Saftey Filter

true_one_picture

true_one_picture

Messages
397
Name
Phil
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi guys,

I subscribe to a Podcast about photography on my iPod called "Digital Photography Tips From The Top Floor"

I was listening to it earlier today and one thing that was said was that it was a bad idea to have a 'safety' filter on your lenses. I have always put a U.V.0 filter on my lenses to act as a safety filter against scratches etc...

His argument was that by putting something on the end of your lenses even though its clear, will deteriorate the quality of the light that passes through and in turn effect your images. He did say this only counts for 'safety filters' and not Grad filters etc because there design for certain effects.

Should I shoot with or with out a safety filter on?

I took a couple of test shots and their is a slight difference but Im not sure it is worth loosing my safe guard.

Phil
 
I was pointed to this link when I started a thread on filters for landscape togging.

In there is something about UV lenses and what you just said. It seems if you get a fairly expensive multicoated one that there shouldn't be any issues
 
Test with and without. Some lenses can have issue with filters (e.g. Canon 100-400, 300/4), others do not. You will need to do a variety of different tests in different lighting conditions (also check the bokeh of the lens). You can get a duff filter, even an expensive one - do not think expensive filters are immune. This is one of those religious issues, so I would convince yourself either way. I use filters on all my lenses, mainly to avoid damage cleaning smudges on the front element. The best mechanical protection (i.e. from knocks) is the lens hood.
 
I think I will just give it a go with and with out over a length of time.

I was told by a photography mentor to always have one on and also I read on here somewhere that always wiping your actual front element of the lens can degrade the quality its self... At the end of the day I think its still easier to replace a filter rather then replace a lens.
 
Glad to find another listener here.

When I started out, I got filters for my lenses (both of them) and, from then on, bought a filter with each lens. I've seen plenty of examples on the interweb of filters degrading the image and after I managed to drop a camera bag and smash a filter (because the camera landed on the very front edge of the filter and distorted the ring), I took them all off and haven't worried. I do use a lens hood all the time, though, for mechanical protection.

In other words, I think that you sort of answered your question in your first post (along with the help from the other posters). It's probably best to work out for yourself if, indeed, the slight difference in image quality is worth the loss of the perceived safety margin.

Happy shooting.
 
mr_pants said:
Glad to find another listener here.

When I started out, I got filters for my lenses (both of them) and, from then on, bought a filter with each lens. I've seen plenty of examples on the interweb of filters degrading the image and after I managed to drop a camera bag and smash a filter (because the camera landed on the very front edge of the filter and distorted the ring), I took them all off and haven't worried. I do use a lens hood all the time, though, for mechanical protection.

In other words, I think that you sort of answered your question in your first post (along with the help from the other posters). It's probably best to work out for yourself if, indeed, the slight difference in image quality is worth the loss of the perceived safety margin.
Click to expand...

I think you have just summed it up for me! :thumbs:
 
I think a filter without a lens hood can actually be worse than no filter at all - as a bash usually results in the filter smashing, scattering shards of nasty sharp glass into the front element. Use your hood!
 
It's debate that surfaces from time to time.
If you think you need to protect your lenses from airborne dust, sand, rain, mud, spit, low-flying seagulls, fingerprints etc then you do.

If you live in a hermetically sealed clean-room, then you don't.

Just buy your filters from Nikon (since you own a Nikon) or use the very good 'Pro' ones from Hoya and use a lens hood...belt and braces.
I'd rather sacrifice an £80 filter a couple of times a year than smash or scratch my front element.
For the record, only one of the UV filters sent out to me in Afghanistan survived completely unblemished. I'd replaced two after they'd got small pits from wind-blown sand only to trash both of the new ones completely a week later, falling into an irrigation ditch on top of the cameras - a fall which also broke both lens hoods, pushing them back up the lens barrels.
Fair enough, I'm a bit harder on my work-kit than most people here, but accidents do happen.

It makes me laugh to see photographers who never use filters, but then hardly ever wipe the dust off the front element for fear of marking the coatings...with a filter on I just scrub away with whatever's handy: lens-tissue, clean cloth or even the corner of a t-shirt or neck-cloth.
Just treat the filter like any other consumable.
 
This is worth a read if you want to see how good any particular filter is:
http://lenstip.com/113.4-article-UV_filters_test_Description_of_the_results_and_summary.html

Cool picture - I doubt you'd be able to see anything through all of those stacked together! :D

3113_filtry-wieza.jpg


Getting back to the question, I spent a lot of money on Hoya, B+W and Rodenstock UV filters but haven't been using them recently because of flaring in the sun. Flare is hard to avoid in some cases with a shallow lens hood on a UWA, but that also means the front element is more exposed which makes me slightly nervous.
 
I fall into the camp of not using them. I nearly binned a perfectly good 70-200 because the filter was degrading the image so badly. (And it was an expensive one that you would not consider as a problem)

So now I don't use them but I do always use a lens hood and if I was going into the kind of environment Rob works in then darned right I'd use them.

It's a case of weighing up the risks. If I'm shooting on a building site I'll use them otherwise I don't consider most hotels a hostile environment.
 
BouncyMelons said:
I fall into the camp of not using them. I nearly binned a perfectly good 70-200 because the filter was degrading the image so badly. (And it was an expensive one that you would not consider as a problem)

So now I don't use them but I do always use a lens hood and if I was going into the kind of environment Rob works in then darned right I'd use them.

It's a case of weighing up the risks. If I'm shooting on a building site I'll use them otherwise I don't consider most hotels a hostile environment.
Click to expand...

Definitely always worth a with/without test - and not to assume a good name will mean no problem. It seems there are a few Canon lenses that are more problematic with filters than others - have recently heard of probs with the 300/4 and 100-400 when used with some filters. Quite a few UWA lenses can't use filters anyway.

Andy
 
I use a filter on every lens.

Just a couple of weeks ago at the Sunseeker Rallye i got covered in mud from a passing (very wide line) car. A quick check of me and my kit revealed that a large dollop of wet mud had landed on the front of the lens.

Due to the filter being on there all i did was a quick squirt of water from my drinks bottle, and a wipe with the micro fibre cloth. Without that filter i would have been delicately cleaning for ages and missed a load of action.
 
I've just looked at the link, and it leaves out a couple of important things untested. One is resistance to grease (and how easy it is to clean) and the other is mechanical quality (does it rattle, will it keep dust out, will it fall apart).

I tended to use the Hoya HMC as they seemed to be optically as good as the expensive versions, but mechanically, they're a bit ropey and a pain to clean if you get a greasy smudge on them.
 
AndyElliott said:
I've just looked at the link, and it leaves out a couple of important things untested. One is resistance to grease (and how easy it is to clean) and the other is mechanical quality (does it rattle, will it keep dust out, will it fall apart).

I tended to use the Hoya HMC as they seemed to be optically as good as the expensive versions, but mechanically, they're a bit ropey and a pain to clean if you get a greasy smudge on them.
Click to expand...

The older ones were a bit 'squeaky' when you wiped them, weren't they...lol
Still... rather have that than be scraping my lenses with burlap sandbags though...

The newer Pro Hoya's are much better in that respect...and no rattles either.
 
like everything its a matter of using the right kit for the job, shooting a rally with grit everywhere or surfing then filters save your bacon. Working indoors or outdoors in normal weather it'll be alreet so don't worry
 
Arkady said:
The newer Pro Hoya's are much better in that respect...and no rattles either.
Click to expand...

I just object to the price! I've been happier now I've switched to the Marumi "Digital High Grade" - much easier to clean, better mechanically, quite shallow (so no vignetting issues) and very good value.

Andy
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top