If I have a good protective filter, do I need a lens cap?

joxang

joxang

Messages
216
Name
Joe Z
Edit My Images
Yes
A semi-pro photographer friend is of the opinion that if you've chosen to use a protective filter, you don't need to put a lens cap on top of that - he keeps Hoya UV filters on all his lenses and just chucks them (sans cap) into his bag. I've read similar thoughts online ("pros don't use lens caps"?), but would like to hear more opinions before I adopt the same practices :).
 
I personally prefer a good lens hood, use the lens cap and don't bother with a "protective" filter unless in an environment where there is debris/grit/sand flying about (beach, speedway, etc).
 
Keep caps, front and back, on the lens when it's it the bag; protection filter only when you're shooting.
 
scottthehat said:
depend how much you care about your kit, filters are naf and do degrade quality, lens cap and lens hood.
Click to expand...

It's been demonstrated to my satisfaction (at least) that good filters don't do anything to image quality.
e.g. http://www.pbase.com/nrothschild/l37c_filter_test

I'e always preferred cleaning a filter to cleaning my lens, especially when I'm shooting in drizzly, windy or sandy places. But the protective filter or not argument has been done ad nauseum, and that's not what the topic's about :).

I guess no one here uses filters and not lens caps? It does seem more convenient in that you don't have to keep juggling caps around when trying to grab a quick shot.
 
For storage, I use a filter and not a cap, and I leave the lenses in the light.


When shooting

if bad environment, remove lens cap
if good environment, unscrew filter and leave lens cap attached to filter
 
I know you said it's not what the argument's about, but i don't use filters because they DO affect image quality. Maybe they don't with certain lenses and filter combinations in a certain situation, but they really do.
For that reason i use a lens cap and a hood if needed when shooting.
 
joxang said:
It's been demonstrated to my satisfaction (at least) that good filters don't do anything to image quality.
e.g. http://www.pbase.com/nrothschild/l37c_filter_test
Click to expand...
Those photos are examples of where you are unlikely to get effects of filters showing. Where you get the effects of filters really showing visibly are when you are close to getting lens flare and you have the extra glass layers to bounce off. Have a look half way down this page: http://www.ishootshows.com/2011/07/13/understanding-lens-flare-ghosting/ to see a photo taken into the sun with and without a filter attached. Additionally, in my experience, the degradations also show up more at longer focal lengths and in the areas of bokeh rather than the subject area (for example I have a filter on my 24-105, but don't use one on my 70-200 because it definitely degrades performance).

I'm also not sure why you wouldn't put lens caps on, but find filters acceptable. If you believe that the the filter won't degrade image quality if it is scratched in the bag, why not just put the lens in the bag without a filter? If you believe it will degrade image quality if it is scratched, you'll have to check it every time you take it out of the bag - you might just as well use a lens cap. If you believe the filter is made from an ultra hard substance that will never get scratched - you are mistaken ;)
 
Last edited:
I had filters on all my lenses and wasn't really happy with the IQ, I took them all off and IQ has improved a lot. For that reason I always have a lens cap on while stored and a hood on while I'm shooting. I used good quality UV filters as well that were highly recommended. I would, like others, use them if I was going somewhere very dusty or sandy.
 
joxang said:
It's been demonstrated to my satisfaction (at least) that good filters don't do anything to image quality.
e.g. http://www.pbase.com/nrothschild/l37c_filter_test

I'e always preferred cleaning a filter to cleaning my lens, especially when I'm shooting in drizzly, windy or sandy places. But the protective filter or not argument has been done ad nauseum, and that's not what the topic's about :).

I guess no one here uses filters and not lens caps? It does seem more convenient in that you don't have to keep juggling caps around when trying to grab a quick shot.
Click to expand...
i have used cheap and dear filters and yes the dearer ones are a touch better but they do lose quality end of.
look at the
http://www.youtube.com/user/DigitalRevCom#p/search/0/-e9TUIC-Dtk
also lenses are alot tougher than you think.
 
I use a filter and no cap on my x100. Because of the design of the x100 you actually need two filters, one with the glass removed and you fit them backwards as there's a male thread on the lens not female. This means the cap won't fit now so it's back in the box. I don't use a hood with it either.
 
joxang said:
It's been demonstrated to my satisfaction (at least) that good filters don't do anything to image quality.
e.g. http://www.pbase.com/nrothschild/l37c_filter_test
Click to expand...

All that test shows is that a filter will cause no observable degradation under certain circumstances. Here's a test that shows that filters (even very good ones) will cause degradation under some circumstances.

No filter - Hoya HD - Noname Cheapo

Filter%20Comparison%20100-400.jpg
 
My camera seems to take better pictures with a filter on instead of a lens cap.
 
IQ anoraks probably treat their gear with kid gloves and can safely live without 'protection' filters. Clumsy, careless, gits on the other hand... :D

DSC_0111.JPG
 
joxang said:
Personally, it's resale value for me. I never seem to be sticking too long with any piece of digital gear, and I like to keep everything in mint condition for when I upgrade.
Click to expand...
That's a different argument then ;)

Personally, I have lenses I don't see me selling in the future (unless I give up photography). I'd prefer the better image quality. Whether it is noticeable in a typical print is another matter....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top