UV Filters as protection...Does quality really matter?

Trever1t · Jun 21, 2012

http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/...attered-uv-filter-resulting-lens-scratch.html

just the first few pages are informative...then it degrades to the normal banter

GreggS · Jun 21, 2012

Ernicus said:
I think a lot of folks tend to forget about the average person in the community. We get blinders on sites like these as we are dealing with people who have a bit more knowledge and gear as you do.

Ernicus...thanks for stepping up and recognizing that some folks on here are newer to this and are here to learn. The blinders the pros put on sometimes turns into blantant discouragement for a lot of folks. Yea...I'm new to this, but so was everyone on this forum at one point...try to look at our newbie questions through that lens (no pun intended).

That said...I don't, and won't, consider myself a stupid person who doesn't care for my stuff properly. I just spent an buttload upgrading my gear in the hopes of making this more than a hobby. Which brings us back to why I asked the question in the first place.

Good debate though...lot's of opinions out there. Thanks everyone.

yerlem · Jun 21, 2012

I had a UV filter and then someone here told me "why would you put a cheap piece of glass in front of your very expensive lens?".
Can't argue with logic.
I took the filter out the next day.

KmH · Jun 21, 2012

Front lens elements are not only thicker than the glass in filters, they are not the same kind of glass, and front lens elements are usually backed by other optical aberration correcting lens elements making the front lens element assembly many times thicker than the thin glass in a filter. In addition, the front lens element has more support around the edges than does any filter.

LensRentals.com - Front Element Scratches

cgipson1 · Jun 21, 2012

Ernicus said:
Doesn't that vary, on quality of lens? Serious question...as I don't know. I would think the the cheaper lenses are more easily scratched up than the fancier ones. Or are they all the same quality in the front?

If you have a kit lens and put a cheap filter on it.. you just degraded the IQ of a lens that already had less than perfect IQ. If you take a top end lens.. and put a cheap filter on it.. you just turned your expensive lens into a kit lens IQ wise!

Glass is glass.. but the better lenses do have better anti-scratch coatings than the kit lenses do...

Infidel · Jun 21, 2012

I've never seen a lens with a scratch or other damage to the front element. The people who don't break their lenses don't bring broken lenses into the store. It's no more prone to random damage than any other part of the camera. The filter threads, on the other hand, can easily get damaged from cross-threading or deformation, if the lens swings into something (damage to the side, not the front of the lens) or is dropped. If it's dropped, you probably have a lot more to worry about than a scratch on the front element.

Many lenses are used with hoods when in active use and otherwise people tend to use lens caps when not in active use (develop the habit if you haven't already). The risk of damaging the front element in everyday use is probably less than damaging some other part of the camera. Aside from filthy environments, which probably do more damage to the camera internals anyway, a uv filter doesn't offer much more than false security.

Infidel · Jun 21, 2012

snowbear said:
I am an amateur, but (hopefully) an educated one.
Without going into the religious debate of filter/no filter, IF you are going to use one, I'd recommend removing it when you shoot in order to minimize image degradation. If you decide to keep it on when you shoot, or decide to take up film, then get one of high quality.

This would be about 200 times more annoying than just using a lens cap.

Ernicus · Jun 21, 2012

I just watched a few vids on youtube, and they kicked a soccerball at a camera sending it smashing into a wall, lol. Wish I had equipment to tear up like that. lol. While the lens did not break or scratch, the plastic that you screw filters into did, so you could never use any filters with that lens again...when they put the uv filter on it and smashed it...the filter didnt break and the lens was still operational in terms of being able to use filters again.

I didn't think about the pieces around the actual element....so in that case...UV wins. They do, in the video, state that you lose some IQ though. I'm sure there are tons of vids...thats just one I watched just now as I surf the web.

Ernicus · Jun 21, 2012

lol, cute video.

How about one with a bit more glass on it? we all know smaller things are harder to break than larger things.

JG_Coleman · Jun 21, 2012

Since threads like this have abounded in the past, I'll sort of abbreviate all of my past posts on the subject.

- Lens caps are much better at protecting your lens than UV filters will ever be.

- Lens caps can be popped on and popped off in roughly one second.

- Unless you're trying to take photographs through them, lens caps don't degrade IQ at all.

Photographers who do types of photography (mostly people photography) where a decisive moment may pop up without warning and be gone in 5 seconds may argue that a lens cap slows them up too much. I suppose I can understand that... though I question how often that is really an issue in practice.

I do landscape photography. I leave my lens cap on while moving throughout the terrain... remove it to work a certain scene... then replace it when I'm ready to move on. Works fine... protects my lens when I'm in transit... doesn't degrade image quality.

GreggS · Jun 21, 2012

...I hate to ask. Really...in fear of WWIII breaking out...but can all of the arguments this thread has seen apply to the selection of an ND filter kit for my 17-40? I would like a good set of NDs that won't kill IQ for those mid-day shoots/landscape/motion shots. So again...does quality really matter? Or will any filter apply to that equation of "great glass + any filter = no longer great glass"?

Ernicus · Jun 21, 2012

cgipson1 said:
Ernicus said:

Doesn't that vary, on quality of lens? Serious question...as I don't know. I would think the the cheaper lenses are more easily scratched up than the fancier ones. Or are they all the same quality in the front?

Click to expand...

If you have a kit lens and put a cheap filter on it.. you just degraded the IQ of a lens that already had less than perfect IQ. If you take a top end lens.. and put a cheap filter on it.. you just turned your expensive lens into a kit lens IQ wise!

Glass is glass.. but the better lenses do have better anti-scratch coatings than the kit lenses do...

I was talking physical quality charlie, not image quality. Everyone keeps revolving back to image quality. I was speaking literally of the quality of materials...as in the more expensive lenses being more "scratchproof" for lack of better terms.

Ernicus · Jun 21, 2012

GreggS said:
...I hate to ask. Really...in fear of WWIII breaking out...but can all of the arguments this thread has seen apply to the selection of an ND filter kit for my 17-40? I would like a good set of NDs that won't kill IQ for those mid-day shoots/landscape/motion shots. So again...does quality really matter? Or will any filter apply to that equation of "great glass + any filter = no longer great glass"?

Nope, it's all been about UV, lol.

as for ND, you get what you pay for there. Yes quality matters on ND.

Ernicus · Jun 21, 2012

"The Ultimate Guide To Neutral Density Filters" by Peter Hill | RedBubble

Trever1t · Jun 21, 2012

Quality matters for anything you put in front of your lens. PERIOD. Good filters are HELLOFAEXPENSIVE and there's a pretty good reason. I have 2 ND filters, both B+W. a 4 stops I think was close to $100 and a 10 stops that was double that not to mention a $185 CPL....chit's not cheap. Sure you can buy less expensive.