Filters

[tugboat power]

Hi guys just ordered my first 35mm prime. Do i need a filter! Hate to scratch the lens, so i think so! But what one do i buy? Some are $8 some are $$$.
Cheers
Also do i buy it when i pick the lens up or go to a large department electronic store to purchase. But they only sell 2 brands

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

 

[tirediron]

I'll assume you're talking about the ubiquitous UV "protection filter". I'm firmly in the "I don't want anything between the sensor and the subject that doesn't need to be there" camp. I've been doing this for 30+ years and have yet to see any damage to a lens that would have been mitigated by a filter. Lens hoods have save me more than once, but filters haven't. The only lens I ever used a "protective" filter on was my old 60mm Nikkor Micro because the front element was set so far back in the barrel cleaning was a pain.

If you do decide you want to use a filter, than by the best one you can. B+W, Lee, Singh-Ray and Heliopan are among the best. Tiffen Hoya and Cokin are decent, and almost anything at a big box store is at best sub-standard. Many a photographer has banged his head trying to figure why his images are soft/fuzzy/whatever only to realize the $10 filter he's put on a $500 lens is the culprit.

 

[Designer]

Hi guys just ordered my first 35mm prime. Do i need a filter! Hate to scratch the lens, so i think so! But what one do i buy? Some are $8 some are $$$.
Cheers
Also do i buy it when i pick the lens up or go to a large department electronic store to purchase. But they only sell 2 brands

Shall we assume you are fitting this lens on a digital camera? If so, you really don't NEED a filter for the photographs. You might get a cheap one for taking photos on a wind-swept beach where blowing sand might harm the coatings. It is the coatings that would be harmed, not the glass. However; any cheap filter will interfere with the image quality, so leave it off most of the time. Seriously, you really don't need it for everyday shooting.

 

[tugboat power]

Cheers guys i keep my cameras and my lenses in well protected bags and pouches. And I will have to admit I've never scratch that lens yet. But this being my first Prime and my first ever lens over $500, and the girl at the camera store said do I want a filter and to protect the lens. I first said no but then thinking on the way home maybe I should? But after reading what you guys just said I probably don't need one. Oh and it's for the Sony mirrorless a 6000. Just brought the
α LENSES
E 35mm F1.8 OSS

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

 

[cgw]

Get a mid-range UV like a Hoya or better. Tales of serious image degradation are overblown. Indeed, I'm guessing posters upthread would be hard pressed to discern filtered from unfiltered shots. They do protect the front element from dust, smudges and impact. Besides, I'd rather put cleaning marks on a 30 buck filter any day. On small-bodied MILCs like the Sony 6XXX series, I find myself often grabbing the camera by the lens and usually touch the front element in the process. Borrowed a friend's A6000 recently and put not a few fingerprints on his lenses' UV filters.

Filters(branded and otherwise) are profit candy for camera shops, so buy quality at a discount online.

 

[tugboat power]

So i just need protection filter no polarized or uf etc?

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

 

[tirediron]

Pretty much every digital camera out there has a UV filter built into the sensor array, so the UV portion of a filter is redundant. If you want to use a filter for protection, than all you need is a single, optical glass element. I would steer away from ProMaster as that is simply re-badged MiC stuff sold at a higher price.

 

[robbins.photo]

Cheers guys i keep my cameras and my lenses in well protected bags and pouches. And I will have to admit I've never scratch that lens yet. But this being my first Prime and my first ever lens over $500, and the girl at the camera store said do I want a filter and to protect the lens. I first said no but then thinking on the way home maybe I should? But after reading what you guys just said I probably don't need one. Oh and it's for the Sony mirrorless a 6000. Just brought the
α LENSES
E 35mm F1.8 OSS

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

The people who work for camera stores are paid to push accessories like those because they are extremely high profit items for the store. The filter you pay $10 or so for costs them usually less than $1.

Sent from my N9518 using Tapatalk

 

[robbins.photo]

So i just need protection filter no polarized or uf etc?

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

I'm with tirediron on this one. A filter like that is a complete waste of money, and yes it most certainly can affect image quality.

Sent from my N9518 using Tapatalk

 

[Designer]

I first said no but then thinking on the way home maybe I should? But after reading what you guys just said I probably don't need one.

As usual, you see both pro and con with provisio among the answers.

So to continue: We have seen more than one photographer who writes on here about not being able to achieve sharp focus in her/his photos. Or there is annoying lens flare anytime the lens is near the sun.

Upon learning more information, we find that there is a cheap UV filter on the lens that has never been off. Once they remove that, their photos are lots sharper, and the flare is gone. Just sayin'.

 

[Hermes1]

I am not a fan of using a filter as protection for reasons already given above, except in very windy and dusty conditions such as in the dessert where I live, a beach, on the ocean etc. where damage to the coating is a possibility. Like others, I have found lens hoods to be the best at protecting the lens from potential damage from a strike. Another consideration for any who use a filter as protection for front element damage from a blow, is if the blow is hard enough to cause damage to the front element, there is the possibility the filter could crack or shatter, potentially causing damage.

 

[Derrel]

Hi guys just ordered my first 35mm prime. Do i need a filter! Hate to scratch the lens, so i think so! But what one do i buy? Some are $8 some are $$$.
Cheers
Also do i buy it when i pick the lens up or go to a large department electronic store to purchase. But they only sell 2 brands

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

Not a fan of filters used for protection. Filters have high markup on them, and are an easy sell to consumers who are encouraged to ,"protect their investment," wgich often means selling a customer a no-name $3 filter Made in China and sold for $29.95. Get a lens hood for the lens, and most of the "protection" the filter provides will be taken care of.

If you must though, go ahead, buy a filter and slap it on there. It's a lot like leaving the plastic on your new TV set, or new couch.

 

[pixmedic]

UV filters work great for protection. Mine protect my furniture all the time.

sent by synchronized cardioversion

 

[petrochemist]

UV filters can be useful. I have one used to hold paper bokeh masks against the front of my lens, and a few more to smear with Vaseline for impromptu center soft type filters.
The only sort of situation I'd consider using one for protection is where there is airborne spray/grit etc.

For each of these applications a £1 second hand filter is generally sufficient, I've brought some rather nice lenses for less than £40

 

[zombiesniper]

Agree with all of the above.

Anything that has even a chance of causing a scratch on the front lens will shatter that thin filter in a heartbeat. Now instead of the original single scratch you have added a bunch of broken glass to the equation.
As was previously stated the only time I would use a filter, blowing rain or dust where I'll have to wipe water/debris away regularly.