Should I get filters for my lenses if so which ones
- Thread starter lizzy
- Start date
- Messages
- 2,599
- Name
- Ricky
- Edit My Images
- Yes
If they've turned out fine so far why change?
*waits for a filter user to walk in and counter*
*waits for a filter user to walk in and counter*
- Messages
- 11,805
- Name
- Jeremy Moore
- Edit My Images
- No
Because they're there?
- Messages
- 5,881
- Name
- Richard
- Edit My Images
- Yes
What effect/addition do you hope to gain with the use of filters?
- Messages
- 5,881
- Name
- Richard
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I disagree.
There are only a very limited number of circumstances where a UV filter will protect a lens any more than a lens hood.
For some people they may be good for protection, but this should be based on intended use rather than a blanket 'Filter for protection is good'.
Personally I have experienced a noticable quality drop when using a good quality filter on a couple of my lenses in the past.
- Messages
- 568
- Name
- Matt
- Edit My Images
- Yes
If you're shooting a wedding somewhere like a beach i'd say a UV filter is a must. Sand is evil! Other than that my favourite filter is a polariser, but more for landscapes than weddings.
.- Messages
- 2,196
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I think that for most standard weddings, the most you are likely to want is an ND Grad, allowing you to keep the sky perhaps a bit more often (unless you are heavily going to PP).
However, I reckon that it is just going to be extra fiddle. Same with a polarizer, as you need to adjust it if your angle changes.
A hood for outdoor shots is going to be the least-hassle, shot saver. It will provide a bit of protection (if you don't want to use UV filters), and reduce the chances of glare spoiling a shot.
Are you intending on being a paid photographer at the weddings?
I am not, which means I have to keep up to speed with the photographer that is being paid, which is why I am leaning towards least hassle = better
One recent one I was taking extra photos at, the photographer set up their camera on a tripod, at a position which meant that no-one else could get a straight-on shot, would move up to the couple whilst positioning any person, then return to the camera and shoot on remote. There was at most a 2 second gap to take a snap in, so you either had to be V prepared for the return, or go the least-hassle route. It is obviously that person's livelyhood, but a little anoying, especially as they didn't return that large a quantity of shots to the couple (who had paid for all shots to be on CD, rather than in an album, that is another argument though)
If you are the paid photographer, then obviously, so long as the couple don't get bored, you can take time to adjust things like polarizers and grads.
However, I reckon that it is just going to be extra fiddle. Same with a polarizer, as you need to adjust it if your angle changes.
A hood for outdoor shots is going to be the least-hassle, shot saver. It will provide a bit of protection (if you don't want to use UV filters), and reduce the chances of glare spoiling a shot.
Are you intending on being a paid photographer at the weddings?
I am not, which means I have to keep up to speed with the photographer that is being paid, which is why I am leaning towards least hassle = better
One recent one I was taking extra photos at, the photographer set up their camera on a tripod, at a position which meant that no-one else could get a straight-on shot, would move up to the couple whilst positioning any person, then return to the camera and shoot on remote. There was at most a 2 second gap to take a snap in, so you either had to be V prepared for the return, or go the least-hassle route. It is obviously that person's livelyhood, but a little anoying, especially as they didn't return that large a quantity of shots to the couple (who had paid for all shots to be on CD, rather than in an album, that is another argument though)
If you are the paid photographer, then obviously, so long as the couple don't get bored, you can take time to adjust things like polarizers and grads.
- Messages
- 5,881
- Name
- Richard
- Edit My Images
- Yes
If you don't have lens hoods then your money would be better spent buying those.
If you do have lens hoods then use them - they provide more than adequate protection.
A wedding is not the sort of environment that I think you will need filters to protect your lens elements.
My vote there is no.
- Messages
- 2,196
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Personally, I do have UV filters on all of my lenses.
However, I am beginning to think that I will remove them for important events, where I can be more comfortable that grit won't be blown in, or fingers on the front etc.
I have found, that as I have bought cheap(er) filters, that it has possibly effected the quality of some of the shots I am taking, especially when I have had to zoom/crop to get 'closer' to small birds. I cannot prove this, as usually I cannot see a difference until back at the computer, at which point it is not possible to test without the filter.
If you are taking shots professionaly, then I am wondering whether there is insurance that could cover the front of the lens being scratched. This would mean that you would require a second lens as backup, but reduces the 'risks' if you shot without a filter.
A UV filter will not protect a lens from being dropped/you tripping for example, where a hood might produce a small crumple-zone
However, I am beginning to think that I will remove them for important events, where I can be more comfortable that grit won't be blown in, or fingers on the front etc.
I have found, that as I have bought cheap(er) filters, that it has possibly effected the quality of some of the shots I am taking, especially when I have had to zoom/crop to get 'closer' to small birds. I cannot prove this, as usually I cannot see a difference until back at the computer, at which point it is not possible to test without the filter.
If you are taking shots professionaly, then I am wondering whether there is insurance that could cover the front of the lens being scratched. This would mean that you would require a second lens as backup, but reduces the 'risks' if you shot without a filter.
A UV filter will not protect a lens from being dropped/you tripping for example, where a hood might produce a small crumple-zone
- Messages
- 17,486
- Name
- Hugh
- Edit My Images
- No
I'lll vote no - get a hood instead. If you need the for a specific effect thats another matter
Hugh
- Messages
- 5,881
- Name
- Richard
- Edit My Images
- Yes
As a sidenote, when shooting a wedding you would require a second lens and camera as backup anyway.
- Messages
- 17,486
- Name
- Hugh
- Edit My Images
- No
just normal equipment insurance would do that - but why only professionally? your household contents insurance *probably* covers it as well
Hugh
- Messages
- 2,196
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I am wondering whether personal property/household contents insurance would cover a scratch on the front element. For a non-professional, I am wondering whether it would be difficult to argue that the quality of the shots afterwards is poor-enough to prove that the equipment needed repairing.
However, professionally, it might be easier to argue that the damage would reduce the chances of being employed for a job, and thus it is a work-requirement that the damage be repaired.
I am only thinking this way as my contents insurance just came up for renewal. It said I had £5000 cover for anything removed temporarily from the house. However, it also stated that any item over £1000 needed to be specifically named. I phoned up to check that 'photographic' equipment did not count as a single item (all my bits are below £1000 each, but in total...). I was told that this cover did not apply to photographic equipment, as it counted as personal belongings instead. Thus, I was only covered for £1000 in total.
A bit off the point that I know, but the insurance companies have a different classification to personal belongings, and their value to their customers.
I have not investigated a separate equipment insurance yet, it is just if you are not a professional, perhaps it is more difficult to justify it?
However, professionally, it might be easier to argue that the damage would reduce the chances of being employed for a job, and thus it is a work-requirement that the damage be repaired.
I am only thinking this way as my contents insurance just came up for renewal. It said I had £5000 cover for anything removed temporarily from the house. However, it also stated that any item over £1000 needed to be specifically named. I phoned up to check that 'photographic' equipment did not count as a single item (all my bits are below £1000 each, but in total...). I was told that this cover did not apply to photographic equipment, as it counted as personal belongings instead. Thus, I was only covered for £1000 in total.
A bit off the point that I know, but the insurance companies have a different classification to personal belongings, and their value to their customers.
I have not investigated a separate equipment insurance yet, it is just if you are not a professional, perhaps it is more difficult to justify it?
- Messages
- 1,757
- Name
- Alastair
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I'm with you on this. I'm not buying protective filters anymore because it seems to me the cost of a decent filter that doesn't affect the image quality is as expensive or more expensive than replacing the lens element.
- Messages
- 17,486
- Name
- Hugh
- Edit My Images
- No
- Messages
- 2,382
- Edit My Images
- No
A no from me. I used to ese them. Stopped and noticed I am getting sharper images.
