Which filters are must-have?

[sobolik]

If you have a $1,000 dollar lens, and you put a $5 cheap filter on it, it WILL degrade the quality.

People that don't wear safety glasses don't piss and moan about degrading image quality to those that do wear safety glasses like the anti UV filter do when demanding that everyone start agreeing with them. Why do the anti UV types find it necessary that everyone conform to their view?[/QUOTE]


Apparently Nikon agrees with the lens protector idea:

Nikon Neutral Clear Filter

Mfr. Part: 2479 (52mm)

Description
Clear optical glass protection for your lens. Can be left on your lens at all times.

Features
Clear optical glass; used as a lens protector.

Just web search Nikon NC filter

 

[prodigy2k7]

If you have a $1,000 dollar lens, and you put a $5 cheap filter on it, it WILL degrade the quality.

People that don't wear safety glasses don't piss and moan about degrading image quality to those that do wear safety glasses like the anti UV filter do when demanding that everyone start agreeing with them. Why do the anti UV types find it necessary that everyone conform to their view?

Apparently Nikon agrees with the lens protector idea:

Nikon Neutral Clear Filter

Mfr. Part: 2479 (52mm)

Description
Clear optical glass protection for your lens. Can be left on your lens at all times. Features
Clear optical glass; used as a lens protector.

Just web search Nikon NC filter[/QUOTE]

Its called making money.

 

[carvinrocks2]

I bought a cheapo filter on Ebay, and after comparing it on and off, I don't notice any difference. It's not a high quality lens to begin with, but no difference was to be had.

I didn't exactly do a perfect test, but I rather keep it on just incase something did happen. I use both a hood and a UV filter.

 

[arios23]

Interesting, a single filter question end up with all this circus.

 

[prodigy2k7]

I bought a cheapo filter on Ebay, and after comparing it on and off, I don't notice any difference. It's not a high quality lens to begin with, but no difference was to be had.

I didn't exactly do a perfect test, but I rather keep it on just incase something did happen. I use both a hood and a UV filter.

Sure you cant see anything with the naked eye when zoomed out, zoom in to 100% and im sure you will be something. I just did a test, maybe ill post pictures later. I can see lots of detail loss.

 

[sobolik]

Interesting, a single filter question end up with all this circus.

Funny aint it. The anti UV crowd never gives it a rest.

Well what does a documented expert have to say?

Skip Heine is the primary author of PhotographyCourse.net. Skip, a nationally-awarded photographer (news and corporate reports) has been nominated twice for The Pulitzer Prize. He has covered over 100 NFL games, three Super Bowls, dozens of pro basketball, baseball, and hockey games. Covered the U.S. and British Opens. Paid (by major corporations) to do photography in Europe, Canada, Mexico as well as the entire United States. Guest lecturer at colleges and universities. Rated one of the top five Experts at askme.com, he is the among the best able to answer any questions you have. Visit Skip Heine’s website for samples of his work resume, etc.



FILTERS: There are numerous filters out there, some designed to correct color/light problems … others add special effects. We will discuss three basic filters (which you probably should have).

UV/HAZE filter: It cuts out ultra-violet light rays. Although invisible to the naked eye, ultra-violet rays give bluish tint and haziness in color photographs. UV/HAZE filters make the picture clearer. This filter does not block enough light to cause you to make an exposure compensation, therefore it is should be kept on the lens at all times to protect the lens surface.

POLARIZING filter: This filter subdues undesired reflections from non-metallic surfaces such as water, windows, etc. When used in color photography it will darken blue sky by blocking atmospheric haze. By eliminating that haze skies will be bluer, red objects will be redder …. in fact all colors will be much more saturated and true.

CLOSEUP filters: These are simple lenses that, when attached to the front of your lens, will allow you to focus much closer … allowing you to make full-frame images of very small objects. The more powerful the closeup filter, the more you will have to “open up” the lens, because these filters do “absorb” some of the light rays. The filter should come with instructions that will tell you how much exposure compensation you should make. If not, simply experiment …

How to Learn Photography | Digital Photography Courses

 

[Idahophoto]

UV filters that shops try to sell you to "protect the lens" is nothing more than trying to get money from you. They are worthless! OK, maybe if you were photographing in a sandstorm then perhaps it might come in handy, but aside from that your lens is fine. I have never had a problem not using filters and I have had cameras for a very long time. In fact to do so will actually degrade the image. Use filter for what they are for and a shield is not one of them.

 

[sobolik]

UV filters that shops try to sell you to "protect the lens" is nothing more than trying to get money from you. They are worthless! OK, maybe if you were photographing in a sandstorm then perhaps it might come in handy, but aside from that your lens is fine. I have never had a problem not using filters and I have had cameras for a very long time. In fact to do so will actually degrade the image. Use filter for what they are for and a shield is not one of them.

"They are worthless!"

I refer you to post #36 just before yours "
UV/HAZE filter: It cuts out ultra-violet light rays. Although invisible to the naked eye, ultra-violet rays give bluish tint and haziness in color photographs. UV/HAZE filters make the picture clearer. "

 

[Idahophoto]

I was talking about worthless as a lens protector not as a "real filter". Like I said use them for what they are designed for not as a shield.

 

[JG_Coleman]

Interesting, a single filter question end up with all this circus.

Funny aint it. The anti UV crowd never gives it a rest.

Well what does a documented expert have to say?

Skip Heine is the primary author of PhotographyCourse.net. Skip, a nationally-awarded photographer (news and corporate reports) has been nominated twice for The Pulitzer Prize. He has covered over 100 NFL games, three Super Bowls, dozens of pro basketball, baseball, and hockey games. Covered the U.S. and British Opens. Paid (by major corporations) to do photography in Europe, Canada, Mexico as well as the entire United States. Guest lecturer at colleges and universities. Rated one of the top five Experts at askme.com, he is the among the best able to answer any questions you have. Visit Skip Heine’s website for samples of his work resume, etc.



FILTERS: There are numerous filters out there, some designed to correct color/light problems … others add special effects. We will discuss three basic filters (which you probably should have).

UV/HAZE filter: It cuts out ultra-violet light rays. Although invisible to the naked eye, ultra-violet rays give bluish tint and haziness in color photographs. UV/HAZE filters make the picture clearer. This filter does not block enough light to cause you to make an exposure compensation, therefore it is should be kept on the lens at all times to protect the lens surface.

POLARIZING filter: This filter subdues undesired reflections from non-metallic surfaces such as water, windows, etc. When used in color photography it will darken blue sky by blocking atmospheric haze. By eliminating that haze skies will be bluer, red objects will be redder …. in fact all colors will be much more saturated and true.

CLOSEUP filters: These are simple lenses that, when attached to the front of your lens, will allow you to focus much closer … allowing you to make full-frame images of very small objects. The more powerful the closeup filter, the more you will have to “open up” the lens, because these filters do “absorb” some of the light rays. The filter should come with instructions that will tell you how much exposure compensation you should make. If not, simply experiment …

How to Learn Photography | Digital Photography Courses

Well, UV filters are one of those things that garner polarized reactions from the amateur crowd all the way up to the professionals. And, in terms of "what filters should I have", it's appropriate that the usefulness of UV filters would be discussed.

I mean, by and large, the main reason that I don't use UV filters is two-fold:

1) simply because I use other filters too often to be constantly removing and replacing the UV filter, and

2) because I can't, for life of me, create a side-by-side comparison that demonstrates that they have any real photographic effect, at all... even if they are intended to. (Really... I've truly tried)

I think those are two pretty valid reasons of themselves. Do UV filters create any problems with contrast or sharpness? Maybe, maybe not. I think the point trying to be made by some people is simply that, given that the filters really don't seem to do what they are advertised to do, their presence certainly can't make a photo better. At worst, they create an opportunity for loss of contrast and sharpness (a potential optical bottleneck, if you will)... at best, they create a photograph as usual, doing nothing at all to improve your photograph (unless, perhaps, you shoot film... I don't, so I don't know).

As far as protection... the question is simple... given the above observations, are they a reasonable means of trying to protect a lens. Clearly, people are totally divided on this matter... but why not take a in-depth look, you know?

BTW... Nearly every manufacturer that makes filters creates a UV or Haze filter of some kind. This doesn't necessarily mean that such filters are practical or useful. It just means that they sell. And the fact that they sell also doesn't mean that they are practical or useful... just that people buy them. Perhaps, like the "Tungsten" filters still sold all over Amazon and eBay, they are truly relics from the film era that really have no place, at least photographically speaking, in digital photography.

I have read commentary by some pros that totally denounces UV filters as one of the most ridiculous habits in photography. I have also, as you mentioned with Skip, read commentary by pros where they mention, without even a bit of hesitation, that they "of course use UV filters on their lenses". Who's right? Who knows... There are only opinions, really. And each side makes sense in it's own way.

I just think that the back-and-forth exchange is mostly so insistent on each side because the choice to use or not use UV filters is one that individuals on each side of the coin make every time they go shooting. In a way, it's a choice that is integral to the way they shoot... even if it seems somewhat trivial to some.

 

[carvinrocks2]

I read on another forum when I was googling it that a lady had an UV filter on when she dropped her camera and it saved it.


I did not notice any real effects with the filter, but maybe that's just me

 

[sobolik]

So I've only recently gotten into photography but the one thing all my photography friends tlk about a lot is filters. I've been browsing lately and there are just SOO many to choose from. Which ones do you have and which ones do you consider a "must-have"?

PS. So far I have a ND 2-stop (ND4), and of course a UV (Sunpak if you must know).

After all this banter you the original poster may have noticed that there are people with strong opinions on various matters.

Let this be a lesson to you.

I suggest that the lesson is that at some point the activity of photography leaves the realm of proven indisputable science and becomes somewhat of and opinion.

After photography leaves the world of opinion it then becomes art.

Art is what we are ultimately engaged in. There are artists who refuse to use brushes made with certain bristle materials and others that would never do with out those same bristles.

Do not be discouraged by all this banter and disagreement. Rather be encourage that at some point the inner artist in you can emerge,

then you too can then weigh in with conviction on the virtues or vices of a lowly UV filter.

 

[Idahophoto]

Maybe but I doubt it. Any impact enough to cause damage to a filter would surly even by shock alone damage the lens anyways. I'm not saying it didn't happen, but if it did it was 99.9% luck and I find Lens hoods, which I do sometimes use for protections, work much better.

 

[Taylor510ce]

So one expert says to use them, it must be a fact. I just read an article not long ago in PopPhoto that had an expert stating the opposite. I am sure that if you buy high enough quality UV filters, they won't degrade, but that still doesn't change my stance that they are useless. I had a Canon 85mm 1.8 USM that I was walking through yosemite woods with shooting a deer. I stepped on a stump for a better angle which was rotted from decay. I crash through, down to my knee, slamming face first onto the ground with my camera hitting all the branches and debris on the ground lens element first. NO UV FILTER. the camera was fine with one mark on the element which buffed out with a lens cleaning pen in like 2 seconds. The lens worked perfectly after that with no problems. That lens had my weight ( about 215 ) slam down on top of it and jam it into the sharp and pointy ground. It would have shattered that UV filter.

 

[timlair]

So I've only recently gotten into photography but the one thing all my photography friends tlk about a lot is filters. I've been browsing lately and there are just SOO many to choose from. Which ones do you have and which ones do you consider a "must-have"?

PS. So far I have a ND 2-stop (ND4), and of course a UV (Sunpak if you must know).

After all this banter you the original poster may have noticed that there are people with strong opinions on various matters.

Let this be a lesson to you.

I suggest that the lesson is that at some point the activity of photography leaves the realm of proven indisputable science and becomes somewhat of and opinion.

After photography leaves the world of opinion it then becomes art.

Art is what we are ultimately engaged in. There are artists who refuse to use brushes made with certain bristle materials and others that would never do with out those same bristles.

Do not be discouraged by all this banter and disagreement. Rather be encourage that at some point the inner artist in you can emerge,

then you too can then weigh in with conviction on the virtues or vices of a lowly UV filter.

You are correct. It is ultimately my decision. I didn't know that by asking 1 simple question that I'd start such a heated debate. Haha! I guess I'll just do my own testing and such. Thanks for all the input nonetheless.