When I was in school for photography 30 years ago, my teacher said to never put a lens filter on a lens, simply to protect the lens. His reasoning was why put a $100 piece of glass over a $2,000 one. He thought the filter would lessen the quality of the image taken. Since then, I've gone back and forth using and not using filters for protection. I'm not sure I can tell a difference. Is there one? I want to protect my lenses, but not at the expense of image quality.
Long ago I found ghost images with Leica filters on Leica lenses on a few subjects with bright lights in the photo area, so i quit using protective filters. Eventually I had to replace a 50mm Summicron, mostly due to cleaning marks. That was a small price in comparison to the thousands of Kodachromes the old lens shot. Sturdy lens hoods provide protection from some hazards and from flare. I still use those.
When I was a beginner, I used "protection" filters. Now I never do. First, I don't think they do anything, really. I once had a lens damaged when the lens fell "face" down and the filter broke, and the broken shards scratched the heck out of the lens. Second, I kept having problems with flare, even using coated filters. So, I don't use them any more. I keep the plastic lens caps on my lenses whenever not taking a shot. The lens cap is very tough, much tougher than flimsy thin glass. I have thousands of dollars in lenses, am an outdoor "adventure" photographer who shoots almost every day, and all of my lenses are perfect! Modern lens coatings are very, very tough. On my Nikon gear I use the lens hood, which deflects stuff before it even gets near my lens. Never once had a problem.
Kent in SD
In contento ed allegria
Notte e di vogliam passar!
I have noticed some lenses have more flare and reflection when using filters and shooting night scenes with bright lights. Never a problem with daylight use for me as long as the lens and filter are both clean. I bumped a $1200 dslr lens into a rock while hiking a couple years ago and it scraped the $100 polarizer instead of the lens front element. I was glad to have kept the filter on. I don't use a protective filter with LF because I'm not hiking/walking much with the lens exposed or installed; less room for mistakes and less casual use. Sometimes I leave a yellow filter on certain LF/MF lenses since I'll mostly be using them outside for situations that filter would be preferred. On my DSLRs, I have high quality protective filters on all the lenses all the time (except when using a different filter) since I'm more casual about their use and apt to wear the camera or take it in more places.
You're lucky the filter didn't just break and scratch the lens, as happened to me. Then, you're out both a lens element and an expensive filter. If the lens cap or lens hood had been your lens, you would have had no damage at all, not even to the polarizer.Originally Posted by jp498
Kent in SD
In contento ed allegria
Notte e di vogliam passar!
Re: filter or no filter
He should have asked:
"Why damage a $100 piece of glass when you can damage a $2000 one?"
The filter provides protection from physical assault and from dirt.
If something impacts the front of the lens, like a pebble thrown up by a passing vehicle, you'll be very happy the filter is there.
It also helps when you need to clean the optics. Much better to clean a filter, and if necessary replace it, than to do the same to the front element of the lens. If the filter really gets dirty, i.e. some kind of film on the front, you can remove it, wash it with dish washing detergent, dry it, and it's good as new. I don't suggest doing that with a lens.
Good (i.e. expensive, like B+W or Heliopan) filters do not degrade image quality.
- Leigh
This is specious.
Had the filter not been there, the lens would have landed on its front element and likely sustained more damage than it did.
- Leigh
They do for me. I've lost a lot of shots to flare before I wised up and quit using them. Uneeded filters absolutely can screw up shots. I only buy top brand multi-coated polarizers that are multicoated. (Heliopans have not been coated in the past.) The coatings on modern lenses are actually harder than glass. And I've not had pebbles hit my lens despite photo'ing thins like railroad ballasting machines, combines (grain harvesters,) and motocross races. The lenshood catches them.
Filters seem to be like a religion. There are believers and non-believers. On filters, I have definitely fallen into the non-believer camp after much thought, research, and personal experience. And, frustration from shots blown by filters. Finally, they just don't make sense economically for me either. For me to place a quality filter on each of my lenses that's worth >$500 would cost me much more than a repair would!I've never had a lens damaged because of no filter. I have had one damaged because it did have a filter on it.
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/co...m-feb-05.shtml
Kent in SD
In contento ed allegria
Notte e di vogliam passar!
I've always heeded the "It's better to keep your lens clean, than to keep cleaning your lens" advice. I keep UV filters on all my 35mm lenses, all the time. Lens hoods when I'm actually using them. My lf stuff wears filters whenever there's a chance something might get on them, and the one and only "new" lens I bought has had a filter since I unpacked it. It's a 355/8 MC Gold Dot Dagor, which at the time was the cheapest new lens available (in that focal length) in a modern flash synched shutter. I use hoods/compendia religoiusly, and if I think the filter will degrade the image, I just remove it. The hoods have intercepted quite a few dings.
One man's Mede is another man's Persian.
Isn't this the answer to your question?
I can't tell the difference either so have come to the conclusion that, perhaps, we should not believe everything out teachers taught us in the past... but use that sage wisdom as a starting point for independent thinking.
Personally, I still grapple with trying to understand the notion that Pluto isn't a planet anymore.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks