Protective filters for camera lenses

[Derek Weston]

Who uses these?

Many people use UV radiation filters to protect their lenses from the elements... a bit of debate over how much loss of quality this causes.

In storm chasing though, with the wind, the rain, and whatever else mother nature decides to unleash, it seems this would be more of a necessity.

Do you use any sort of protective filter? Really think they're necessary?

 

[brandongreen]

Its a no brainer. A $12 UV filter to protect a $500 lens. There is no loss of quality in my experience. Its insurance.

 

[Derek Weston]

Its a no brainer. A $12 UV filter to protect a $500 lens. There is no loss of quality in my experience. Its insurance.

Eh, but if you start reading around on the photo guru forums, many of them are leery of using filters... and I've seen some test that certainly show marked loss of contrast, vignetting,etc...

And there are some filters better than others, of course.

Hoya usually stacks up pretty well. (just got one of those off overstock.com for 14.99 -- usually at least twice that)

I'll try to pull up the analysis on them (filters) I read recently...

 

[Kate Pfeister]

UV filters are great, and don't distort or cause a loss in stops. scratch a UV lens, $20, scratch your top of the line super telephoto lens... $2000.

 

[Derek Weston]

UV filters are great, and don't distort or cause a loss in stops. scratch a UV lens, $20, scratch your top of the line super telephoto lens... $2000.

Not really. Front elements can be replaced cheaply often enough. Canon 70-200mm L series front element replacement is reportedly only 50 bucks. (less than the cost of a good filter)

I think they're useful in nasty situations -- like storm chasing, probably -- but are a compromise. Especially if you don't have a high quality filter.

 

[Kate Pfeister]

Not really. Front elements can be replaced cheaply often enough. Canon 70-200mm L series front element replacement is reportedly only 50 bucks. (less than the cost of a good filter)

I think they're useful in nasty situations -- like storm chasing, probably -- but are a compromise. Especially if you don't have a high quality filter.

I more concerned about keeping the dust, grip, moisture etc. out of my lenses. I've used Tamron filters, anything like that from B&H and never had a problem with them... I would never see the need to spend $50 on a protective UV lens... just me, but I don't see the need at all.. even buying a "good" brand...

 

[Mike Deep]

Its a no brainer. A $12 UV filter to protect a $500 lens. There is no loss of quality in my experience. Its insurance.

A $12 piece of junk glass turns a $500 lens into a $12 lens. Unless the filter is properly multicoated (Those do not cost $12), the effect on sharpness, contrast and even autofocus accuracy can be significant.

 

[Mike Hollingshead]

If you can hit it hard enough to scratch the end of the lens, guessing it's not going to make a difference if a cheap piece of glass was there. It has to take some work to even scratch the end of most lenses, since I'm not sure I've managed yet. Just one of those things that if there's a chance it can deteriorate iq, it's not worth sticking on there.

http://www.schneider-kreuznach.com/knowhow/mrc_e.htm

That sounds interesting for shooting in the rain. Wonder just how well that works. Trying to get real close lightning wide angle is tough because of damn sprinkles. Hmm.

 

[Mike Deep]

Yeah, as far as impacts go the front element is more likely to resist the hit than the much thinner filter is. And then when the filter breaks you've got shards of glass smashing into your lens too.

Filters are more for dealing with environments where dust, water or whatever will be making its way onto the lens, making frequent cleaning necessary. They also complete the weather-sealing on some lenses.

Hoya does make impact resistant filters now, they have some test videos on their site where they dropped metal ball bearings on the glass. I'd like to get around to trying those, but they're pricey, especially if they don't work.

 

[Greg Campbell]

I've got an assortment of nice, coated, UV filters that I usually attach when I'll be shooting in a particularly dusty or impact prone environment (slot canyon photography, etc.). Other than that, I don't worry too much about it....

...Except for my wide angle lenses. Since the front element is so large and sticks out so far, my 17mm and 20mm lenses both have a decent filter mounted 24/7. Over the years, the filters have taken several small 'hits' that would probably have done damage to the glass. The latest 'oops' occurred while scrambling over a chockstone in Wire Pass, leaving a long, deep scratch that convinced me that it was time to replace the filter. (Perhaps atypically, I've never smashed a lens outright, but have managed to inflict a number of scrapes and small dings upon my filters. The lenses would have physically survived these impacts quite easily.)

If I owned one of those uber-wide zooms (10-22, etc.), with a similarly protruding front element, I'd probably buy a good filter.

IMO, AR coating IS important and the extra $ for a good filter is money well spent. Shooting into the sun or other light source with bare glass will cause noticeable problems. Without a bright source in the FOV, coating is much less necessary; an uncoated filter might reduce contrast a touch. Haven't heard of the potential AF issues.. (Then again, I've only got one AF lens in the entire house! )

The small amount of vignetting a standard filter might produce is really no biggie, particularly if you're shooting digital. Numerous free plug in modules can correct it perfectly. (Or bend over and spend another umpteen $ to buy the "special" low profile filter.)

 

[Christian Neumann]

I use filters only for their proper sense, e.g., to reduce UV or to polarize light.
For protection, I use a cap during transport and when mounted on the tripod, a lense hood will do a rather good job.