...


My own view entirely.
 
There is a good perspective on using UV filters (or not) on the Lens Rentals blog... I'll quote the first section which gives you the general thesis of the article and you can read more here -- https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2016/12/front-element-lens-protection-revisited/ ...
The internet is an interesting resource. Once you’ve put a reference up, it’s there forever. Over time, things may change, but that 10-year-old article doesn’t. A few weeks ago someone used some old articles I’d written (1, 2, 3) as a reason why he doesn’t use protective UV filters. They claimed I had said there was no need to use UV filters.

That’s kind of what I said, but so compressed as to be inaccurate. What I really said was this:

  1. Evaluate the cost to benefit ratio of using a UV filter. Don’t use a $100 filter to protect a $100 front element.
  2. Evaluate the situation. If you are in a high-risk environment, use a filter to maximize your protection.
  3. Never, ever use a cheap $30 filter unless you don’t care about image quality.
But at that time (2010 to 2013) I wrote those posts, that meant I didn’t use UV filters very often because it usually wasn’t worth the money. Front element replacements weren’t that expensive, and high-quality UV filters were expensive.​

One thing to note (and not relevant for your lens perhaps but generally) some lenses such as some Canon L series require a front filter for their weatherproofing to be effective. Not sure how widespread this requirement is.
 
PaulButler said:
You will get mixed responses. I never* use "protective" filters preferring to use the lens hood. The hood will provide physical protection and increase IQ (via reduced flare and increased contrast). Front elements are a lot tougher than some people think too.

* If I was shooting in an incredibly hostile environment and not using other filters then I might ...
Click to expand...
As you rightly say, mixed responses.

I don't care for lens hoods and always use protective filters.
For my own reasons, I'd rather clean/replace a filter than do the same thing with a front element.
I guess in extreme conditions I might encounter flare or ghosting through not using a lens hood but I've rarely seen it if at all.
 
Faldrax said:
My view is similar to Pauls, but I would word it as "I only use a protective filter if I'm shooting in a siltation which warrants it"

Protective filters (and I would suggest a specific protective filter, rather than a general UV one) are intended to stop damage from things like mud (and possibly small pieces of gravel), salt spray, etc - stuff that might scratch directly or indirectly (IE when trying to clean it off).
Bigger impacts can be enough to break a protective filter, such as dropping a lens, a larger stone impact, bashing the front of the lens into the corner of a table, etc. - so try to avoid them! This is where a lens hood will prevent or minimise damage.

If you're shooting where it's unlikely that something will splash onto the lens, then leave the filter off, as all it will do is increase the risk of IQ degradation, flare, etc.
Click to expand...

Same here - I use them when shooting surfing / wave brakes at the beach as the lens gets a lot of spray on it, but other than that I no longer bother.
Years back I used to religiously apply a new filter to every lens and leave it there forever, never damaged a lens! For the last 5 years or so, I've not bothered. Still never damaged the front element :-) I do use a hood though when carrying, so it's that that bounces off me and other people.
 
In film days I used to use UV or skylight filters. Not for protection but to reduce glare and warm images up slightly. These days UV filters are built into sensors and AWB deals with the slight coolness so the filters are superfluous. Very occasionally use either a UV or skylight but as protection against flying debris rather than any optical gain.
 
I haven't used uv filters since late eighties and have broken one lens I dropped down a cliff smashing the zoom and focusing mechanisms. No filter could have saved that. The elements and coatings of modern lenses are really tuff, tuffer than the filters and remember wood among other things that in itself won't scratch the lens can easily turn a filter into shattered pieces that will.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I use B+W protection filters on my 70-200 due to the environments I shoot in. No UV filter though.
 
PaulButler said:
* If I was shooting in an incredibly hostile environment and not using other filters then I might ...
Click to expand...

:agree: If the dust and s**t is flying that front element needs protecting!

DG Phototraining said:
Its a NO from me too

Be careful, its better & cheaper - if you can't be careful consider if the shot is really worth having (it's probably not lol)

Dave
Click to expand...

For a nice, pretty landscape shot or portrait maybe but the world would be poorer if photojournalists didn't take some risk;) YMMV

GC
 
Shot through a mucky kitchen window. Hope this answers your question.

DSC_6635red.jpg


If anyone thinks he can tell you that using a UV degrades image quality. Take two photos one with a UV on and one without. Then fasten a 240 v 13 amp wire to a certain part of his anatomy and ask him if he can tell you witch one was taken with the UV filter on the lens.If he gets it wrong he gets the full 240 v 13 amps. All of a sudden he will not be able to tell if there is any degraditon with a UV fitted. :LOL:
 
shapeshifter said:
Shot through a mucky kitchen window. Hope this answers your question.

View attachment 125699


If anyone thinks he can tell you that using a UV degrades image quality. Take two photos one with a UV on and one without. Then fasten a 240 v 13 amp wire to a certain part of his anatomy and ask him if he can tell you witch one was taken with the UV filter on the lens.If he gets it wrong he gets the full 240 v 13 amps. All of a sudden he will not be able to tell if there is any degraditon with a UV fitted. :LOL:
Click to expand...

Try it with a strongly back-lit subject, or a sunset, or street lights at night. Then the difference will be obvious.

The problem with filters is usually not sharpness, but flare and ghosting.
 
A (protection) filter cannot improve image quality, at best it can have no effect but at worst it can be hugely detrimental to IQ from ghosting and/or flare.
 
On the subject of cost versus benefit I buy Marumi Super DHG UV filters, between £25-30 on Amazon and every bit as good as B&W and far easier to clean than Hoya. Be careful what you buy if you decide to go ahead as some of the coatings are a bitch to clean, these are superb.

Why do I use them ? Protection from sand, dust and sea water generally and as others have said, zero degradation in image quality to the naked eye. My lenses are worth £500 upwards each so a small price to pay for sealing them against the elements in my opinion.
 
imattersuk said:
On the subject of cost versus benefit I buy Marumi Super DHG UV filters, between £25-30 on Amazon and every bit as good as B&W and far easier to clean than Hoya. Be careful what you buy if you decide to go ahead as some of the coatings are a bitch to clean, these are superb.

Why do I use them ? Protection from sand, dust and sea water generally and as others have said, zero degradation in image quality to the naked eye. My lenses are worth £500 upwards each so a small price to pay for sealing them against the elements in my opinion.
Click to expand...

Marumi make very good filters and excellent value. They actually make the new Manfrotto filters that are identical but much more expensive. It's the Super part of Super DHG that refers to the easy-clean coating and it's well worth having. A lot of top-end filters have similar and will refer to it if they do - easy-clean, moisture resistant, dirt repellent, B+W MRC etc.

Liam_89 said:
Thanks again for the input everyone,
This was the one I was looking to get,

Hoya 72mm Pro-1 Digital Protector Screw-in Filter https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B0009K3PFS/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_tai_i_tS26Ab9M6146Q
Click to expand...

Hoya Pro-1 are good multi-coated filters, but don't have the easy-clean finish. Check out Hoya HD or Revo for that.
 
Having thought about it, there is nothing stopping filter users fitting a hood in situations where flare might be an issue.
Double protection.
 
soeren said:
Well, no not really. I'll put my money on the lens hood any day.
https://fstoppers.com/gear/do-uv-filters-really-protect-your-lens-shocker-not-really-83968
Click to expand...
I see the point.
I guess it's down to expected level of protection.
I'm not a professional, heck I don't even rank as an amateur, but I do cherish my lenses and I'm a dust-o-phobe.
If I drop my camera with a lens fitted to it I expect major damage with or without a hood.
To this end, filters are the choice for me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top