do i need a filter?

[usayit]

any filters – never were.

Never is such a strong word... you wanna put money on that. j/k

How about old lenses that have very soft front elements? I'd rather take the lens cloth to the filter protecting it rather than introduce cleaning marks.

 

[Alfred D.]

Never is such a strong word... you wanna put money on that. j/k

No: I don't waste my time on something that's a given.

 

[caspertodd]

I cannot tell you how many times my UV filter has already protected me from my daughter grabbing at the lens while taking a picture. Alfred D, your opinion is just that...your opinion. Some people prefer to use a UV filter to protect their lens, some people don't. I use a cloth baby diaper to polish my car...just because it was designed for something else doesn't mean I shouldn't use it.

And that is MY opinion.

 

[caspertodd]

FYI: lens caps were specifically designed to protect lens's front elements! Filters – any filters – never were.

Don't hammer in nails with a screwdriver! Use the appropriate tool for the task at hand.

From Tiffen's website:

"UV Protector - Protects lens from dust, moisture, scratches, and breakage."

Evidently we are using the appropriate tool for the task at hand.

 

[Alfred D.]

From Tiffen's website:

"UV Protector - Protects lens from dust, moisture, scratches, and breakage."

Tiffen simply says what you want to hear, casper. And you fell for it. That's called marketing. In fact this is archetypical "FUD marketing". It appeals to your "FUD" – Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt. I.o.w. it appeals to your emotions. But it has got nothing whatsoever to do with the technology of photography.

 

[caspertodd]

... in your opinion.

 

[Alfred D.]

...and common sense, and reality.

 

[ovjamaica]

Someone appears a bit argumentative today. Of course, that's just my opinion.

Personally I use UV filters on all of my lenses. There are numerous reasons to do so, all of which outweigh any image degradation that may be possible. I use Tiffen filters and they have worked very well for me. Though some people will advocate the use of lens caps instead of filters, wait until your lens takes a tumble and you smash the front element instead of a much less expensive UV filter. I've never dropped a lens myself, but when you see it happen you'll be glad you had a filter on. Don't spare the bucks, but I recommend one. Once again, just an opinion.

 

[Stillsky]

No, for protection you don't need a filter, you need a lens cap.
FYI: lens caps were specifically designed to protect lens's front elements! Filters – any filters – never were.

Don't hammer in nails with a screwdriver! Use the appropriate tool for the task at hand.

Actually, there are filters designed now specifically for the purpose of protection.

 

[AndrewG]

Most professionals won't advocate the use of a UV filter for lens protection. It degrades image quality too much... You spend $1600 on a lens and then put a $20 piece of glass in front of it? The reason the lens is so expensive is all the precision optics.

A hood is a great way to protect a lens.

This is always a hotly debated topic. But, filters do degrade image quality. You invest in expensive glass for the image quality. Make sense? I'm sure pros take some comfort in having their gear insured. But, a hood is still great protection that doesn't degrade image quality - in fact it can help quite a bit.

Hmm; Ansel Adams frequently used filtration for his b&w work. I don't hear any complaints about the quality of his images.
I use Hoya Skylight filters with my Nikkor manual lenses on my Nikon manual 35mm cameras with no problems.
Maybe filters are less happy on DSLR's?

 

[darkpbstar]

ok ok enough with the arguing. I got my insight, I have already bought a UV and Polarizer, please stop! this is somethign that wont be resolved, because one person can't accept another's side, and he has to throw out marketing terms and techniques....

 

[Tiberius47]

No, for protection you don't need a filter, you need a lens cap.
FYI: lens caps were specifically designed to protect lens's front elements! Filters – any filters – never were.

Don't hammer in nails with a screwdriver! Use the appropriate tool for the task at hand.

That's fine if you don't mind fumbling to take off the lens cap each time you want to take a photo. You'll miss plenty of shots like this.

 

[Garbz]

Hmm; Ansel Adams frequently used filtration for his b&w work. I don't hear any complaints about the quality of his images.
I use Hoya Skylight filters with my Nikkor manual lenses on my Nikon manual 35mm cameras with no problems.
Maybe filters are less happy on DSLR's?

I agree, *Mike* by most professionals do you mean you? Because I have bought 3 second hand lenses now each from a different professional photographer, 2 lenses are goldring, and one would be if it weren't for the fact that the lens is older than the goldring designation. 2 of them came with top quality UV filters on them, the third came with a Kenko Pro1 Protector filter. So by my standards, All professionals advocate the use of filters for protection

 

[JustAnEngineer]

I've occasionally noticed more flare with the Canon single-coated filter than with a higher-quality multi-coated filter.

 

[SpeedTrap]

Most professionals won't advocate the use of a UV filter for lens protection. It degrades image quality too much... You spend $1600 on a lens and then put a $20 piece of glass in front of it? The reason the lens is so expensive is all the precision optics.

I have several Gold Ring lenses in the upper price ranges, I use high end B+W UV filters on all of them.

I would rather replace a $100 filter than a $2K lens any day, and high end filters do not degrade picture quality to a level that any one could tell I have it on.