Skylight filter...to be or not to be

SwartzySwartzy Registered Users Posts: 3,293 Major grins
edited September 22, 2006 in Accessories
This discussion may have taken place in the past, so if a thread exists, send me there. Otherwise, I would like your take on if you use a skylight filter on your lenses or not. The reason I'm asking is I realize the benefits of protecting the lens glass but in the same respect it adds yet one more layer of glass. Do you recommend them or not? I've always kept them on all my lenses but am thinking the sharpness and clarity could suffer as a result of using them. I'm aware that there are quality issues associated with each, so for sake of discussion, let's say I have the German Promaster $79.00 skylight (I hate dealers/stealers).

What say ye oh photo ones?

Thanks
Swartzy:
NAPP Member | Canon Shooter
Weddings/Portraits and anything else that catches my eye.
www.daveswartz.com
Model Mayhem site http://www.modelmayhem.com/686552

Comments

  • mr peasmr peas Registered Users Posts: 1,369 Major grins
    edited September 19, 2006
    I think as long as theyre not dirty, they shouldn't affect sharpness or clarity. You can always do your own test of course. Take a shot with it and without it. Sometimes, my photos turn out just a tad warmer/darker with it on versus it off. But I dont know the entire technical aspects of it affecting the image. It saved my lens against water/dirt and thats enough reason for me to always keep it on!
  • cmasoncmason Registered Users Posts: 2,506 Major grins
    edited September 19, 2006
    I prefer them, because I feel better and more secure about having them there, whether I really am or not is not important. I also think the filter cleans easier than the lens, as the lens usually has more coating on it, and is usually curved, vs the flat filter.

    To ensure that there are as few interferrences as possible, I purchase the highest quality filter...usually B+W.
  • pathfinderpathfinder Super Moderators Posts: 14,708 moderator
    edited September 19, 2006
    This has been diiscussed numerous times, and it sounds like you already know the various opinions.

    I, personally do not use a protective UV filter for genral use. If I was shooting near a lot of blowing sand I might, and if I was shooting around the ocean or chemical spray I certainly would. It is easy to use a lens brush to remove dust from a lens surface, but removing deposits that has adhered after a liquid solution has evaporated I prefer to avoid if possible.

    I prefer to use lens hoods to protect my lenses. I DO NOT go anywhere without a lens hood, unless my lens is capped with a protective cap. I had a friend who did not use a lens hood on a 16-35 f2.8 L in Antelope Canyon, and ended up with a nice bog scratch on the frontal lens element.
    Pathfinder - www.pathfinder.smugmug.com

    Moderator of the Technique Forum and Finishing School on Dgrin
  • SpeshulEdSpeshulEd Registered Users Posts: 341 Major grins
    edited September 20, 2006
    here's my thread on this subject...
    http://www.digitalgrin.com/showthread.php?t=38917
    bored? check out my photo site...and if you have the time, leave a comment or rate some pictures while you're there.
    Canon 20D | Canon 17-40mm f/4L USM | Tamron 28-75 f2.8 XR Di LD IF | Canon 50mm f/1.8 II | Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L USM
  • SwartzySwartzy Registered Users Posts: 3,293 Major grins
    edited September 20, 2006
    Thanks!
    SpeshulEd wrote:
    here's my thread on this subject...
    http://www.digitalgrin.com/showthread.php?t=38917

    This is exactly what I was looking for. Perfect. Good information and opinions. I've got them on all lenses (always have) and do use lens hoods from time to time (need one for my 28-135 IS). Thanks again for the info!thumb.gif
    Swartzy:
    NAPP Member | Canon Shooter
    Weddings/Portraits and anything else that catches my eye.
    www.daveswartz.com
    Model Mayhem site http://www.modelmayhem.com/686552
  • mkress65mkress65 Registered Users Posts: 107 Major grins
    edited September 20, 2006
    filters
    there was also this thread: http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=39576

    And, one more bit of info, on DPReview (and possibly here) someone linked to some pictures w/ very odd background blur which looked a bit like diagonal patterns which was attributed to the filter. I had actually seen this on some of my shots and, since I've removed the filter, I haven't had the problem again. Granted, it was a cheap filter, so its back to "you get what you pay for".
  • mr peasmr peas Registered Users Posts: 1,369 Major grins
    edited September 22, 2006
    If you can buy a filter for cheap you should just def do it. Depending on what you plan to do and the conditions you might have to face (wind, dust, moisture) then you should just get one, you can always remove it when you really need to.

    I've saved myself trouble by keeping one when I shoot nightlife here in Las Vegas. People spill drinks all the time and they're too drunk to know whats going on. I had someone talk and accidently spit on my lens before, granted yes she was drunk and its not her fault, I was lucky enough to remember to leave my filter on. I had to run the filter in water to clean it properly (her drink must have been mixed with something sugary) and you can't do that with your lens.

    So overall, its much like wearing a seatbelt at all times. You could be driving from a block away from your house and not wear a belt but if you ever get hit you would have wished you would have had it on. Same with the filter, wear it at all times and you the benefits outweighs the drawbacks (if any exists).

    Thats my opinion.
Sign In or Register to comment.