Lens Filters ??

K88 MUD

K88 MUD

Messages
200
Name
MUD
Edit My Images
Yes
Evening folks

Relatively new to all this but ive read loads about what the different filters do but my question is..........If the lens needs protecting (uv) etc why not make them built in ??

I like night time photography and so have not used a uv filter yet but don't see why you would spend up-to a few grand on some glass only to cover it up :thinking:

Anyone care to give there views ??

(y)
 
also new so may be completely off the mark with my thinking... but while i imagine they could build that into a lens, if u were to break it the whole unit would have to be repaired, so to me i think i'd prefer it the way it is... break the uv lens protector and it'll be a much cheaper repair job...
 
Digital cameras don't need UV protection.. They also don't need protection filters. Some people like to think they will help protect the lens, others think they are a huge waste of money and can ruin image quality...

Make up your own mind!
 
TCR4x4 said:
Digital cameras don't need UV protection.. They also don't need protection filters. Some people like to think they will help protect the lens, others think they are a huge waste of money and can ruin image quality...

Make up your own mind!
Click to expand...

They can if you use rubbish one. If they are good you won't notice a thing. What you will notice are completed weather sealing, and front element protected from dust, grit, flying food, rocks, and all sorts of other common ****

When you come to sell scratched lens, don't complain about the low offers. Don't complain when you buy scratched one in return. Who cares about the filters then :shake:
 
daugirdas said:
They can if you use rubbish one. If they are good you won't notice a thing. What you will notice are completed weather sealing, and front element protected from dust, grit, flying food, rocks, and all sorts of other common ****

When you come to sell scratched lens, don't complain about the low offers. Don't complain when you buy scratched one in return. Who cares about the filters then :shake:
Click to expand...

I've never scratched a lens in over 10 years....I've just sold two lenses in the last week, one costing £800 the other £500.. Neither were scratched and looked like new. I've been on windswept beaches, metal festivals, I was on a 14 day tour of Europe with a metal band where gear was bashed around on horrible European roads, and then bashed around by sweaty metallers in the pit. I've been in dingy pubs and nightclubs with drunken yobs, airfields with jet engines aircraft mere metres away... Weddings with kids and mucky fingers, farmyards, zoos, theme parks, fairgrounds....

Lenses are tough, they are built that way.. Oh and the one time I used a uv filter, on my brand new canon 100mm IS macro lens, it looked like the sky had fallen down... Or someone had turned a fog machine on... That was a £70 Hoya filter... Not exactly cheap eh?
Took it off, threw it away and beheld the glory of the 100mm macro.
 
Thanks guys......interesting views as always.....at the mo i dont have any filters on any lens but as im upgrading them then i might end up with a cpl or uv just to help keep the dust out.
I have hoods on all lenses so covered that way.

Thanks guys
 
Many Canon lenses require the addition of a front filter to complete their weatherproofness. Personally I stick B+W UV MRC filters on all my lenses that will take them. I note not difference in image quality with or without the filter.
 
Dust is just as likely to get in through the gaps around the focus, zoom and (if there) aperture rings... Possibly not on top price pro lenses but in most consumer ones.
 
TCR4x4 said:
I've never scratched a lens in over 10 years....I've just sold two lenses in the last week, one costing £800 the other £500.. Neither were scratched and looked like new. I've been on windswept beaches, metal festivals, I was on a 14 day tour of Europe with a metal band where gear was bashed around on horrible European roads, and then bashed around by sweaty metallers in the pit. I've been in dingy pubs and nightclubs with drunken yobs, airfields with jet engines aircraft mere metres away... Weddings with kids and mucky fingers, farmyards, zoos, theme parks, fairgrounds....

Lenses are tough, they are built that way.. Oh and the one time I used a uv filter, on my brand new canon 100mm IS macro lens, it looked like the sky had fallen down... Or someone had turned a fog machine on... That was a £70 Hoya filter... Not exactly cheap eh?
Took it off, threw it away and beheld the glory of the 100mm macro.
Click to expand...

I could bet money yours was either non-coated and way overpriced, or simply fake. Fakes manage to reach even credible retailers these days. £70 for UV is way over the top by the way IMHO. I've used plenty of slightly cheaper Hoya HMC filters (£15-20) on almost all my lenses and I couldn't tell the difference with or without most of the time. Pro1 or HD are only (slightly) better with thinner rims and more coating layers. Having the protection and weather sealing is very important though.

P.s. how do you inspect lens surface? I look at them in very contrasty light at a very shallow angle. That shows up what you would struggle to see in an overcast daylight. if you get some sand-like material on your lens and simply rub them off you will cause damage. The dust and moisture and fungus can also quite easily make their way in, which is not very nice

Now if you claim that UV filters are wrong to use, why then people stick "cheap" noncoated polystyrene grads and 10 stop on their lenses? That is about 100x worse if you think about it. Well they are too fashionable I guess :shrug:
 
K88 MUD said:
Thanks Nod.....Ive just bought a canon 10-22mm EF-S lens so was going to fit one to that but not the kit lens i have......worth it or not ?
Click to expand...

The choice is entirely yours! I very rarely fit "protection" filters, the exceptions being on a beach where there's wind borne sand and spray or where there's mud flying around. I have a couple of lenses that pyhsically can't be fitted with protection filters - one of them hasn't even got a hood to protect the front element! In 30+years of photography, I've yet to bash a front element or have one scratced by flying carp - when a lens is fitted, the cap comes off and the hood gets fitted and that's been protection enough.

Even Daugirdas seems to admit that some of his shots with filters have suffered as a result
couldn't tell the difference with or without most of the time
Click to expand...
(please excuse the snipped quote - certainly not intended to remove any context).

Can't do any harm to have the filters in the bag in case they're needed and if you have them, try them and see if they make a noticeable difference and if they do, avoid using them in similar situations.
 
Nod said:
The choice is entirely yours! I very rarely fit "protection" filters, the exceptions being on a beach where there's wind borne sand and spray or where there's mud flying around. I have a couple of lenses that pyhsically can't be fitted with protection filters - one of them hasn't even got a hood to protect the front element! In 30+years of photography, I've yet to bash a front element or have one scratced by flying carp - when a lens is fitted, the cap comes off and the hood gets fitted and that's been protection enough.

Even Daugirdas seems to admit that some of his shots with filters have suffered as a result (please excuse the snipped quote - certainly not intended to remove any context).

Can't do any harm to have the filters in the bag in case they're needed and if you have them, try them and see if they make a noticeable difference and if they do, avoid using them in similar situations.
Click to expand...

There is no denying a filter could sometimes cause some problems. For example working in backlight situations or with strong light source within the frame is best done without a filter. Dirty/oily filters can become a real disaster. Lee filters are particularly susceptible (non-coated, large surface area and well exposed, and easy to scratch). Most of the time, in "normal" light it is not an issue. Appreciating and controlling those situations is the key.

I had a few occasions where the filter made a real positive difference: shooting near strong sea spray (lots of corrosive salty water), Burnham on sea (fine air borne sand getting everywhere), food fight in a party. Sometimes it is hard to predict what may be coming
 
Id say more to the point rather than building them in to the lens why at the prices the manufacturers charge for lenses don they supply a screw filter with every lens
 
daugirdas said:
They can if you use rubbish one. If they are good you won't notice a thing. What you will notice are completed weather sealing, and front element protected from dust, grit, flying food, rocks, and all sorts of other common ****

When you come to sell scratched lens, don't complain about the low offers. Don't complain when you buy scratched one in return. Who cares about the filters then :shake:
Click to expand...

daugirdas said:
There is no denying a filter could sometimes cause some problems. For example working in backlight situations or with strong light source within the frame is best done without a filter. Dirty/oily filters can become a real disaster. Lee filters are particularly susceptible (non-coated, large surface area and well exposed, and easy to scratch). Most of the time, in "normal" light it is not an issue. Appreciating and controlling those situations is the key.

I had a few occasions where the filter made a real positive difference: shooting near strong sea spray (lots of corrosive salty water), Burnham on sea (fine air borne sand getting everywhere), food fight in a party. Sometimes it is hard to predict what may be coming
Click to expand...

Which is it then? :thinking:
 
K88 MUD said:
Thanks Nod.....Ive just bought a canon 10-22mm EF-S lens so was going to fit one to that but not the kit lens i have......worth it or not ?
Click to expand...

The 10-22 is one of the most flare-resistant lenses in the known universe. Why spoil that by sticking a useless filter on the front of it? You may as well have bought a cheaper lens in the first place.
 
K88 MUD said:
Thanks........good to hear.....just waiting for a hood to turn up
Click to expand...

Er, you might want to rethink the hood. It takes up a huge amount of space in the bag, but it's so shallow that it does little to protect the front element from impacts. Nor will it block light from hitting the front of the lens. But,as it's so flare-resistant, that doesn't matter.

My 10-22 is the only lens I own that never has the hood on.
 
hollis_f said:
Er, you might want to rethink the hood. It takes up a huge amount of space in the bag, but it's so shallow that it does little to protect the front element from impacts. Nor will it block light from hitting the front of the lens. But,as it's so flare-resistant, that doesn't matter.

My 10-22 is the only lens I own that never has the hood on.
Click to expand...

Tut-tut, Frank. Shouldn't teach bad habits... ;) :D

All true though. 17-40L uses the same hood, but luckily it comes free with the lens.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top