Lens Filters

gdpgdp Registered Users Posts: 29 Big grins
edited November 1, 2007 in Accessories
I know that there's much debate whether or not a UV filter "ruins" the good glass that it's attached to... (i.e. good glass + cheap glass = cheap glass).

But I've always stuck with Scott Kelby's advice of a UV filter for the sake of protection, especially since I shoot little ones who usually end up pointing at themselves in my lens... ooops!

This last Sunday, perhaps because I have not been getting as much sleep of late, I dropped my Canon 50mm/f1.4 from a height of about 3 feet and heard a sickening crunch of broken glass. After prying off the lens cover from the filter, I saw that only the filter was damaged (destroyed.) I don't know if it made the difference, but I believe that the filter saved my lens.

Thank you, Scott Kelby.

Comments

  • borrowlenses.comborrowlenses.com Registered Users Posts: 441 Major grins
    edited October 30, 2007
    gdp wrote:
    I know that there's much debate whether or not a UV filter "ruins" the good glass that it's attached to... (i.e. good glass + cheap glass = cheap glass).

    But I've always stuck with Scott Kelby's advice of a UV filter for the sake of protection, especially since I shoot little ones who usually end up pointing at themselves in my lens... ooops!

    This last Sunday, perhaps because I have not been getting as much sleep of late, I dropped my Canon 50mm/f1.4 from a height of about 3 feet and heard a sickening crunch of broken glass. After prying off the lens cover from the filter, I saw that only the filter was damaged (destroyed.) I don't know if it made the difference, but I believe that the filter saved my lens.

    Thank you, Scott Kelby.
    When we first started our business, we did a poll on POTN regarding whether or not people want filters on their lenses. You can see the results here:
    http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=353396

    As you can see most people said they don't like or want filters on their lenses precisely for the same reason you mention: it degrades image quality. However, after a few scratched up front elements, we have learned our lesson and are now offering lens filters on every lens we ship. People might say they don't want filters, but when a lens drops or something or somebody runs into it, you'll be glad you had that extra piece of cheap(er) glass there.

    GDP, in short, I think it makes a lot of sense to keep filters on your lenses. If you pick the right cheap ones, they won't do much to ruin your IQ. If you have 50-75 bucks to spare, you can get good really good quality ones which FOR SURE won't do much to IQ.

    Max
    http://www.BorrowLenses.com
    Your professional online camera gear rental store

    Follow us on Facebook
    http://www.facebook.com/borrowlenses
  • claudermilkclaudermilk Registered Users Posts: 2,756 Major grins
    edited October 31, 2007
    It's definitely a hotly debated topic. I used to always have filters, but now generally don't. When the 2-year old is near, the filter goes back on. The one thing everyone seems to agree on is don't cheap out on the filter; if you need one, get something like the B+W MRC and to keep cost under control buy it from hvstar (example: my Canon-standard 77mm one cost $53 vs at B&H, et. al. for $80).

    Considering the heavy use rental glass gets, I kind of expect it to have a protective filter on. My local shop uses the B+W MRC ones, so I leave them alone.
    Chris
    http://www.chrislaudermilkphoto.com/
  • borrowlenses.comborrowlenses.com Registered Users Posts: 441 Major grins
    edited November 1, 2007
    claudermilk wrote:
    It's definitely a hotly debated topic. I used to always have filters, but now generally don't. When the 2-year old is near, the filter goes back on. The one thing everyone seems to agree on is don't cheap out on the filter; if you need one, get something like the B+W MRC and to keep cost under control buy it from hvstar (example: my Canon-standard 77mm one cost $53 vs at B&H, et. al. for $80).

    Considering the heavy use rental glass gets, I kind of expect it to have a protective filter on. My local shop uses the B+W MRC ones, so I leave them alone.

    Oh wow, they sprung for B+W? I guess with the rates that B&M charge for rentals, they can afford it :D
    http://www.BorrowLenses.com
    Your professional online camera gear rental store

    Follow us on Facebook
    http://www.facebook.com/borrowlenses
  • mr peasmr peas Registered Users Posts: 1,369 Major grins
    edited November 1, 2007
    The only time I had problems with UV/Haze filters on a lens was when a light source was directly ahead of the camera and it reflected light into the lens which it shouldnt do without the filter. But the quick fix was to remove the filter, take the shot and then put it back on.

    I dont know about you, but I'd rather have crap get into my filter than my front element. You can always remove the UV filter, you cant exactly buff out a scratch on the front element.

    Thats my two cents.
  • claudermilkclaudermilk Registered Users Posts: 2,756 Major grins
    edited November 1, 2007
    borrowlenses.com wrote:
    Oh wow, they sprung for B+W? I guess with the rates that B&M charge for rentals, they can afford it :D

    ne_nau.gif They're a store as well, so probably don't pay the same as we do for the filters, but then their day rate for a 70-200 is about your weekly rate. The price of convenience. The local place I have used is a pro shop, so has some very interesting stuff available (MF & LF gear, lighting, etc), but is all OEM only, so the screwy third party stuff I want is only available through guys like you.
    Chris
    http://www.chrislaudermilkphoto.com/
Sign In or Register to comment.