Protection Filters - To Use or Not to Use

C

Canonman II

Suspended / Banned
Messages
144
Name
Rob
Edit My Images
Yes
:help: I'm in a dilema about weather to use HOYA 1D Pro Protection Filters on my lenses. I've read in the past that some say you should and others say no. From an IQ perspective, I can go with not using any as the lens would have been designed without this filter in place, but I was just wondering what you guys out there think and do.

Thanks :thumbs:
 
I'm in the same boat as you, I got a canon lens last week and I've already managed to slightly damage the coating on the front :(. I was hesitant to use a filter but am definitely going to get one now, but no idea what to go for. I don't want a cheap one, as I feel it would be foolish to put cheap glass on the front of such a great lens. Has anyone had any experience with the Hoya pro 1? Or any recommendations for alternatives? Also, has anyone noticed any deterioration in IQ using this filter?
Thanks
Chris.
 
Chris, a friend of mine uses the Hoya on his Canon 24-105 (no probs), but on his Canon 100-400, the Hoya on some occasions appeared to effect the focus accuracy. Since removing the filter, no more focus issues. He uses both lenses on a 7D :)
 
Thank you canonman! I'm also using a 7d, the lens is the 17-55 2.8. I think maybe I should take my camera into my local camera shop and fire off some test shots with and without the filter...Unless any kind hearted TP members have any laying around that they'd be willing to upload here :)
 
Always use filters on my lenses, partly to protect the lens, and also if I mess up cleaning the front of a lens, I can replace the filter rather than the lens. In dusty environments, I prefer the filter to get dusty rather than the lens's front element. Tend to buy B&W filters now though I still find the prices for decent filters scary!!
 
Chris_topher81 said:
Thank you canonman! I'm also using a 7d, the lens is the 17-55 2.8. I think maybe I should take my camera into my local camera shop and fire off some test shots with and without the filter...Unless any kind hearted TP members have any laying around that they'd be willing to upload here :)
Click to expand...

Filter IQ problems illustrated here, post #22 http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=212297

Use a lens hood for protection, and a good quality protector filter when you absolutely need one. Hoya HD is the best.
 
Depends when and where you're shooting. If there's dust or debris (e.g. speedway) slap a filter on. If it's a fine day and you're out and about.. I'd rather fit a lens hood. Reduces flare and recesses the lens.

A lot of people seem to be very frightened about cleaning the front element of a lens.. do it right and there shouldn't be a problem.
 
Last edited:
I use a filter only in environments where there is a chance of sea spray - or a chance something will hit my front element.

For day to day protection I find the hood is more than ample

It helps knowing that it is not overly expensive to replace the front element on all my lenses if the need should arise.
 
HoppyUK said:
Use a lens hood for protection, and a good quality protector filter when you absolutely need one. Hoya HD is the best.
Click to expand...
I thought the Pro1 was higher in the Hoya range than the HD? The downside is the Pro1 is so thin it has no front thread for a lens cap.
 
Llamaman said:
I thought the Pro1 was higher in the Hoya range than the HD? The downside is the Pro1 is so thin it has no front thread for a lens cap.
Click to expand...

HD is Hoya's premier range - though there's only a CPL, UV and a Protector http://www.intro2020.co.uk/pages/hoyahd.htm For protection purposes, the glass is very tough and the multi-coating water resistant - most aren't, and if you let water dry on them it can leave a mark.

Both HD and Pro-1 have front threads.
 
Hmm, what the hell do I have then? Will check when I get home!
 
JUST USE A LENS HOOD FOR PROTECTION*

And use filters for artistic benifits.

*unless shooting in sandstorms, gunfights, pub brawls and people who spit.
 
Last edited:
Haha! Good point, well made :D
 
Lol I think that'll be my signature from now on!
 
Thanks again, I think I'll go with no protection filter where I can, as I see little point spending loads on super quality glass and not get the best out of it when everything counts :D
 
Flare%20AM.gif
 
That looks like a +1 for no filter Frank if ever there was one! :D
 
Nice one Frank. Nice motor too - you need a bird poo filter ;)
 
odd jim said:
JUST USE A LENS HOOD FOR PROTECTION*

And use filters for artistic benifits.

*unless shooting in sandstorms, gunfights, pub brawls and people who spit.
Click to expand...

I am not wholly convinced that a filter is going to be a major step forward in a gunfight (tongue in cheek smiley please).

Otherwise agreed.
 
Canonman II said:
:help: I'm in a dilema about weather to use HOYA 1D Pro Protection Filters on my lenses. I've read in the past that some say you should and others say no. From an IQ perspective, I can go with not using any as the lens would have been designed without this filter in place, but I was just wondering what you guys out there think and do.

Thanks :thumbs:
Click to expand...

I don't see why not. The Hoya filters are well designed. Think of it this way- you'd be gutted if your £2000 lens got damaged from a stone somehow hitting your lens - but you could have prevented that with a £20 filter.
 
inlineadam said:
I don't see why not. The Hoya filters are well designed. Think of it this way- you'd be gutted if your £2000 lens got damaged from a stone somehow hitting your lens - but you could have prevented that with a £20 filter.
Click to expand...

If I put a £20 filter on my £2000 lens I would be gutted by the loss of image quality and increase in flare as a result. If you must use a filter at least use a good one.
 
I have filters on my lenses common sense really image quality will be degraded slightly if at all I'd rather have that extra protection I have a 24-70 L and 70-200 f2.8 L is usm mk2. If you also check canons site it recommends using a filter and this will keep the lens sealed from the elements my opinion expensive lenses put a filter on it but say I'm shooting long exposure at night excellent weather I'd take it off.
 
I don't use filters and just use a lens hood for protection. Although, I feel I should use a filter because I would be gutted if any of my lenses became damaged.
 
hollis_f said:
No it doesn't. At least, not for anything except for completion of weather sealing on a handful of lenses.
Click to expand...

Yes it does it recommend using them for protection read the site properly
 
Some folks seem to think that lenses are made of jelly and must be handled accordingly. They're actually pretty tough.

Take my spectacles, which are made of very expensive coated plastic and cost more than some of my lenses. I have had them over four years, they get rubbed against my camera viewfinder most days, covered in mud, rain, and even paint spray recently, I clean them thoroughly at least once a day taking no particular care and even scrub them with a tooth brush now and then. They are still as sparkly clean as the day I got them. They don't seem to need a protection filter.

My camera lenses are just as tough. When they get dust or a few spots of rain on them, which they mostly don't because I take care and always use a hood, I clean them. Never damaged a lens in 40 years, and my images are as flare and ghost free as the manufacturers intended. I have a high quality protection filter, just in case, but I can't remember the last time I last used it.
 
born-shooter said:
Yes it does it recommend using them for protection read the site properly
Click to expand...

Maybe, just maybe, that's because the SELL their own "protection" filters.:thinking: Of course a manufacturer is going to recommend a product that they produce and sell!

Utter waste of time.
 
Last edited:
born-shooter said:
Yes it does it recommend using them for protection read the site properly
Click to expand...

Show me where it recommends them - not the bit where it says "You may consider using...." but where it actually recommends them.


Here's what Chuck Westfall, from Canon, says about filters -

If I knew I was going to be exposing the 16-35mm lens to a hostile environment such as rain, sea spray, car exhaust fumes, etc., I would use a good quality clear or UV filter to protect the front element. I would also consider using a thin-rim circular polarizing filter to cut glare, etc., if the shooting conditions called for it. But in most other cases where the lens is in no imminent danger, I would remove all filters for maximum optical performance, and use the supplied Canon lens hood to reduce flare and help prevent impact damage.
Click to expand...
Source.

And here's what Erik Allin, also of Canon, says -

ANY and ALL UV/protection filters have some degree of negative impact on image quality. Some more than others. With some extremely high-quality multi-coated UV filters – typically very expensive – the IQ impact is so negligible as to be unnoticeable in the finished printed image to most people. Most UV filters exhibit some IQ degradation that can be seen to some degree in the image. Some UV filters can be quite bad.
Click to expand...
- Source.

Neither of those sounds even a little bit like a recommendation. Indeed, they agree with my oft-posted comments on 'protective' lenses.

* No UV/'protective' filter can improve image quality on a dSLR.
* All UV/'protective' filters will cause some degradation in image quality.
* The seriousness of this degradation tends to decrease as filter cost increases.
* Good filters will cause degradation that is not noticeable under most conditions.
* All filters, even the best, will cause noticeable degradation in some conditions.
 
Last edited:
I shot at Silverstone yesterday in appalling rain conditions and i only used a hood. This was good enough and I'm talking driving rain here (no pun intended). Not once did the rain compromise the lens and when little drops did get on there you couldn't see them. I have however used a polariser in the rain and you could see every little drop on the lens, as it sits a few mm from the front of the element - that makes a big difference.

Use ANY filter in the rain and you'll cause problems. And to be honest I've shot unsealed bodies and lenses in the rain without issue so I don't even see the argument for weather sealing.
 
Last edited:
born-shooter said:
I hope one of you clowns smash your front element
Click to expand...

That's not very nice - just because somebody contradicted your religious beliefs with real facts.

And if I do smash my front element, how do you think a 1mm sheet of glass would make any difference? Those front elements are thick - any impact sufficient to smash one of them is going to go through a crappy little filter without stopping.


PS. I'm still waiting for the link I have to 'read properly'.
 
Last edited:
born-shooter said:
I hope one of you clowns smash your front element
Click to expand...

That kind of attitude isn't welcome around here, just because we disagree with you.

Grow up.

Oh, and do you think something hard enough to smash a front element will be protected by a thin piece of glass?? Use some common sense.

I've never so much as scratched a front element in almost 20 years of photography and shooting film. How come? I don't chuck my kit around or fire air gun pellets at my front element.

Edit - as above!
 
Last edited:
born-shooter said:
I hope one of you clowns smash your front element
Click to expand...

Truly Pathetic.

Filters for protection is an individual choice. No choice is wrong unless it is a misinformed choice.

No need for your muppetry is there?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top