Would you put a filter in front of new L glass?

Tight Fart

Tight Fart

Messages
258
Name
Richard
Edit My Images
Yes
My first L lens arrived today and my gut feeling is to put a skylight filter on it purely to protect the front element. Now I understand that a lot of people will cry foul at this but I tend to use cameras in all conditions and often by the sea. Now if I was in a studio it would be the last thing I would do, but when I shooting by the sea perhaps with a storm the only option is to try and clear the salt water:razz: with either a T shirt or cotton hanky.
So in these conditions, filter or no filter???
 
Use a filter in adverse conditions, lens hood in normal conditions.

So in your case it seems to make sense to use one. Just make sure you get a quality one! :)
 
Sea spray, and flying sand/grit are my only real exceptions to my 'no filter' rule. If you're going to use one, don't go for a cheapo skylight, spend a few extra quid and get a decent multicoated UV one.

Now cue the war :D

Chris
 
chris321 said:
Sea spray, and flying sand/grit are my only real exceptions to my 'no filter' rule. If you're going to use one, don't go for a cheapo skylight, spend a few extra quid and get a decent multicoated UV one.

Now cue the war :D

Chris
Click to expand...

*prepares popcorn*


I do a lot of my photos on the beach with sea air, and I don't actually use a filter at the moment. That said, i'm using an 18-55mm and a 50mm f1.8, I'll definitely get something if I get a 17-55 f2.8 or a 70-200!
 
not a Skylight 1B --- it has a pink hue

not a UV - UV not needed

just a plain Protector - I got a Marumi DHG Protector - "Super DHG" is top-of-the-range

ok ok - so is Hoya HD
 
I know there are mixed opinions on the use of filters, but by the sea I always use a good UV filter to protect the front element. I'd be too nervous of the consequences otherwise! Living where I do, that means there's a filter on more often than not :)
 
I don't use them, I am not going to pay £100 odd to decrease the quality of my images....
 
Use them all the time on my L lenses, did buy the expensive ones. The only lens I own that doesn't is the 300mm f2.8 not one big enough:D use the lens hood to project that

One saved a friends lens, dropped lens, filter smashed, lens intact
 
I have filters on all of my lenses that will take them. They give me piece of mind and the confidence to wipe snow, water, dust or whatever else away.

I've never really experienced any problem with filters and I suppose that the only time I'd remove one would be to avoid reflections if there was a light shining towards the lens.
 
I Can't bring myself to wipe salt water off the lens with my T shirt, (and I cannot remember seeing a pic that was spoilt by a clear filter??)
 
Hoya Pro-1 UV filters on all my personally-owned lenses...Hoya HMC and 'regular' UV on the issued 'work' ones...

And to those of you who think your IQ is noticably diminished by the use of good-quality filters (always remember that - use a good quality filter or don't bother), I currently have 7 national front pages and three international front pages as well as a short-listing for an International press award...at no point did anyone ring me up and say: "Hey Rob, did you use a filter on these? They really SUCK! We can't use them at all!!!"
 
I personally think using a UV/Protection filter is a bit like insurance. Ignoring (if I may) the debate about whether or not they degrade the image, you never know how useful/good they are to you until you need them.

I have always used them by default on any lens I have owned with the exception of the nifty fifty (purely because the cost of a decent one was practically half the cost of the lens). The UV filtering aspect is not required with digital but will do no harm at all to your images in itself.

On holiday this year (last month in fact), despite being ultra careful with my gear and using a lens hood, an inexplicable scratch about 5mm long appeared on the front of the HOYA Pro1D UV which was attached to my 24-105L. No idea how it happened, it was just there. Obviously, had there not been a filter on then it would have been on the front element of the lens and I would have been a very sad bunny (regardless of whether or not it effected my images).

Also, wiping salty sea spray off a £40 filter makes you much less buttock-clenchingly nervous than wiping it off an £800 lens.
 
pete.rush said:
Use them all the time on my L lenses, did buy the expensive ones. The only lens I own that doesn't is the 300mm f2.8 not one big enough:D use the lens hood to project that

One saved a friends lens, dropped lens, filter smashed, lens intact
Click to expand...

The front glass on a 300mm f2.8 is a protective glass that can be replaced easily if smashed.
 
i cannot honestly believe that someone can show me a picture where a clear filter has altered it at all, unless perhaps we start to pixel peep.

I have Hoya pro digital on all my pro glass, except my 14-24 for obvious reasons and i hate having to scrub some stubborn marks off it
 
I always use a good filter. Rather replace a filter than a fron element.
 
I read in the manual (yes, some of us do read them) for my 24-105 L that the lens is weather proofed, apart from the front element needing a filter (of some sort) to fully complete the weather proofing.
 
You know, I'm really unsure about the whole 'you have to spend loads of money on a protective filter' theory.

I recall a thread on here a while ago where a guy was getting weird wavey patterns in the bokeh on his 70-200/2.8 and it turned out to be an expensive pro filter he had installed for protective purposes, thereby proving that at least some expensive filters (and I'm talking a £50 thing) are not good.

Meanwhile I know from a range of tests I did one afternoon when I was bored that even stacking two cheap 77mm Hoya's together made no discernible difference to the pics on my D700 with a UWA lens fitted, though that was only under one set of conditions.

I'm not saying I know for sure either way - I'm just saying I wouldn't neccesserily spend £50 or more on a filter that's not doing anything. Nobody has proven that it's worth the cash.

If, like me, you have 5 or 6 lenses with nearly-always-fitted protective filters, you're talking a few hundred quid down the drain potentially, compared to the cost of a bunch of £15 Hoya's which are possibly equally as good in every respect. If not better (given that I've only ever seen a problem with an expensive filter, not with a cheap one).
 
I Don't use them, the cheap ones don't do the job and the expensive aren't worth the money.
 
What do you mean by the cheap ones not doing the job?

For me, a filter is a lot easier to clean or replace than a front element.

Some of my lenses have awkwardly recessed front elements, and some (like the 16-35 F4) have sliding parts in there.

Sand, grit, etc, can be a bitch to get out therefore. The presence of a flat, simple filter makes it easier to clean and negates the risk of a front element getting marked.
 
DEPENDS on the initial cost/value/quality of the lens.

Sigma 10-20mm. Hoya HMC. £300 used lens, £15 filter.
Nikon 24-70 2.8. Hoya 1 HD. £1k lens, £50 filter.
 
I always have a filter fitted for protection for peace of mind and because i have a habbit of loosing lens caps! doh! and the way i see it if im shooting into a light source i just unscrew it for the shot!
 
Liam said:
The front glass on a 300mm f2.8 is a protective glass that can be replaced easily if smashed.
Click to expand...

I know :gag::naughty: I was kidding :D:D
 
no filters used here unless risk of damage,

why spend 2k on an L' lens to stick a £30 filter in front ?

Al'
 
sezzi said:
...why spend 2k on an L' lens to stick a £30 filter in front ?
Click to expand...

To ensure it stays worth £2k, you dullards...

Honestly is that the best people can come up with? This argument has been done to death - put one on don't put one on, but this "£30 filter will destroy every one of my spectacular images" argument doesn't hold.
Those few instances where a filter does make a difference have also been argued over ad nauseum...
 
I have Hoya Pro1d Protector Filters on all my Lens. I buy them direct from supplier and they work out under £30. Would never take my glass out without them on, I know front element in Lens is for protection, but I costs me far less to replace the filter myself than have the lens away for repair. AND I can do it straight away so will never be without my glass. Never found a reason to take them off, other than when I give them a good clean after a beach visit.

I just don't get why people are so against them.
 
I'll stick my head above the parapet here. I do have experience of a filter seriously degrading images. I had it on my Canon 70-200f4 and struggled to get a decent sharp image out of it. I decided to try testing it on a tripod because I wanted rid of it but didn't want to sell it if it was not right.

I tripod mounted it and focussed using both AF and manual focusing and they were both just not right. I was seriously thinking repair/insurance/bin at this point.

The last thing I tried was removing the filter........it was absolutely tack sharp and the greens were better too! Nothing at all wrong with the lens, it WAS the filter. I honestly can't remember which manufacturer but I removed all the filters from my lenses, cleaned them and put them away. I have not used them since. I keep them in case I do go shooting by the sea or where there is a very dusty environment because I do understand the value of protection in those circumstances.

I have 6 Nikon pro lenses and not one of them has a filter fitted. I use lens hoods all the time, clean them properly and have them all insured, just in case.

You have to make your own decisions ;)
 
I'm on the using them side unless you're in a studio or something. Admittedly this is probably partially being in cornwall, sand especially gets everywhere.

I'd rather lose a few would-be-good photos over the course of the year than kill a lens, even £200 isn't easy for me to always replace. If I had something posher I'd sure as hell use a filter.

In short, I've done the whole testing with or without filters (mostly have a skylight on my long lens now actually) and rarely is there any difference in the pictures. Yes there's a miniscule chance it ruins that perfect photo, but I'd guess less chance than something damaging my lens.


Edit: Alison if you don't mind me asking, did you actually notice an improvement on your other lenses, or did you try a different filter on the problem lens to make sure it wasn't a faulty filter?

Also, I mean it was a Canon... :D
 
AliB said:
I'll stick my head above the parapet here. I do have experience of a filter seriously degrading images. I had it on my Canon 70-200f4 and struggled to get a decent sharp image out of it. I decided to try testing it on a tripod because I wanted rid of it but didn't want to sell it if it was not right.

I tripod mounted it and focussed using both AF and manual focusing and they were both just not right. I was seriously thinking repair/insurance/bin at this point.

The last thing I tried was removing the filter........it was absolutely tack sharp and the greens were better too! Nothing at all wrong with the lens, it WAS the filter. I honestly can't remember which manufacturer but I removed all the filters from my lenses, cleaned them and put them away. I have not used them since. I keep them in case I do go shooting by the sea or where there is a very dusty environment because I do understand the value of protection in those circumstances.

I have 6 Nikon pro lenses and not one of them has a filter fitted. I use lens hoods all the time, clean them properly and have them all insured, just in case.

You have to make your own decisions ;)
Click to expand...
:thumbs:
 
cannockwolf said:
Next time I take a pic in a dark lit room straight into incandescent lamp I'll remove the filter then, filter stays on...

Edit: just an idea shouldn't your test be shot at F16 if your replicating a sunset shot?
Click to expand...

Why should you shoot a sunset at f/16? Do you always shoot night shots at f/16? What about any shot where there is bright light against a dark background? It happens all the time. What difference would f/16 make? Have you tried it? I could show you plenty more examples of filters clearly making images worse - there are enough on here, search my user name and Arkady. Loads of examples.

Your post was "i cannot honestly believe that someone can show me a picture where a clear filter has altered it at all, unless perhaps we start to pixel peep." So I showed you one, and you respond with dismissal and sarcasm :shrug: The problem is flare, not sharpness issues (mainly). Perhaps you've been looking in the wrong place.
 
Tight Fart said:
My first L lens arrived today and my gut feeling is to put a skylight filter on it purely to protect the front element. Now I understand that a lot of people will cry foul at this but I tend to use cameras in all conditions and often by the sea. Now if I was in a studio it would be the last thing I would do, but when I shooting by the sea perhaps with a storm the only option is to try and clear the salt water:razz: with either a T shirt or cotton hanky.
So in these conditions, filter or no filter???
Click to expand...
No filter for me, even in these conditions. I'd rather have to keep cleaning the lens than lose quality.
 
Andy said:
Some cheap ones can degrade your image quality.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately I have never seen ANY evidence what so ever that expensive filters are better than cheap ones.

In the very, very few posts on forums or blogs where filters have caused problems, it's usually expensive brand name ones!

Admittedly this may just be because only the kind of person who spends big money on filters and lenses would bother to spot and post a filter problem, but either way, in my opinion there is nothing complicated enough about a Skylight/UV/protection filter for an expensive one to be an improvement over a cheap one, generally speaking.
 
I use filters, I shoot a lot of dogs and other animals and one will invariably stick its nose on the glass or spray the camera and me with mud or dust. I would much rather risk damaging the filter cleaning it when out than trying to clean the front element.

I imagine if I only ever did people in a studio environment then it would never have occured to me to use one - at the end of the day we all do what suits us and what we feel is best for our own circumstances and preferences so there is nothing to argue about really
 
put a filter on
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top