To filter or not to filter

Stephen L

Stephen L

I asked a Stupid Question Once...
Messages
6,643
Name
Stephen
Edit My Images
No
In May Mrs L and myself are going on a once-in-our-lifetime small ship cruise round Skye and the Small Isles. For small think 6 passengers and 2 crew.
Now, I’m not normally a filter user. I’m dubious about the wisdom of putting cheap(ish) glass in front of a quality lens. But given that there will inevitably be sea spray, would I be advised to fit a clear protection filter for easier cleaning, or just leave the lens as nature intended? FWIW the lenses (Nikon Z) are claimed to be weather resistant (ish!).
 
I've had two lens saved by filters and a friend has had another one saved. In each case the filter was smashed but the front element was fine. A half decent filter isnt going to make any visible difference to the quality.
 
I normally leave a UV filter one all the time. With a 82mm lens a Tamron 24-70 f2.8 G2 it is a lot of glass to protect. Thinking along the lines of light conditions, let alone protection , maybe this is a better option? 1 filter doing 2 jobs.
P1060149.JPG


link

HOYA | UX UV

hoyafilter.com hoyafilter.com
 
Last edited:
My rule is to use only the highest grade uv filters with maximum layers of coating, and where necessary for example due to flare remove it.
I have tested a few UV filters on 5ds with top primes and found no visible impact on sharpness.

Above all there is nothing more annoying than scratched front element
 
Considering the environment, I would say use a filter for protection, and take a polariser with you just in case the sun shines and you need it.

I have in the past always used a UV (or skylight) filter for protection

Since I got my first SLR in '72, I have been "lucky" enough not to have damaged a lens, or needed the filter there for protection (except against salt spray and sand)

I've stopped using them now since I noticed a huge visible difference on a Panasonic 100-300 and a less but still noticeable difference on other Panasonic lenses.
However for a trip like that I would use one. Many weather resistant lenses actually depend on a filter being fitted for the rated protection.
 
Sangoma said:
Considering the environment, I would say use a filter for protection, and take a polariser with you just in case the sun shines and you need it.

I have in the past always used a UV (or skylight) filter for protection

Since I got my first SLR in '72, I have been "lucky" enough not to have damaged a lens, or needed the filter there for protection (except against salt spray and sand)

I've stopped using them now since I noticed a huge visible difference on a Panasonic 100-300 and a less but still noticeable difference on other Panasonic lenses.
However for a trip like that I would use one. Many weather resistant lenses actually depend on a filter being fitted for the rated protection.
Click to expand...
As you, I have never damaged a lens (or a body) in 63 years of photography - but there's time yet. However, you've confirmed my belief that in this specific environment one might be useful. And yes, I have polarising filters should the sun make an appearance.
 
For the most part I don't use UV filters and there are two very good reasons for this. One is that I have a Sigma 14-24mm and the object lens is so bulbous that a filter just doesn't fit. The other lens is a 60-600mm and the object lens is so big (105mm) that a UV filter costs a bloody fortune. However, I do have one on my Olypus 40mm MFT lens becasue that gets tossed arounf all over the place.

Now having said this, when it comes to sea spray, I would have thought that a protective filter would be a must, There is no way you are going to avoid spray (even just a light mist) getting on the lens and you are going to have to clean it often; very, very often and I'd rather be doing that to a replacable filter than my fancy lenses,
 
These responses (thank you) are confirming my thoughts that for seafaring (!j some protection is indicated. I shall have to rummage through my box of historical bits.
 
sk66 said:
I don't normally use protective filters, or even lens caps; but when sea/sand spray is involved I will.
Click to expand...
Absolutely this.

Lens hood for mechanical protection
Filters for environmental protection
 
I am of the mind that salt wouldn’t be good for the lens coating! A good quality filter and perhaps a rain cover for the lens should help.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nod
I did some test years ago and could not see any difference with UV or no UV in 18"x12" prints. The very expenses glass in the lens is surely used to achieve focus. The filter the camera simply shoots through and it's so close the lens I don't think it will make a difference. Some will say, when they zoom in to 400% they can clearly tell but who cares. It also always amazing me some of the truly stunning photos I see online taken with budget camera and cheap lenses.
 
bovey9 said:
I did some test years ago and could not see any difference with UV or no UV in 18"x12" prints. The very expenses glass in the lens is surely used to achieve focus. The filter the camera simply shoots through and it's so close the lens I don't think it will make a difference. Some will say, when they zoom in to 400% they can clearly tell but who cares. It also always amazing me some of the truly stunning photos I see online taken with budget camera and cheap lenses.
Click to expand...
That’s a gross misunderstanding of the physics involved. ;)
 
bovey9 said:
I did some test years ago and could not see any difference with UV or no UV in 18"x12" prints. The very expenses glass in the lens is surely used to achieve focus. The filter the camera simply shoots through and it's so close the lens I don't think it will make a difference. Some will say, when they zoom in to 400% they can clearly tell but who cares. It also always amazing me some of the truly stunning photos I see online taken with budget camera and cheap lenses.
Click to expand...
One of the photo mags did a test some years back and only with the cheapest filters or stacking 4 or more filters could they see any visible difference. Some cheap square filters were really bad but it varied a lot.
 
I’ve always kept a Hoya protector filter handy to put on for such occasions.

The Hoya protector filters are a bit stronger than a normal UV filter so a bit more robust. I’m sure there is a newer version now as I’ve had them for years.

For a good quality but well priced rain cover have a look at the think tank emergency rain covers. They are a cut down version of the full think tank rain covers for long lenses (circa £35 compared £150 of the full version for long lenses).
 
I was under the impression you did not need a uv filter on modern cameras as the sensor is less prone to uv light than film was.
I use Hoya Pro 1 digital protectors that are designed just for protection.
51m2jcKbyUL._AC_.jpg
 
Nikon f1.8 said:
I was under the impression you did not need a uv filter on modern cameras as the sensor is less prone to uv light than film was.
I use Hoya Pro 1 digital protectors that are designed just for protection.
View attachment 412589
Click to expand...
Barely any cameras can see UV. The only ones that can are very early DSLRs and cameras which have been modified to full spectrum. Barely any lenses let UV through anyway.

Rub a bit of wax on the protective filter thread to act as a lubricant and don't over tighten it. They can be a pain to get off, even before you add in a bit of corrosion from the salt.
 
I’ve since bought a couple of Nisi filters, and went out briefly yesterday to try them. I could see no difference in image quality despite me being a nay-sayer. They have extra ridges on for grip.
 
Filters may cause additional reflections which can deteriorate the image. This is usually apparent by lower contrast. You need to understand the optical physics so avoid filter where the risks are high. Indeed you can easily measure any deterioration as the Raw file sizes reduce as detail is lost. The worst issues occur if there is a light source in front of the camera though not necessarily in frame and you are not using a lens hood. It is made even worse if you have more than one filter. The filter does not provide much physical protection as suggested above in that the filter is delicate and smashes easily whereas lenses are much tougher and hard to damage. I do carry plain protection filters for each of my lenses but never found the need to use them yet but have possibly not operated in a very hostile environment. So I always use a lens hood and keep my lens cap on when not actually taking photographs.

If you want to see the effect try adding a couple of filters and leaving off the lens hood and point the camera towards the sun but not including the sun in the frame.

Dave
 
Dave Canon said:
Filters may cause additional reflections which can deteriorate the image. This is usually apparent by lower contrast. You need to understand the optical physics so avoid filter where the risks are high. Indeed you can easily measure any deterioration as the Raw file sizes reduce as detail is lost. The worst issues occur if there is a light source in front of the camera though not necessarily in frame and you are not using a lens hood. It is made even worse if you have more than one filter. The filter does not provide much physical protection as suggested above in that the filter is delicate and smashes easily whereas lenses are much tougher and hard to damage. I do carry plain protection filters for each of my lenses but never found the need to use them yet but have possibly not operated in a very hostile environment. So I always use a lens hood and keep my lens cap on when not actually taking photographs.

If you want to see the effect try adding a couple of filters and leaving off the lens hood and point the camera towards the sun but not including the sun in the frame.

Dave
Click to expand...
If you read my original post, you will see that I am on the fence regarding filters. However, my initial question was concerning protection against sea spray. The consensus for this concern is that a filter would indeed be advisable. Since starting the post I have invested in a Nisi filter, and subsequently tested it on the lenses likely to be subject to sea spray. I see no visible difference to the end result with or without filter attached. I had no intention of turning it into a debate about the physics of light transmission. :)
 
Even cheap filters will not always cause issues... the light has to be coming from the right direction (in relation to the coatings) and the scene has to have details that make it apparent. In terms of IQ/sharpness, people seldom achieve maximum anyway, so a slight loss may be imperceivable... it's like using a TC or small aperture macro; it always reduces maximum resolution, you just may not be able to tell.

This is the kind of results a cheap filter can cause... probably even a high quality one as well; you don't always get what you pay for. In this example it looks like Nisen bokeh, but the cause is different.

118383034_3515321725158228_7241857030958817882_n.jpg


This is a second example from a different lens/filter combination.

118595306_3515321705158230_9120842410274941697_n.jpg
 
Last edited:
Stephen L said:
If you read my original post, you will see that I am on the fence regarding filters. However, my initial question was concerning protection against sea spray. The consensus for this concern is that a filter would indeed be advisable. Since starting the post I have invested in a Nisi filter, and subsequently tested it on the lenses likely to be subject to sea spray. I see no visible difference to the end result with or without filter attached. I had no intention of turning it into a debate about the physics of light transmission. :)
Click to expand...
Personally, I would probably not bother with the filter but would take it with me anyway, just in case. However, if the spray was that bad, I would be more concerned as to what damage it might do to my camera. In reality, I am sure you will take the filter but only use it, if you judge it necessary so, as we will not be there, it will be down to you anyway.

Dave
 
Dave Canon said:
Personally, I would probably not bother with the filter but would take it with me anyway, just in case. However, if the spray was that bad, I would be more concerned as to what damage it might do to my camera. In reality, I am sure you will take the filter but only use it, if you judge it necessary so, as we will not be there, it will be down to you anyway.

Dave
Click to expand...
Thanks. My principal concern is the ease of cleaning either the lens or filter. Some spray will be inevitable, as the ship we will be on is small - an ex-RN officer ship-handling training cutter, 6 passengers, so the deck will be close to the water.
 
Sea spray warrants the use of a protective filter IMO.
 
I don't normally use filters but sea spray is one of the times I leave the filter on.
Others being in rain, snow or dusty+windy conditions. Though rain and snow isn't as bad as sea water or sand

Filters affect sharpness with longer lenses more so than wider ones.
 
I never use filters just the lens hood unless it’s a CPL or ND. Touch wood never had a problem yet.
 
wibbly said:
I never use filters just the lens hood unless it’s a CPL or ND. Touch wood never had a problem yet.
Click to expand...
I'm in the same boat. I used to slap a UV as soon as I bought a lens. Now I just use a hood on every lens. I'm sure in some cases a UV makes no difference but I carried out a test on my Fuji GFX100S and 20-35mm f/4 which is a landscape monster of a combo and you CAN see a difference with and without the UV. It has much better depth of colour without it. So I've not used one since. The hood offers decent protection. The other good bit of protection I see many discarding is the neck strap! A lot of people just hold in one hand but I always have the camera either round my neck or on a tripod (sometimes both!).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top