Lens Filter Question

AroundDWorld

The guy at our local camera shop stated that you should never keep a filter on your camera lens for protection.
That it distorts and affects the quality of the photo, regardless of the filter.

I have since heard from a few other seasoned photographers that say they are in agreement with this philosophy.....

Ok..................am I missing something here.....I know I am just an amateur here...but I have never heard this before......

Any thoughts.............?

ziggy53

I do keep a filter on most of my lesnses and especially on the "working" lenses that are exposed a lot of the time. I do test the filters to see the impact on quality and I have rejected filters when there was a visible loss in quality.

I also remove the filter for critical images or when I know lighting will cause a filter to interject flare or glare.

I would much rather clean a filter than clean a lens and, over time, the micro-scratches caused by cleaning will add up and cause reduced image quality. The filter can easily be replaced. The front element of a lens, not so much.

BTW, how many of these people you are talking to know that for many of Canon's finest lenses they are not weather sealed unless you use a front filter? Canon also recommends using a front filter on these lenses.

How many know that the Canon EF 500mm, f4L IS USM has a protective front element that does not an optic element, just protection (basically a clear filter.) The EF 500mm, f4.5L USM is similar.

http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/camera/lens/ef/data/super_telephoto/diagram/ef_500_4lis_usm_bd.gif

http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/camera/lens/ef/data/super_telephoto/diagram/ef_500_45l_usm_bd.gif

If you purchase quality filters for your best lenses and then test for yourself the impact you never have to wonder, you will know for yourself what the quality impact of the filter is for your images.

ziggy53

See, filters save lives too (lens lives anyway):

http://dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=125816

Art Scott

AroundDWorld wrote:

The guy at our local camera shop stated that you should never keep a filter on your camera lens for protection.
That it distorts and affects the quality of the photo, regardless of the filter.

I have since heard from a few other seasoned photographers that say they are in agreement with this philosophy.....

Ok..................am I missing something here.....I know I am just an amateur here...but I have never heard this before......

Any thoughts.............?

a decent quality UV or Clear glass filter is going to run you around $100....seems to be cheap insurance right......when the filter shatters that glass is going to go straight back into your lens and very well could scratch the lens it is to protect........
I'll trust a good lens shade any day over a piece of glass sitting a 1/4 to 3/8 inch from my front element......I know a good rubber lens hood will save my lens in I drop or it falls on the front of the lens.....acts as a shock absorber also.....I am not refering to collapsable lens hoods.....I am refering to a hard rubber lens hood....Lately I have been making mine out of slip on lens shades for "LARGE PRO VIDEO CAMS" and either getting a $1 or 2 elcheapo used filter and breaking it out of the mount ring or I get an adapter ring to attach the sahde to before screwing it into the filter threads on the lens..........hard petal shades also protect your lens in case of falls but tend to crack when contacting hard surfaces..........

AroundDWorld

ziggy53 wrote:

See, filters save lives too (lens lives anyway):

http://dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=125816

Thank you Ziggy53......this is pretty much what I have understood also!

AroundDWorld

Art Scott wrote:

a decent quality UV or Clear glass filter is going to run you around $100....seems to be cheap insurance right......when the filter shatters that glass is going to go straight back into your lens and very well could scratch the lens it is to protect........
I'll trust a good lens shade any day over a piece of glass sitting a 1/4 to 3/8 inch from my front element......I know a good rubber lens hood will save my lens in I drop or it falls on the front of the lens.....acts as a shock absorber also.....I am not refering to collapsable lens hoods.....I am refering to a hard rubber lens hood....Lately I have been making mine out of slip on lens shades for "LARGE PRO VIDEO CAMS" and either getting a $1 or 2 elcheapo used filter and breaking it out of the mount ring or I get an adapter ring to attach the sahde to before screwing it into the filter threads on the lens..........hard petal shades also protect your lens in case of falls but tend to crack when contacting hard surfaces..........

Thanks.......I was hoping to see an opinion from the other side. If nothing else but to try and understand the rationale.

When I first heard talk of this I was shocked......I just couldn't imagine not having a filter on my lens.............especially given their cost....it certainly makes sense to do so.

However you do raise some valid points!

Do you have a photo of exactly what it is you make for your lens?
And is it the lens hood that came with your camera that you are referring to? Mine seems to attach so flimsily that it seems if there were ever a fall that it would pop right off and not add much protection to the lens.

I have heard of screw on filters never coming off.....I didn't realize there was any other type.....if not screw on then what?

Also, the lens I have, a Canon 17-55mm has much documented issues with collecting dust and from all I have read on this lens it is suggested it never be without a filter. In this case, what would you do?

I am curious what you are using......could you elaborate?

This really is an interesting subject!

Thank you both for your responses!

Tee Why

In theory, placing a UV filter may degrade the image quality, but in real world use, I'd doubt it.

A UV filter comes in several types, non coated, single coated, or multicoated (sometimes about 3 coats but top UV filters have about 8 coats).

In terms or causing softness and focus issues, I've heard some say non coated ones may affect it. I haven't seen it myself but getting a coated filter should be fine.

An area where the UV filter does make the most degradation in image quality is increase in flare IMO. Here multicoated ones are almost as good as not using a filter. Non coated ones tend to increase flare the most.

Having said all that, unless you are a purist and will not take any degradation in image quality, a decent multicoated UV filter should be fine for most use and folks IMO.

paddler4

I have kept my lenses protected by UV filters for years. I have used cheap uncoated filters without noticing obvious degradation, but they are more likely to cause problems with flare if light is coming from the side, so now I use multicoated filters. These too come in multiple levels, but I buy the relatively inexpensive end of the multicoated range. I have never done an A/B test, but I do a lot of pixel peeping, and I have never seen a problem.

And the first time you get real damage to a filter, you will never think about this question again. I just did photos at an event recently where people were eating, and something I can't remove got on a filter. It was a big one, so I'm out about $60, but I saved the lens. End of story for me.