DSLRUsers.com

With the aquisition of a lens I've been lusting for a long time, I'm about to buy a UV (0) lens to protect the front glass. Just wondering if most ppl here protected the quality glass with a filter of some sort? If not, why not?

For anyone who didn't know Geoff is referrering to the cream machine, the Nikon 85,, 1.4.

Every lens I own is fitted with a protection filter of some sort. If you don't like the idea of a UV filter Nikon make an NC filter which is plain glass with a special coating which they claim doesn't affect colours. Either way it's a small price to pay to protect your valuable lens.

My cream machine is fitted with a Hoya s-HMC UV(0) filter when pouring creams...

I reckon the best protection "filter" for the 85 f/1.4 is the HN-31, shown here: http://www.adorama.com/images/Product/NKHN31.jpg

Best thing is, it is 100% neutral and transparent, it improves contrast rather then reducing it, and it cuts down flare rather than introducing it.



Cheers
Steffen.

I had B+W UV MRC to "protect" my lenses. I know that it has done it's job when it shattered when I dropped the lens. uh Then I never replaced it, but the other one still lives on the other lens.

I would say that overall, the B+W MRC filters are quite nice, but I prefer to shoot without them (when taking landscapes, city lights).

Be careful of filters on the cream machines, there is no filter that leaves all the flavour there, but some come close

I tend to agree with Steffen. I don't use filters to protect the lens. I am just careful with my lenses, especially my expensive ones. I would never let anything come between my 85mm F1.4 and my beautiful subjects except air.

IMO filters are there for a reason and protecting your lens is not one of them.

Thanks for the responses people. Very interesting!

I like filters. I honestly cannot see any difference in image quality unless I'm doing long exposures with a cheap filter on. However, I CAN see a difference in the level of protection the front element gets, especially if I'm in a situation where there's danger of dust, sand, water etc... Like at the beach, bushwalking etc.

I'm happy to have filters on my lenses, and just remove them when image quality is critical and I am in a controlled environment. But that's just a personal choice.

I am just about to buy a stack of B+W Schneider filters - they are brilliant. Pricey, but IMO you need to spend a bit extra to get decent filters

Basic rule is that every lens has a filter for protection. I'd rather scratch a relatively inexpensive filter than a lens costing more than that.

I'd consider it stupid to go without one.

I use a Nikon NC filter on my 70-200VR.

I have Canon "Protect" (sounds similar to the Nikon NC) filters on most of my lenses, and Hoya HMC UV(0) on others.

While any extra glass in the way can cause flare (sometimes this is as subtle as just reducing the contrast across the entire frame slightly) I feel it's usually worth it for peace of mind. Using good filters reduces the risk/effect of this.

When working at the sea where I end up wiping salt spray from all over my gear (or at waterfalls where the spray often has lots of minerals) I like being able to rinse the filter in fresh water (wiping salt crystals across the glass without some solvent is a bad idea) and I'm happier spending 15 minutes cleaning a filter (sometimes they've been really bad) than gingerly trying to clean the front element.
Similarly when working close up with children (and dairy calves with wet noses and slobbery tongues!) some protection for the lens is great for your peace of mind!

Filter flare is most likely to occur when shooting into the sun, and I will sometimes remove the filters in those conditions (but often I don't bother). Usually the filter stays on all the time: even when using a polariser!

Note that some "weatherproof" lenses actually NEED a front filter to complete the weatherproofing (Canon 17-40/4 & 16-35/2.8 are examples).

External "clear" filters can also have an effect on infrared results. Some can reduce contrast and also exposures noticeably.

I stopped using filters for lens protection a couple of years ago.

I made a mental calculation of how many times I needed one for that purpose after more than 40 years of using cameras. The answer was zero.

Now I'm not going to say that it could never happen to me or to anyone for that matter. But I do think that the number would be relatively few.

On the other hand, another glass surface is another place for dust, fingerprints, as well as light refraction, dispersion and reflection.

However, like Steffen, I always use a good quality lens hood on every lens when it is on the camera.

Alpha_7 wrote:For anyone who didn't know Geoff is referrering to the cream machine, the Nikon 85,, 1.4.

Oh, they are beautiful, long (with the x1.5) but oh so nice.

I have a Hoya HMC Pro UV(0) on mine, because I'd rather pay $100 to remove the scratch and dent on the filter, than $1400 for a new 85/1.4

cricketfan wrote:I stopped using filters for lens protection a couple of years ago.

I made a mental calculation of how many times I needed one for that purpose after more than 40 years of using cameras. The answer was zero.

Now I'm not going to say that it could never happen to me or to anyone for that matter. But I do think that the number would be relatively few.

On the other hand, another glass surface is another place for dust, fingerprints, as well as light refraction, dispersion and reflection.

However, like Steffen, I always use a good quality lens hood on every lens when it is on the camera.

Interesting thoughts. If I look at my filter collection, just those for protection, they would pay for another lens...

Protection filters are a bit like insurance.

You dont need it until something happens.

As much as we like to think that we can protect our glass from misfortune, shit happens.

We still have a filter ring mounted on our 55mm micro Nikkor. It's been there for years, from when the lens took a nasty hit. The filter was smashed, the ring (and mount) is bent (hence we're unable to remove it) but the lens is still as sharp as.

The Bronica has also had an equally hard life, as has the FE2, and the cost of wearing a $30 or so filter on the front to protect the lens from more serious damage is, IMHO, a very sensible move.

And as noted in other posts, it's not just physical knocks. Dust, salt spray, rain .... none of those will be at all helpful to the coatings on your $1500 or $2000 lens, so why would you not throw a cheap filter on the front to help protect it?

If you are worried about image degradation, then you'll be taking your time in composing and setting up your image: the extra five seconds taken to remove the filter prior to making your exposure is irrelevant in this context.

But nobody has, as yet, shown me evidence of image degradation due to the wearing of a filter by a lens.

I'm with Trevor. I have never ever scratched a front element (or filter for that matter). I notice though that filters are a lot more susceptible to fine cleaning scratches/swirls. I do have that on a couple of polarisers, but not on any of my lenses.

Another thing is: consider the likely risk scenarios. If you bump into something a metal (or even polycarbonate or fibre) lens hood is going to protect the lens front a lot better than a thin sheet of glass. Plus, if the latter shatters you risk scratching the front element with the shards.

Hoods also protect better against curious fingers and all sorts of other unpleasant encounters in crowds or tight spaces.

The only thing that would scratch a front element is something hard and pointy coming straight at it. In that case a filter would provide very limited protection, since the impact would have to be large enough to damage the filter but small enough to not go right through it.

As for dust, I'm not worried about that on the front element, but inside the lens.

That said, I grant that there are special situations where using a filter may be advisable, like when you have sea spray or a sand storm or something like that (situations I wouldn't want to be in with my camera anyway).

Oh, and keep the lens cap on if you're not shooting.

Cheers
Steffen.

gstark wrote: Dust, salt spray, rain .... none of those will be at all helpful to the coatings on your $1500 or $2000 lens, so why would you not throw a cheap filter on the front to help protect it?

Fair point. I actually worry more about the camera in those situations, though. None of those things is really a problem to the front lens (which is all that a filter actually protects!) provided it is shielded when not in actual use, then cleaned immediately.

gstark wrote:If you are worried about image degradation, then you'll be taking your time in composing and setting up your image: the extra five seconds taken to remove the filter prior to making your exposure is irrelevant in this context.

If you use a lens hood to protect the front element from knocks and scratches, you don't even have to take it off!

I suspect that this is one of those situations like religion: you either believe or you don't.

I don't like the implication that you should use a hood or a filter for protection.
Hoods provide excellent physical protection for the front of your lens, but their primary role is in improving the optical performance of your lens. I try to always use a hood, even on overcast days. I've seen the difference between using and not using!

Note that on the bigger lenses (super-telephotos) the front element is so large that the only protection it gets is the hood: no filter's available. Actually, in those lenses the front element has a major role in being simply a protection layer: replacing the front element of the lens is a lot cheaper than replacing the whole lens!

Hoods are good:

• They improve the contrast of the lens by reducing flare, and this includes reducing the incidence of the "spotty" flare that most people think of when flare is mentioned. Flare takes on many forms...
• They help protect the front element or filter from the environment.

Hoods are bad:

• They make your gear more imposing: a factor in "street" photography.
• They usually make manipulating a polariser awkward.

Filters are good:

• They provide excellent physical protection for the front element and can be cleaned vigorously.
• They're cheaper (and quicker!) to replace than the front element of the lens.

Filters are bad:

• They can introduce flare (especially when shooting towards the sun) especially when dirty. The effect of this is reduced by a hood of course.
• Cheap filters can have marked effects on the lens contrast.
• Good filters can be expensive.

As you can see there are lots of variables! There's no yes/no answer for you: you need to find your own compromise!

cricketfan wrote:I suspect that this is one of those situations like religion: you either believe or you don't.

This debate is too logical and civilised to be analogous to a religious debate.

I have UV filters on all my lenses apart from the Bronica 75mm (only because I haven't got one yet) and a 35-70 because the filter barrel is dented. I don't really use that lens anyway.

With the 80-200, for example, with the front element moving back and forth, a simple filter will help prevent sand getting into a moving part.

Just my thoughts.

P

Steffen wrote:Another thing is: consider the likely risk scenarios. If you bump into something a metal (or even polycarbonate or fibre) lens hood is going to protect the lens front a lot better than a thin sheet of glass. Plus, if the latter shatters you risk scratching the front element with the shards.

When you've done many hundreds of weddings - which are a very high pressure and unforgiving task - you will start to see the benefit of what what I'm saying, in a practical sense.

Dropping, having someone else hit the camera, hitting it against something that isn't soft ...

As to the shards ... still better than a smashed front element, wouldn't you agree?

And when you're travelling between locations, as a workign wedding photographer must do, you do not always have the luxury of being able to put the camera back into its safety coccoon. If you're chasing the B&G from the church to a park, and you think that their hire cars will be travelling at a liesurely pace, think again - those drivers will have another job or two or three that they need to get to; they can ill afford to be running late for those, and travelling at a relaxed speed, or waiting for the photographer to put his gear away nicely and tidily, is not what they do.

Hoods also protect better against curious fingers and all sorts of other unpleasant encounters in crowds or tight spaces.

What about that uncooperative twig that, while you're on a bushwalk, just pokes its way around the hood, and onto that front element?

I'm not suggesting that a hood not be used, I'm querying the logic of not having a filter for protection.

The only thing that would scratch a front element is something hard and pointy coming straight at it. In that case a filter would provide very limited protection, since the impact would have to be large enough to damage the filter but small enough to not go right through it.

I've had exactly that happen. The filter can provide far more protection that you would imagine. Don't knock it unless you've tried it.


But other things will damage a front element too. Dropping a lens has been known to do this.

Dropping a camera too.

As for dust, I'm not worried about that on the front element, but inside the lens.

Inside the lens is largely irrelevant, completely unavoidable, and you would probably not be able to notice its presence in most images taken with lenses where this is present.

By way of contrast, dust will more easily be collected on the front and rear elements of your lenses, because they're more readily exposed to the elements. Your front lens cap is very easily dislodged, and is often not present.

Cleaning your lens's front element will be (slightly) harmful to it; far better to clean (and maybe damage) a cheap filter than your front element.

That said, I grant that there are special situations where using a filter may be advisable, like when you have sea spray or a sand storm or something like that (situations I wouldn't want to be in with my camera anyway).

You may not want to be there, but there are times when you may have no choice, such is if you're on a commissioned shoot, or when you simply want to get "that shot".

Having a filter on top will make you feel better when putting stuffs down. Then I dont have to worry too much about stuffs coming to and sticking to the front element of the lens. Cleaning a filter will be easier than cleaning a lens front element IMO.

The only lens I dont have a filter on top is the 50mm f/1.8, because a good filter can get myself a new lens, and the front element is deep inside, why bother then?

I have always used a UV filter as protection for my lenses. I don't have a huge collection but they all have very nice front elements still.
I am also very quick to replace rear caps when changing lenses. I can't bear the thought of dust and damage to a lense. Just my 2c.
Regards Colin

Good to have filters on your expensive lenses for protection....but take them off if you're working in the studio for that little extra bit of quality.

How often do you see an Ebay sale that states "front element scratched?"

If it was easy to scratch a lens, I reckon we'd see a lot of damaged lenses for sale. I work for a company that does Santa photography, and the staff (none of whom are photographically trained) manage to break almost everything in the process: printers, computers, cables, flashes, etc. I have yet to see a scratched lens among the piles of damaged equipment I deal with.

From experience, I know how much filters can cause flaring and reduction in contrast. I won't be using them much in the future

rooboy wrote:How often do you see an Ebay sale that states "front element scratched?"

In fact, I've bought a lens with a scratched front element off eBay. The seller admitted that he never uses lens caps and justs throws all his lenses in a big tumble bag. Those rabbit-ear Nikkors will damage each other when carried around like this.

Apart from that, front elements are not fragile (unlike DSLR sensors). They're almost always hefty massive chunks of glass. They will not be shattered by anything a delicate thin filter could protect them from. They will also not get scratched by a twig in the bush.

Ok, I feel stupid already for dragging out this debate. It was a hot and irreconcilable one 20 years ago, and it still is now.

Cheers
Steffen.

A scratched front element would reduce contrast to a level equivalent to that of adding an extra 2 air to glass transitions that a filter introduces. Hence the image quality cost of having a filter to 'protect' a lens from scratching its front element would be the equivalent of having a scratched front element. It's illogical IMO, and I can't fathom why there's such widespread use of filters to 'protect' lenses.

If using the insurance analogy, that's like taking out insurance to protect yourself against something, but each premium payment being equal with the experience of having to make a claim.

Additionally, I fail to reconcile how a smashed/damaged filter is 'evidence' of it doing its job on a lens that has been dropped. I would theorise that without the filter, the dropped lens would not have resulted in damaged anything.

One of those impossible to answer questions. I have one for every lens except the 90 mm tamron macro, which has the front element deeply recessed.

At the end of the day I feel more comfortable cleaning the crud off the filter rather than the front element. Outdoors and dusty, you do collect a lot of crud.

I'm unconvinced that a filter will prevent dropped lens damage, most likely a hood is better for that.

For the record. I have one 77mm UV filter shared between three lenses of 77mm diameter. If i need to use the filter i attach it to the lens i am using at that moment. The other two lenses will be safely tucked away in my bag with end covers on. My 77mm polariser gets used more often than the UV filter.

If i had a UV filter on each of my lenses, i would have to take them off each time i attach either another 77mm filter (PL) or the Cokin adapter and filters i use. Then reattach the UV filter afterwards. That would just annoy me.

If you feel the need for a safety-net, then use one. If not, then don't.

Simple!!

To beata dead horse

Tin foil hats are ridiculed for protection against cosmic radiation. So too IMO should UV/clear filters be likewise, for protective purposes.

Then again, I feel that way for seatbelt use in motor vehicles too. Since its invention and required mandatory usage (in this country), we've seen absolutely no evidence to suggest its use improves survivability, injury or deaths. Inconvenience 100% of the time, for supposed 'protection' that 1 in 40,000 chance of having an accident. At least airbags are hidden until required...

Ensure a filter is fitted when...
1. You take your camera to the beach or boating
2. It's a very windy day
3. You are bushwalking or shooting from a vehicle
4. You are working anywhere there might be grit, sparks, dust, sand
5. You need a filter for effect

Remove your filter for any other photography to gain a slight increase in image quality.
Simple.

Or use an underwater housing

Or a $1.00 zip lock plastic bag with a hole cut for the lens. Fix it to the lens with a rubber band and operate the camera from the rear of the open bag. You can work in a downpour with this setup.

Of course then a hood helps again: both to keep the rain off the filter/element and to help hold the bag in place around the lens!
But the zip-lock bags usually aren't big enough. I often use garbage bags this way when working in pouring rain, which leads me on to a related question:

Does anyone know where to get clear garbage bags?

I have heard people referring to front element often. What exactly is it? For Canon lenses, there is a filter like thin piece of glass in front of the lens. If it is the front element, what is the purpose of it? To protect the lens inside. If so, then using a filter is just to protect the protector. Why can't Canon make it like a filter and can be replaced?

Does anyone know where to get clear garbage bags?

You want ot shoot through the plastic bag???

You can get quite big clear bags readily from at least two sources.
1. Drycleaning bags are cheap, big and clear, but regretably flimsy
2. Wood work suppliers (e.g Carbatec in most capital cities) often have large plastic bags to go with their dust extractors. The entry level ones use a cloth bag. The next level up use a felt upper bag with a disposable plastic lower bag. This system keeps more dust out of your lungs. BTW The next system up is the one Dyson pinched for their vacuum cleaners, so no bags there.
http://www.carbatec.com.au/store/index.php?main_page=index&cPath=180_350_1620_1640

Mr Darcy wrote:

Does anyone know where to get clear garbage bags?

You want ot shoot through the plastic bag???

I think DaveB wants to see the camera (controls/display/etc) through the bag

Cheers

Leigh
--
Be nice to me, I'm new here.

B+W MRC for me too, for $60 on a $2200+ lens or more its a small price to pay for my clumsiness.

I think for me it's the peace of mind. If I have a filter on, I don't worry about sand, dust, salt spray, branches, little sticky fingers etc. Maybe the front element by itself is pretty tough anyway, but I feel more comfortable with a filter on it!

So obviously it is a personal choice. If you are happy going without, then do so!

I am a bit complicated.
I used to use a filter many years ago until I realised that
a. Lenses CAN be cleaned, and are built tough.
b. Filters do change the image, sometimes minimally, sometimes more obviously.
c. I took greater care if the lens was "unprotected".
This last meant that I was actually more likely to damage the lens if it had a filter on than not.
So I stopped using filters unless I wanted the effect that particular filter gave.

Then I switched largely to P&S digital. No problem, but I finally came back to SLRs in the form of digital. I found I was often accidentally touching the lens, or bumping it. I was simply not used to a bulky lens any more. So I am back to using filters again. They will come off, though, as soon I have trained myself to take due care again.

hart wrote:

Mr Darcy wrote:

Does anyone know where to get clear garbage bags?

You want ot shoot through the plastic bag???

I think DaveB wants to see the camera (controls/display/etc) through the bag

Indeed. Also, being able to see if you've got a leak can be useful...
And being able to see what's going on around you when your head is under the bag (sometimes the big garbage bags take you back to the LF style of having a dark cloth thrown over your head).

I've seen clear bags starting to be used in garbage bins at train stations/etc (that way you can see the bombs that have been put inside ) so I know they're around. I just haven't found a supplier yet.
And clear bags I've found at supermarkets have always been too small.

These are clear and quite large and tough - they have to cope with splinters of timber traveling at high elocity in their day job.

http://www.carbatec.com.au/store/index. ... _1620_1640

Mr Darcy wrote:I am a bit complicated.
I used to use a filter many years ago until I realised that
a. Lenses CAN be cleaned, and are built tough.
b. Filters do change the image, sometimes minimally, sometimes more obviously.
c. I took greater care if the lens was "unprotected".
This last meant that I was actually more likely to damage the lens if it had a filter on than not.
So I stopped using filters unless I wanted the effect that particular filter gave.

i dont think it has anything to do with care, i baby my gear and i take more care of it than most but sometimes things happen, i also disagreee that a UV filter will alter an image to a point where it is noticeable, especially with high end UV filters, sure a CPL or ND or coloured filters thats a different story but a UV filter which quite alot of people use as prtection wouldnt agree with you. Yes filters can be cleaned but can a scratch? wouldnt you prefer to scratch a UV Filter than your lens glass?

Try this quick test:
Photograph a bright object off axis on an otherwise dark ground. Use your filter. Repeat the photo without the filter. Now compare the two images (I think Photoshop has a difference tool that will make this easy). I last did this experiment about 30 years ago, and stopped using filters as a result. Admitedly filters may have come a long way since then, but they are still flat pieces of glass (or plastic) between the film/sensor and the object. My bet is you will see stray flare/reflections/diffraction patterns.

There was a link in an earlier post in this thread that showed the issue.
Of course if you want the effect, then use the filter. My point is that it should be your choice not something you accept

(And yes I believe the ideal HiFi amp is a wire with gain. Still to be built, but I'm patient )

EDIT: I still use filters, but as a tool of choice not a "must always be there"
And yes I did once lose a lens to scratching, but it was when I loaned the camera to a "friend" It came back with the filter broken. (I put it on as a precaution!) and the objective scratched beyond repair. He dropped the camera down a cliff face. The camera was still workable though.

Mr Darcy wrote:Now compare the two images (I think Photoshop has a difference tool that will make this easy). I last did this experiment about 30 years ago, and stopped using filters as a result. Admitedly filters may have come a long way since then,

And Photoshop has come a long way since, too...

Cheers
Steffen.

Mr Darcy wrote:Try this quick test:
Photograph a bright object off axis on an otherwise dark ground. Use your filter. Repeat the photo without the filter. Now compare the two images (I think Photoshop has a difference tool that will make this easy). I last did this experiment about 30 years ago, and stopped using filters as a result. Admitedly filters may have come a long way since then, but they are still flat pieces of glass (or plastic) between the film/sensor and the object. My bet is you will see stray flare/reflections/diffraction patterns.

i just dont see how you can say all this based on 30year old information/experiment, but as you say each to their own, i see no difference with or without my filter and perhaps that is because i didnt put a cheap filter on my expensive lens.

This would tend to indicate that the issue is not confined to 30 year old equipment:

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/colum ... b-05.shtml

Onyx posted this earlier, but you may have missed it.

good example but he still states the use of a UV filter has some use so when i am shooting my landscapes on rocks with water splashing all over me ill still be using my filter.

so when i am shooting my landscapes on rocks with water splashing all over me ill still be using my filter.

And so would I.

If you check my original post, you will note that I did not say to never use filters, but to use them selectively when there is a clear need. Either when you want a specific effect, or when the additional protection is warranted.
In fact I have about 20 filters from my film days. Sadly none of them fit my DSLR. Of course most of them can be replaced by PP these days.

I have a UV on my 18-200, and it will stay there until I come to terms with the sheer bulk of the lens. But it will NOT remain there forever.