Filters!!

Messages
273
Name
Paul
Edit My Images
Yes
I have checked various threads on this and I get the impression that the consensous of opinion is that on a DSLR a "protection" filter is:thumbsdown:

I have hoods for all my lens and think I will stay without filters-any thoughts or opinions please?
 
Some swear by them, others can't understand it.

At the end of the day, it's personal preference. Many are of the opinion that putting cheap filters on expensive glass is not worthwhile - you're negativing the good glass with the cheap filter. Many say use lens hoods as opposed to filters to protect your front element from damage.
 
Thanks for that-its kind of the thoughts I was having also!! I have heard about flare effects when using filters with DSLR also?
 
I've just bought a 12-24 which had a lens protector already on. First thing i did was take it off and put it in the draw.

Like many i feel the hood is enough for the type of photography i do. If i were to photograph MotoX again then i may well put it back on.
 
If you use a cheap filter on an expensive lens you're defeating the object of having a decent lens. If you put an expensive filter in a decent lens you're paying almost as much for the filter as it would cost to replace the front element of your lens should you damage it. So what's the point?

Only in severe conditions should you use a protective filter e.g. a sandstorm or motorsports that flick mud and grit at your camera.
 
Agree with all the above about filters - leave them off. I once saw a 'protective' filter smash and scatter glass fragments all over an expensive lens - some protection.
 
I have the UV filters on all my lenses.

Came in handy in Turkey as I'm pretty sure if it wasn't there the wife would have put a huge scratch on the front element when she placed the camera on a rock ledge.

I also go camping a lot and walking though the forest or in the bush I find that twigs and such touch the filter even though I may have a hood on.

But sometimes I don't put a hood on because it just makes the lens longer than I want it to be in certain situations.

Ultimately I don't think I notice the difference (save for the odd flare once a month maybe) between having and not having a filter but I'd rather keep one on just in case.
 
I once saw a 'protective' filter smash and scatter glass fragments all over an expensive lens - some protection.

Why did it shatter? Would it have been better if the lens glass shattered instead of the filter?
 
That was exactly my thought.

I doubt the lens glass would have shattered - in any case the front element was ruined by scratched from the filter. It did no good whatsoever. Not mine so I don't know the exact circumstances.
 
Thanks for all the replies. I have decided that for mu use its NO to the filters and YES to the hoods-which I allways use anyway!

Fortunately I do not have mad dogs and horses to contend with!!

Much appreciate all the help though!!
 
I doubt the lens glass would have shattered - in any case the front element was ruined by scratched from the filter. It did no good whatsoever. Not mine so I don't know the exact circumstances.

Ok, I agree that the front element probably would not of shattered but would have probably been chipped. As you say not knowing the exact circumstances it's not possible to draw conclusions.
 
Whatever happened to buying a filter for the optical uses they have, rather than to protect a lens???

There are plenty out there that have uses optically, such as NG grads, polaisers etc, that can make your images really stand out...
 
Whatever happened to buying a filter for the optical uses they have, rather than to protect a lens???

There are plenty out there that have uses optically, such as NG grads, polaisers etc, that can make your images really stand out...

Agree. I use ND grads and Polarisers a lot of the time but the original thread asked about protection filters.
 
I keep one in the bag for use in not very nice environments.. by the beach in windy conditions... sand etc... but otherwise leave it off.
 
Back
Top