Using filters for lens protection ?

BigRuss

BigRuss

Suspended / Banned
Messages
467
Name
Russell
Edit My Images
Yes
I'm sure this question will have been asked before, so I apologise now if I'm repeating threads.

I bought a used lens (55-250IS) with a fujiyama uv filter attached, I'm guessing he used this to protect the lens as is quite common practise.

I'm hesitant to use them unless needed for effect, as my way of thinking is the quality of the glass in the filter is not going to match the quality of the glass in the lens, therefore i would think it's got to have an affect on the quality of the image, no matter how small ?

What are your views on this pls ?

Cheers

Russ
 
Its a very polarised argument (no pun intended...)

Some people use them for lens protection, some say a lens hood is the better option for protection as filter can degrade image quality.

Filters on some lenses can add to the weatherproofness and also help avoid dust ingress.

You also have filters used for effect, coloured, neutral density and polarisers to name a few - these don't seem get the bad rep that UV filters get. I guess that is because these add to the image whereas a UV filter at best adds nothing (except protection).


I have UV filters on all my lenses. Im not a pro, and the difference to my eyes isn't massive although I will accept it does degrade it. Its arguably more noticable with flare/glare reflections. More expensive filters will perform better here.

If I'm intending to setup for an important shot. I'll simply unscrew the filter and reveal a pristine front element.
 
Last edited:
I use UV filters for all my lenses. I'd gladly accept 3% more glare and slightly degraded image quality for the countless times that the filters protected the front elements on even the mildest shooting environments.
 
When you've marked the front element of an expensive lens that can't take a protective filter [too wide] as I have, you'll make sure every lens that can take one does so.
 
I always used to put a UV filter on all my lenses until I discovered, quite by accident, that even good quality filters affected the quality of the photograph, which could not be completely removed afterwards.

I am not convinced that a lens hood does much to protect the lens either. It makes the lens longer and more prone to you side-swiping it when moving around - if it is a zoom lens that doesn't do the mechanics in the lens a lot of good. It's rather like wearing a safety helmet - you are constantly banging your head on things !

Fit filters for a specific photographic purpose, eg a polarizer, yes: "protection", no.

As for the effects of "damage" to the lens - Google it, there are some VERY interesting things about that ! A much over-exaggerated "problem".
 
Last edited:
Always fit a filter - always fit the best filters available.

The amount of degradation in 90% of cases will be undetectable outside a laboratory environment.
Where it is noticable - it's very noticable, so remove for those specific instances (night-shooting is one notable occasion where a filter should be removed). Filters can sometimes affect the bokeh on background foliage with telephoto lenses at some apertures - even the best lenses and filters aren't immune to this so test your kit and make allowances accordingly.

Those who say otherwise are talking shi-ite...
I've lost count of the times when I've returned from jobs to find great dings and scratches in the filter that I hadn't noticed while shooting, let alone dried water drops, mud, dog-snot and other crap - even kid's ice-cream on one occasion.
 
Arkady2 said:
Always fit a filter - always fit the best filters available.

Those who say otherwise are talking shi-ite...
Click to expand...

Thank you for your rude and ignorant remarks !!!!!!!!!

I have been taking photographs for over 40 years (35mm and medium format) and have never suffered lens damage in that time. If you have, could I suggest that you are NOT handling your equipment properly ?

I did suffer a broken UV filter once - when the thing unscrewed itself and self-destructed on the ground.

In my experience the UV filters "thing" is an "old-wives" tale/urban myth - and I will stick with that opinion. If you wish to disagree some evidence to support your claim would be useful rather than sinking to swear words !

**
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Moonrakerz said:
Thank you for your rude and ignorant remarks !!!!!!!!!

I have been taking photographs for over 40 years (35mm and medium format) and have never suffered lens damage in that time. If you have, could I suggest that you are NOT handling your equipment properly ?

I did suffer a broken UV filter once - when the thing unscrewed itself and self-destructed on the ground.

In my experience the UV filters "thing" is an "old-wives" tale/urban myth - and I will stick with that opinion. If you wish to disagree some evidence to support your claim would be useful rather than sinking to swear words !
Click to expand...

Settles back with a flask of coffee and a LARGE box of popcorn!! :thumbs:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I've shot both with and without filters, never could see any difference, however for peace of mind on expensive lenses I use them and Lens hoods.
 
Moonrakerz said:
I have been taking photographs for over 40 years (35mm and medium format) and have never suffered lens damage in that time. If you have, could I suggest that you are NOT handling your equipment properly ?
Click to expand...

Some people do use their equipment in slightly more..... 'hostile' environments than others though ;) :D

I can't tell if the 'uv thing' you're referring to is that they degrade images, or that they're necessary, I'm assuming the latter though?


wontolla said:
Settles back with a flask of coffee and a LARGE box of popcorn!! :thumbs:
Click to expand...

:lol:


Edit: To answer the OP's question - personally I don't, however if I found myself regularly in a situation where there would be a long of sand, dust, grit, sea spray etc coming up, I'd buy the best quality filters I could afford. I don't, so I haven't, but if I did I would :)
 
Last edited:
Moonrakerz said:
Thank you for your rude and ignorant remarks !!!!!!!!!

I have been taking photographs for over 40 years (35mm and medium format) and have never suffered lens damage in that time. If you have, could I suggest that you are NOT handling your equipment properly ?
Click to expand...

Stop being so condescending. Not everybody pussyfoots around in life wearing slippers and cardigans.
 
artyman said:
I've shot both with and without filters, never could see any difference, however for peace of mind on expensive lenses I use them and Lens hoods.
Click to expand...

I have tried to see what difference a UV filter makes to my photos, and i have to say, i cannot see any difference. And i have spent hours taking photos trying to see what difference they make! Granted, i pay a lot for the filters, but then the lenses they are on are not cheap, either. I'm happy safe in the kowledge that my lenses are all protected from the harsh enviornments, i choose to take photos in, without having to worry if i damage the lenses. Much cheaper to buy another B+W UV filter, than to fork out on a replacement lens.
 
Here are the facts. No opinions, just facts.

* 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.
 
hollis_f said:
Here are the facts. No opinions, just facts.

* 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.
Click to expand...

What book did you get all that out of? No offence intended. (apologies if you are offended by the question, only you have simply made a bold statement, with no evidence.) I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with your statement, but to come on here saying what you have, in the way that you have said it, appears a bit abrupt.

Not being funny, i simply posted my findings, using my camera with my lenses on subjects i take photos of, and view them on my laptop, or my prints, looking at them through my eyes. I bet if i stuck two prints down on a table, one with a UV filter used, and one without, You couldn't tell me which was which, because i'm sure i cannot tell a difference. FACT!!!!
 
Last edited:
wilko said:
What book did you get all that out of? No offence intended. (apologies if you are offended by the question, only you have simply made a bold statement, with no evidence.)
Click to expand...

Each fact is based on something called the laws of physics. Adding another layer of glass must - a). absorb some light that would otherwise hit the sensor; b) add internal reflections that increase flare and decrease contrast.

If you want some evidence - look here.


wilko said:
Not being funny, i simply posted my findings, using my camera with my lenses on subjects i take photos of, and view them on my laptop, or my prints, looking at them through my eyes. I bet if i stuck two prints down on a table, one with a UV filter used, and one without, You couldn't tell me which was which, because i'm sure i cannot tell a difference. FACT!!!!
Click to expand...

Calm down! One of my facts is consistent with your expereinces -

* Good filters will cause degradation that is not noticeable under most conditions.

I also bet I could take your equipment and take two photos , one with and one without a filter, where the difference was obvious.
 
hollis_f said:
Each fact is based on something called the laws of physics. Adding another layer of glass must - a). absorb some light that would otherwise hit the sensor; b) add internal reflections that increase flare and decrease contrast.

If you want some evidence - look here.




Calm down! One of my facts is consistent with your expereinces -

* Good filters will cause degradation that is not noticeable under most conditions.

I also bet I could take your equipment and take two photos , one with and one without a filter, where the difference was obvious.
Click to expand...

Maybe you could? LOL!!
 
I've never used a filter, but then I don't often shoot in particularly lens-hostile environments (eg rallies, sea spray).

The only time I have been worried was a local carnival which had a coin collection vehicle with people throwing coins - made sure I kept lens facing down as it passed!
 
Last edited:
... have you ever been sorry you asked ? :bonk: :D

A good debate guys, cheers
 
personally id say the hood protects in most cases, but for instances where flying items could hit the front element (sea spray, grit/gravel) a very good quality filter should help.

Moonrakerz said:
Thank you for your rude and ignorant remarks !!!!!!!!!

I have been taking photographs for over 40 years (35mm and medium format) and have never suffered lens damage in that time. If you have, could I suggest that you are NOT handling your equipment properly ?

I did suffer a broken UV filter once - when the thing unscrewed itself and self-destructed on the ground.

In my experience the UV filters "thing" is an "old-wives" tale/urban myth - and I will stick with that opinion. If you wish to disagree some evidence to support your claim would be useful rather than sinking to swear words !
**
Click to expand...

when you have desert sand and shrapnel to deal with a filter is a good idea :D

(also careful, this guy has access to weapons italics and has a newborn baby.. :lol:)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
wilko said:
I have tried to see what difference a UV filter makes to my photos, and i have to say, i cannot see any difference. And i have spent hours taking photos trying to see what difference they make! Granted, i pay a lot for the filters, but then the lenses they are on are not cheap, either. I'm happy safe in the kowledge that my lenses are all protected from the harsh enviornments, i choose to take photos in, without having to worry if i damage the lenses. Much cheaper to buy another B+W UV filter, than to fork out on a replacement lens.
Click to expand...

I agree. I can't afford to simply replace my £1000 lens whereas I can afford to replace my UV filter. There may be slight degradation of image quality (although I have to say I've never noticed it myself), however it's a sacrifice I'm willing to make to keep my lens safe.
 
Moonrakerz said:
If you have, could I suggest that you are NOT handling your equipment properly ?
Click to expand...

LOL!!! Seriously - take a look at Rob's FlikR site, you'll see just how ironic your post is!!!

Got to be honest, I don't generally use protective filters - but then I don't have any really expensive glass. I'm sure if I did I might be thinking about protecting it a little more.
 
Those that do have a UV or other sort of protection filter, what type are you using? In my mind, it doesn't make sense to drop a four figure amount of money on a lens only to "protect" it with a £20 filter.
 
OutLore said:
Those that do have a UV or other sort of protection filter, what type are you using? In my mind, it doesn't make sense to drop a four figure amount of money on a lens only to "protect" it with a £20 filter.
Click to expand...

As I live by the sea and most of my photography is based on coastal subjects I have filters for all my lenses. I use Hoya Pro-1 digital filters. As I also have 2 children I keep them fitted indoors too, as lenses tend to attract sticky fingers.
 
Last edited:
Oh boy this one's gonna be good when Rob (Arkady) gets back.... :D
 
If you're shooting in a warzone, I'm sure filters for protection is a no-brainer.

If you're just walking the streets in the UK, perhaps not so much?

Just a thought.
 
neil_g said:
true.. i think robs point was more that he's been using filters for X years and not seen any noticable degridation.

but im sure he'll be along shortly to clarify :)
Click to expand...

I'd also bet though that he uses high quality filters..
 
I always have a UV filter on my lens until I have mounted the camera on a tripod or comfortably set up. Then I just unscrew the filter to take the shot, I don't think there's a right or wrong decision, it really depends on the conditions and environment your setting up in.
 
Personally? I don't bother. My kit is very well looked after (as Scraggs can attest to!), so I tend to find the addition of a UV filter, as well as the use of hoods (Which I always use, unless I am using grads) rather pointless.

Sure accidents can happen, but in 8 years I have never damaged a lens, and for if/when I eventually do, I have insurance to cover any big accidents.

Arkady uses his kit how he uses it. There is no right or wrong way about it really. If UV filters help him protect his glass, and he is happy with the results, so be it. To say that anyone else is talking sh-ite, however, is not completely accurate imho :)

It should be noted though, that I use my kit for landscapes most of all, which unless near the sea, is certainly not up there in the risky environment scale!
 
This one pops up every now and again, as does RAW v JPEG etc etc
ALWAYS causes grief and bad feeling.

Like most things photographic (and in life generally) there is NO right or wrong answer.
It boils down to this, have a look at the reasons for and against, weigh them up in your own mind depending on how you use your kit, and make a decision that (you think) benefits you.

On this particular subject, If you are using your kit in a harsh environment it MIGHT prove prudent to use a protective filter.
If you DO use a filter, don't scrimp on cost (up to a point!), bear in mind how much you paid for the lens....
Front elemnt damage, is more often than not purely cosmetic, it takes some serious damage before it becomes really noticable.
A lens hood, although NOT it's primary function, may offer better protection to hard nocks than a filter, but not to sand sea or water etc.
DON'T let ANYONE tell you your decision is wrong.......
 
hollis_f said:
Each fact is based on something called the laws of physics. Adding another layer of glass must - a). absorb some light that would otherwise hit the sensor; b) add internal reflections that increase flare and decrease contrast.
Click to expand...

So, by that reasoning, we should all buy lenses with as few elements as possible, because lenses with lots of elements, absorb too much light and increase flare and decrease contrast?
 
Moonrakerz said:
Thank you for your rude and ignorant remarks !!!!!!!!!

I have been taking photographs for over 40 years (35mm and medium format) and have never suffered lens damage in that time. If you have, could I suggest that you are NOT handling your equipment properly ?

I did suffer a broken UV filter once - when the thing unscrewed itself and self-destructed on the ground.

In my experience the UV filters "thing" is an "old-wives" tale/urban myth - and I will stick with that opinion. If you wish to disagree some evidence to support your claim would be useful rather than sinking to swear words !

Perhaps when you grow up you will learn some 5 letter words..........
Click to expand...

But he provided evidence in his own experience of damage avoided by having a filter?
You appear to think your experience is ipso facto the case for everyone and others experience counts as nothing for eveidence?

My house has never burnt down, should I and everyone else not have insurance?
 
Moonrakerz said:
Thank you for your rude and ignorant remarks !!!!!!!!!

I have been taking photographs for over 40 years (35mm and medium format) and have never suffered lens damage in that time. If you have, could I suggest that you are NOT handling your equipment properly ?

I did suffer a broken UV filter once - when the thing unscrewed itself and self-destructed on the ground.

In my experience the UV filters "thing" is an "old-wives" tale/urban myth - and I will stick with that opinion. If you wish to disagree some evidence to support your claim would be useful rather than sinking to swear words !
Click to expand...



My response was neither rude nor ignorant. I gave examples of why I think they're a good idea based on personal experience.
You say you've been taking photos for 40 years? Where are they then? I did a quick sweep and cannot find any images of yours posted here for us to see - at least I take photos rather than just collect camera kit and spout [PLEASE DON'T TRY TO BYPASS THE SWEAR FILTER] on the internet.

Your comments, however were rude and offensive and have been reported as such.

Next time you get on your high horse you might take care to look at someone's pedigree - as others have pointed out, my line of work involves more than mincing about taking happy-snaps in the back garden.
Maybe when you start taking photos outside your plushly carpeted living room you may find you re-evaluate your position.

**
provocation removed..
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top