Do you use a protective filter?

[Ellen]

While I was yesterday at the Zoo, I started to think it may be a good idea to use a filter. On my way home I went into Melbourne and got a canon protective filter. I was told it would not take quality away except a little contrast. Do any of you use such a filter on your expensive lenses?

[Jeff M]

I use filters on all my lenses. I've never been able to detect any differences in quality. I do use high quality filters, which I see you have as well.
I've been glad I had a filter on during games, when there was a little rain. Easier to clean a filter in the field, than the front lens element.
I just feel more comfortable with a filter on the lens.

[gluwater]

I never have, even in the desert and in the snow. I think the only time I would use one is if I was near saltwater or blowing dirt and sand. Otherwise I think it is an unecesary precaution. But I know many people who swear by them so I think to each there own. You will not find a definative answer on the net with this subject, it is like asking which is better Canon or Nikon.

[Ellen]

Thanks guys. I find each time I take the lens cover off, I fumble and worry I might scratch the lens with it.

[Rudi]

Nope! I do carry a couple of UV filters in my bag on the off chance that I will take photos in blowing sand one day, but I have yet to use them. I regularly shoot near sea spray, etc, and the lenses clean up just fine.

I used to use protective filters in the past, but no longer. I stopped quite a few years ago now (4-5 years). I have seen the degradation that even the best filters do to an image, and while it might not be immediately obvious in every image, it can come and bite you on the... errr... behind when you least expect it. I did not buy expensive lenses only to put another layer of glass in front of them. If Canon intended to have another optical element in the light path, they would have put it there in the first place! :)

The lens elements are tougher than most filters (coatings on filters scratch really easily, not on lenses, in my experience), and I just do not see the need. In over 20 years of shooting I have only ever marked a filter once! And that was very slight mark on the coating, not even a blemish on the actual glass, and I marked it while taking it off the lens!!! Now, in the past I have spent hundreds, if not thousands, on UV filters to protect my lenses. I could have kept that money and buy more lenses, or spend it on something else. rolleyes;

These days I would only ever use a filter in really adverse circumstances. The sort of circumstances where even taking out my camera would give me pause (rally cars throwing dirt and rocks, stuff like that). Other than that, I go naked. :D

[chezem]

Now that would be a sight to behold.roflmao;

[Rudi]

LOL

Hey, I was born naked, and I plan to die naked! :D

[Harv]

This has been, and probably always will be, a never ending debate among photographers. The only comment I would make here is that if it gives you peace of mind, do it. Otherwise, you will live in fear.

[Paul S]

What Rudi said!

I too used to use them, but don't anymore. (I don't think I even have one for my 17-40.) I think I'd want to have one along if I was somewhere with blowing sand or sea spray, though. But I'm not going to degrade my images day to day with one any longer!

-Paul

[Igor]

Modern hi-end filters pass thru' about 99% of light, besides they do cut (a bit of) haze/UV. Not to mention they protect the precious front element!
So why won't one spend $40-50 to protect a $1,000-2,000-3,000-... lens? ;)

[Paul S]

Modern hi-end filters pass thru' about 99% of light, besides they do cut (a bit of) haze/UV. Not to mention they protect the precious front element!
So why won't one spend $40-50 to protect a $1,000-2,000-3,000-... lens? ;)

I look at the other way. Why spend $1000, $2000, $3000 on a high quality lens, and then stick a cheap piece of glass in front of it?

A $40-50 filter is far from high end! A S-HMC Hoya UV for 77mm is $100 US. But the Hoya filters they sell in most stores aren't S-HMC; they usually aren't even the HMC filters--and the lower end filters WILL cause image degradation. And that's especially true if there is a light source (esp. the sun) visible to the front of the lens (it doesn't have to be visible through the lens to be a problem, just shining on it--though it's even worse when it's visible through it).

And if you want truly high end... Singh-Ray doesn't sell UV filters. That's gotta say something!

-Paul

[Wulff]

Ive seen some recent test that do show *some* degradation even with the best filters. Everyones definition of *some* is subjective.
For the most anal of shooters who analise each and every pixel it might be too much. To the average John Doe it may not matter at all.

For the most part Im of the same mind frame as Rudi.
Top end lenses have proctective coatings already, however if Im in an enviroment where windblown sand/grit/salt water is a real possiblity on goes my filter. I wont hesitate to use it.

Personally I think the most compelling arguement for their use is as an extra layer of insurance from user major malfunctions. Dropping your lens, trying to impale it on a branch/stake, smashing it against car door etc.

To each their own I guess and as Harvey said. If it helps you breathe easier its money well spent.

[stilllearning]

I use UV filters(B+W or Heliospan) on all of my lenses. I prefer to clean a filter rather than the lens.

[Keith]

Im with Paul on this, I use to, not any more but do have a couple on hand. I pay more attention to proper protection when putting it in my bag and travelling. For my 600mm I found perfect tupperware that is a perfect fit and great protection, but cant shoot through it ;)

[Osprey Whisperer]

I've always used high quality filters on my lenses. I like the insurance they offer for minimal image quality loss. Sure...cheap filters are a waste of a good lens. If you think about the price of a high end filter ...and then multiply it by the number of elements in your lens...ah ha.. about the same (whth the exception of the multi grand lenses). I have never noticed any image quality loss (by naked eye) in the 25+ years I've used them.......

UNTIL THIS WEEK> shocked; :arghh: :realmad: :coo3l:

I recently had an issue with a filter causing focusing issues.

(see here)

http://www.pixel-shooter.com/forum/showthread.php?t=3151

Really a bizzzzarro world thing. It was a high end Hoya S-HMC or whatever the top of the line filter is. The same filter..in fact..that I have on my lenses. I have never had issues with my lenses, but here is a "FIRST". The way I shoot and all (saltwater, sandy wind blown beaches) I'll continue to use them...but will always "wonder" now... I think if the filter tests out ok..you should be good to go. I'll definitely check their effect if I switch them to a new lens or use the lenses with a new body. This experience was too weird.

If you get a filter..don't skimp and stick with B&W first...and Hoya 2nd or 3rd. They seem to be the best bang for the buck IMO.

[bobber]

Always...all my lenses have hoya digital clear filters!

[Paul S]

On a slightly different note, Canon's big guns (the 300/2.8 and bigger) have a built in protective element. The front element has all the coatings that you'd expect a front element, but is of a cheaper design than some of the other elements inside. It is specifically intended to be replaced when necessary--for a cost which would be less than what someone like Hoya would charge for even a low-end filter of the necessary size (which they don't actually make).

And while those lenses actually include a UV filter in the filter drawer, this is designed into the lens, and the optics will suffer if this is removed, unless replaced with a different glass filter.

For a long time I had a UV filter on the front of my 50-500. But Hoya doesn't make an 86mm UV filter in its HMC or S-HMC line, so I pretty much had to have a low-end one. I eventually decided it wasn't worth it. When I bought the 17-40, I made the conscious decision to not buy a UV filter for it, and having done that, I decided I might as well remove the low end (but not cheap: $110 Cdn) UV filter from my 50-500.

-Paul

[Ellen]

Thank you all for your replies. This certainly was interesting.