Is One Filter for Every Lens Practical?

[cgipson1]

^THIS!

I don't use filters to protect my $2400.00 lens, or my $1900.00 lens, or my ($1700.00, $1600.00, etc...) lens... but if you really feel an inexpensive UV filter that will reduce contrast, reduce image quality, etc... is really necessary to protect your $200.00 kit lens, fine!

The main reason I don't use a filter for protection, is it would make the image quality of my $2400.00 lens look like the IQ of that $200.00 kit lens! And using a filter on the $200.00 kit lens... will make images look like a $50.00 kit lens, made in some backroom somewhere!

But that isn't my problem! lol!

 

[runnah]

It feels so much better to shoot without protection.

 

[cgipson1]

It feels so much better to shoot without protection.

You need to stay off the Porn sites, bro... too much sex on the mind! All of these sexual innuendos are making you look perv'ish!

 

[Devinhullphoto]

^THIS!

I don't use filters to protect my $2400.00 lens, or my $1900.00 lens, or my ($1700.00, $1600.00, etc...) lens... but if you really feel an inexpensive UV filter that will reduce contrast, reduce image quality, etc... is really necessary to protect your $200.00 kit lens, fine!

The main reason I don't use a filter for protection, is it would make the image quality of my $2400.00 lens look like the IQ of that $200.00 kit lens! And using a filter on the $200.00 kit lens... will make images look like a $50.00 kit lens, made in some backroom somewhere!

But that isn't my problem! lol!

I use them cause I'm paranoid even though I don't own any expensive glass yet. However I'm very careful with my gear and haven't done any damage to the front element yet. I guess since I always have a lens hood on I should be ok.

 

[cgipson1]

^THIS!

I don't use filters to protect my $2400.00 lens, or my $1900.00 lens, or my ($1700.00, $1600.00, etc...) lens... but if you really feel an inexpensive UV filter that will reduce contrast, reduce image quality, etc... is really necessary to protect your $200.00 kit lens, fine!

The main reason I don't use a filter for protection, is it would make the image quality of my $2400.00 lens look like the IQ of that $200.00 kit lens! And using a filter on the $200.00 kit lens... will make images look like a $50.00 kit lens, made in some backroom somewhere!

But that isn't my problem! lol!

I use them cause I'm paranoid even though I don't own any expensive glass yet. However I'm very careful with my gear and haven't done any damage to the front element yet. I guess since I always have a lens hood on I should be ok.

Lens hood is my preferred method... but do what makes you comfortable. I would feel bad if someone takes off a filter, and then trashes their lens! lol! My main issue is the loss of image quality....

 

[Devinhullphoto]

Lens hood is my preferred method... but do what makes you comfortable. I would feel bad if someone takes of a filter, and then trashes their lens! lol! My main issue is the loss of image quality....

That's why I've been reading into what filters are the best with maintaining image quality.

 

[480sparky]

Lens hood is my preferred method... but do what makes you comfortable. I would feel bad if someone takes of a filter, and then trashes their lens! lol! My main issue is the loss of image quality....

That's why I've been reading into what filters are the best with maintaining image quality.

The 'best' filter is one with no glass in it.

 

[runnah]

It feels so much better to shoot without protection.

You need to stay off the Porn sites, bro... too much sex on the mind! All of these sexual innuendos are making you look perv'ish!

I could say the same about you! It's you guys who are always reading too much into my posts.


Anyway, back on point. I've always been hood-less. I've found that it's much easier to clean the lens without a hood, not to mention it's easier to get your hands around it when you don't have the hood flipped back. I think the protection angle is a wash. I've talked with with guys who are hooded/hood-less and both have had the same dings and scrapes.

Happy Chuck? No innuendos there!

 

[cgipson1]

Lens hood is my preferred method... but do what makes you comfortable. I would feel bad if someone takes of a filter, and then trashes their lens! lol! My main issue is the loss of image quality....

That's why I've been reading into what filters are the best with maintaining image quality.

EXPENSIVE filters! You get what you pay for!

 

[Tailgunner]

I worry about damaging lenses/elements, so I keep the correct size UV filters on my good non kit glass and use hoods.

You don't protect your kit lenses?

Sure, their kept safe at home in the back of my camera cabinet.

I really only use 2 lenses at this point, a Nikon 28-70 f2.8 w/77mm UV filter (D7100) and a 18-200mm w/72mm UV filter (D3100), both with hoods.

 

[Devinhullphoto]

Sure, their kept safe at home in the back of my camera cabinet.

I really only use 2 lenses at this point, a Nikon 28-70 f2.8 w/77mm UV filter (D7100) and a 18-200mm w/72mm UV filter (D3100), both with hoods.

Ha. I can see why.

 

[JacaRanda]

It feels so much better to shoot without protection.

You need to stay off the Porn sites, bro... too much sex on the mind! All of these sexual innuendos are making you look perv'ish!

I could say the same about you! It's you guys who are always reading too much into my posts.


Anyway, back on point. I've always been hood-less. I've found that it's much easier to clean the lens without a hood, not to mention it's easier to get your hands around it when you don't have the hood flipped back. I think the protection angle is a wash. I've talked with with guys who are hooded/hood-less and both have had the same dings and scrapes.

Happy Chuck? No innuendos there!

Chuckling MAO!

Runnah for Prez through July 4th!

 

[Tailgunner]

^THIS!

I don't use filters to protect my $2400.00 lens, or my $1900.00 lens, or my ($1700.00, $1600.00, etc...) lens... but if you really feel an inexpensive UV filter that will reduce contrast, reduce image quality, etc... is really necessary to protect your $200.00 kit lens, fine!

The main reason I don't use a filter for protection, is it would make the image quality of my $2400.00 lens look like the IQ of that $200.00 kit lens! And using a filter on the $200.00 kit lens... will make images look like a $50.00 kit lens, made in some backroom somewhere!

But that isn't my problem! lol!

Ya, I read a lot of this in threads and blog post.

I'm not going to worry about a kit lens but I will use them on anything of value like my Nikon 28-70 f2.8. As for picture quality, I took a dozen or so shots with and without filters and couldn't tell a difference.

 

[tirediron]

OP: Somehow I missed the fact that you were shooting film. In that case, using a UV filter is valid as film cameras do not have an "internal" UV filter the way digital cameras do. That said, do get the best filter you can afford.

 

[Bulb]

Thank you all for the replies.

After some consideration, I have come to a few conclusions.

Having a filter on my lens for protection seems unnecessary. I will use a lens hood for protection. I always use my blower on my lens and shake out my cleaning cloth before I clean my lens, so I'm not very worried about something abrasive ruining it. It's also very difficult to notice a scratch in the front element.

Using a low quality filter will only reduce the quality of my lenses (even though, as of yet, most of my lenses are low quality anyway) so I will opt for a higher quality filter that will only be used when the situation warrants it.

Since I will not be using the filters unless necessary, I'm not too worried about the effect of using a step up adapter on my lenses. Using a step-up adapter with a good filter will be fine for my purposes.

Once again, I really appreciate all of the responses. They made me think about what I was going to use them for rather than the fact that I wanted them. As a result, I realized that there is no need to go overboard on a full set of filters when I'm still refining my style.