Which filters are must-have?

[JG_Coleman]

Well, the filters that you need will of course depend upon the type of shooting you usually do. I usually do outdoor photography, so my two cents relates to that type of shooting.

I routinely use a Circular Polarizer... wouldn't ever be without, really. Indoor shooters probably have no use for them, at all... especially considering that they rob a stop or two of light. But for outdoor photography they are really useful tools allowing you: control over glare from water or wet surfaces, deepen sky colors without making clouds look funny, and add a bit of saturation to foliage. It can even help to slow shutter speed a bit when photographing flowing water on rivers or waterfalls (doubling as a glare reducer and mild ND filter).

I also always carry a set of Cokin ND Graduated Filters when I'm doing any landscape photography. They are really indispensable tools for balancing light in a variety of scenes. Some people say Grad NDs are next to useless and only for shots in which there is a perfectly straight horizon... but I can only guess that they've never used "soft graduated" filters, which are much more versatile.

I also carry ND filters, but you've mentioned that you already have one of those.

I also carry some Nikon Close-Up filters, but these rarely get much use since the quality of the photos they produce isn't really anything to write home about. Also, in the case that you have a dedicated macro lens, these are truly pointless.

I have never used UV/Haze filters for a couple of reasons. First of all, I've carried my camera over mountains, across salt flats to islands, through forests, up rocky river gorges, through salt marshes, meadows, in the rain, sleet, snow and ice, across a half-dozen states, for probably a couple hundred miles. I have never been so careless as to smash my camera or lens in any way, nor has it ever collected so much dust and debris that I couldn't easily and harmelessly clean it off with a lens wipe every now and then. Now, don't get me wrong... mistakes do happen... and, like most on this board, if I broke my lens it would take me months to buy a replacement... I don't have a whole lot of cash laying around. But most of what a UV filter affords is just psychological protection... in most cases, people are already careful enough just knowing that they are carrying around a camera worth hunderds or even thousands of dollars.

However, the fact that I am routinely using polarizers, grad NDs, and ND filters means that UV filters are truly impractical for me, as I can't be constantly removing a comparatively useless UV filter all the time. it's just not worth the hassle.

I have also done tests with a UV filter to see if they even actually do anything. Now my tests weren't scientific, I admit... but I've concluded, for my own part, that they are truly pointless as far as having any real photographic effect with digital cameras. I still try it out from time to time in different situations, waiting to hit upon some instance where they actually do anything... I have yet to find any scenario that fits the bill.

My suggestion... just use a lens cap to protect your lens. They pop off SOOO quick, they don't have to be carefully unscrewed every time you want to use a screw-on filter that has an actual purpose, and are many times more durable than UV filters. A lens cap should pretty much last a lifetime.

 

[timlair]

Well, the filters that you need will of course depend upon the type of shooting you usually do. I usually do outdoor photography, so my two cents relates to that type of shooting.

I routinely use a Circular Polarizer... wouldn't ever be without, really. Indoor shooters probably have no use for them, at all... especially considering that they rob a stop or two of light. But for outdoor photography they are really useful tools allowing you to: control over glare from water or wet surfaces, deepen sky colors without making clouds look funny, and add a bit of saturation to foliage. It can even help to slow shutter speed a bit when photographing flowing water on rivers or waterfalls (doubling as a glare reducer and mild ND filter).

I also always carry a set of Cokin ND Graduated Filters when I'm doing any landscape photography. They are really indispensable tools for balancing light in a variety of scenes. Some people say Grad NDs are next to useless and only for shots in which there is a perfectly straight horizon... but I can only guess that they've never used "soft graduated" filters, which are much more versatile.

I also carry ND filters, but you've mentioned that you already have one of those.

I also carry some Nikon Close-Up filters, but these rarely get much use since the quality of the photos they produce isn't really anything to write home about. Also, in the case that you have a dedicated macro lens, these are truly pointless.

I have never used UV/Haze filters for a couple of reasons. First of all, I've carried my camera over mountains, across salt flats to islands, through forests, up rocky river gorges, through salt marshes, meadows, in the rain, sleet, snow and ice, across a half-dozen states, for probably a couple hundred miles. I have never been so careless as to smash my camera or lens in any way, nor has it ever collected so much dust and debris that I couldn't easily and harmelessly clean it off with a lens wipe every now and then. Now, don't get me wrong... mistakes do happen... and, like most on this board, if I broke my lens it would take me months to buy a replacement... I don't have a whole lot of cash laying around. But most of what a UV filter affords is just psychological protection... in most cases, people are already careful enough just knowing that they are carrying around a camera worth hunderds or even thousands of dollars.

However, the fact that I am routinely using polarizers, grad NDs, and ND filters means that UV filters are truly impractical for me, as I can't be constantly removing a comparatively useless UV filter all the time. it's just not worth the hassle.

I have also done tests with a UV filter to see if they even actually do anything. Now my tests weren't scientific, I admit... but I've concluded, for my own part, that they are truly pointless as far as having any real photographic effect with digital cameras. I still try it out from time to time in different situations, waiting to hit upon some instance where they actually do anything... I have yet to find any scenario that fits the bill.

My suggestion... just use a lens cap to protect your lens. They pop off SOOO quick, they don't have to be carefully unscrewed every time you want to use a screw-on filter that has an actual purpose, and are many times more durable than UV filters. A lens cap should pretty much last a lifetime.

If you bump the lens right square in the filter hard enough, it may shatter and cause damage to the front element. But overall, it's not likely. What you get protection from is fingerprints and dust. It's much easier to clean the filter than the lens.

Agreed

Oh please. It is not easier to clean the filter than it is to clean the lens itself. They are the same task.

Any filter that only costs $5 is a CPOS (Cheap Piece Of Sh!t) and will ceertainly degrade image quality.

To ensure image quality is not degraded you need to buy quality, coated filters that cost many times more than $5. Consequently, the filter has the same cleaning issues as the lens itself.

Besides, how often do you clean a lens front element and what do you clean it with, sandpaper?

I get dust off my lens with a nice, soft, natural bristle brush and a blower.
Something like: General Brand Large Rubber Blower Brush NP10093 - B&H Photo

As mentioned the shards of sharp glass from a shattered 'protective' filter usually damage the very lens it was intended to 'protect', since most blows that will shatter the thin filter are going to be towards what the filter was intended to 'protect', the front lens element.

Further damage usually results when the shattered shards scrape radially along the front of the lens when the destroyed filter is unscrewed, adding to the damage.

Thinking you are safe, could well mean you wind up being sorry you had a 'protective' filter on your lens.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vzOLbMPe0u8[/ame]

Agreed

Oh please. It is not easier to clean the filter than it is to clean the lens itself. They are the same task.

Any filter that only costs $5 is a CPOS (Cheap Piece Of Sh!t) and will ceertainly degrade image quality.

To ensure image quality is not degraded you need to buy quality, coated filters that cost many times more than $5. Consequently, the filter has the same cleaning issues as the lens itself.

Besides, how often do you clean a lens front element and what do you clean it with, sandpaper?

I get dust off my lens with a nice, soft, natural bristle brush and a blower.
Something like: General Brand Large Rubber Blower Brush NP10093 - B&H Photo

As mentioned the shards of sharp glass from a shattered 'protective' filter usually damage the very lens it was intended to 'protect', since most blows that will shatter the thin filter are going to be towards what the filter was intended to 'protect', the front lens element.

Further damage usually results when the shattered shards scrape radially along the front of the lens when the destroyed filter is unscrewed, adding to the damage.

Thinking you are safe, could well mean you wind up being sorry you had a 'protective' filter on your lens.

It is easier to clean the flat surface of the filter than the curved surface of the lens, and in the constant cleaning of a lens is quite possible to grind in some dust....

It is best to leave lenses untouched as much as possible.

And. yes, cheap filters are to be avoided.

*Tucks away UV filter and never brings it up again*:meh:

 

[Steve01]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vzOLbMPe0u8

So that's how you clean a lens. :thumbup:

 

[Idahophoto]

Easily a circular polarizer. Pretty much any other effect can be done in PS but there is no replacement for it. I for one could not go without ND filters they are a major convenience but not a must have more like a should have. Aside from that its more of a personal choice. I am also fond of the Tony Sweet softening filter. I dont have one right now but do plan on getting it. Its pure magic.

 

[Petraio Prime]

My suggestion... just use a lens cap to protect your lens. They pop off SOOO quick, they don't have to be carefully unscrewed every time you want to use a screw-on filter that has an actual purpose, and are many times more durable than UV filters. A lens cap should pretty much last a lifetime.

Yeah, but they are not on when the dust can be flying. Ever go to little league games?

 

[JG_Coleman]

My suggestion... just use a lens cap to protect your lens. They pop off SOOO quick, they don't have to be carefully unscrewed every time you want to use a screw-on filter that has an actual purpose, and are many times more durable than UV filters. A lens cap should pretty much last a lifetime.

Yeah, but they are not on when the dust can be flying. Ever go to little league games?

Yeah, there are undoubtedly certain very specific scenarios, like you mention, where a UV filter can be handy for protection. I just think that it's best, at least when shooting digital, to leave them off unless absolutely necessary. Like I mentioned, I've used my camera in all kinds of terrain and weather, and the rare times I've ever used a UV filter is when I'm testing it to try and see if it does anything photographically.

 

[sobolik]

It is a 2 part answer.

1- contrary to the hostile types that demand that the use of a UV filter to protect your lens is not needed and degrades image quality - do use a UV filter. First you are likely to never notice nor care about this image quality that they carry on and on about and second you are probably not made of money to replace a several hundred dollar lens vs a few dollar filter should a disaster happen. My daughters friend soaped her car wiindows as kids do with soap from the dollar store. Every window was severly scratched and had to be replaced. I'm sure someone can appear proclaiming that soap can not scratch auto glass but it did. Things happen use the filter.

2- Filter selection in the digital age is simplified. If software can do it then you do not need a filter. Thus you should have a circular polarizer and ND filters. Neither can be replaced by software.

 

[KmH]

It is a 2 part answer.

1- contrary to the hostile types that demand that the use of a UV filter to protect your lens is not needed and degrades image quality - do use a UV filter. First you are likely to never notice nor care about this image quality that they carry on and on about and second you are probably not made of money to replace a several hundred dollar lens vs a few dollar filter should a disaster happen.My daughters friend soaped her car wiindows as kids do with soap from the dollar store. Every window was severly scratched and had to be replaced. I'm sure someone can appear proclaiming that soap can not scratch auto glass but it did. Things happen use the filter.
2- Filter selection in the digital age is simplified. If software can do it then you do not need a filter. Thus you should have a circular polarizer and ND filters. Neither can be replaced by software.

Nor can software correct the possible softening of focus or lens flare caused by a poorly performing, mostly useless filter.

If damaged, the entire lens rarely requires replacement, a disengenuous agrument. If it does, a UV filter sure isn't going to help.

Car windows are not made from the same kind of glass lenses are made from. Your comparison doesn't apply.

You are correct, things happen. Particularly if the photographer lacks situational awareness, or has poor camera handeling habits. At any rate, a lens hood provides more benefit than a filter does.

 

[Petraio Prime]

It is a 2 part answer.

1- contrary to the hostile types that demand that the use of a UV filter to protect your lens is not needed and degrades image quality - do use a UV filter. First you are likely to never notice nor care about this image quality that they carry on and on about and second you are probably not made of money to replace a several hundred dollar lens vs a few dollar filter should a disaster happen.My daughters friend soaped her car wiindows as kids do with soap from the dollar store. Every window was severly scratched and had to be replaced. I'm sure someone can appear proclaiming that soap can not scratch auto glass but it did. Things happen use the filter.
2- Filter selection in the digital age is simplified. If software can do it then you do not need a filter. Thus you should have a circular polarizer and ND filters. Neither can be replaced by software.

Nor can software correct the possible softening of focus or lens flare caused by a poorly performing, mostly useless filter.

If damaged, the entire lens rarely requires replacement, a disengenuous agrument. If it does, a UV filter sure isn't going to help.

Car windows are not made from the same kind of glass lenses are made from. Your comparison doesn't apply.

You are correct, things happen. Particularly if the photographer lacks situational awareness, or has poor camera handeling habits. At any rate, a lens hood provides more benefit than a filter does.

But by all means, if you cannot be bothered with using a lens hood, use a UV filter for 'protection' on all your lenses.

The filter protects against dust and other airborne crud, not against a direct blow. The point is that cleaning a lens over and over is not good practice. It is harder to clean the curved surface of a lens than the flat filter, and with the superior anti-reflection coatings on filters today, even the flare issue is hard to argue.

The 'protection' is against dust and the need for constant cleaning, not mechanical damage.

 

[LCARSx32]

Has anybody here ever had to replace a lens because of something that a simple UV filter could have protected against? I'm curious to know. :scratch:

Thanks!

 

[Taylor510ce]

Dust comes off of lenses. Unless there is ALOT of flying stuff ( like mud at a motocross track or salt water as someone else mentioned ) A UV filter is awaste. Use a hood. If you can't clean simple dust off of a lens or keep your grubby fingers off of it, then you shouldn't be a photographer, or at the very least, you shouldn't own anything but cheap as dirt lenses.

When I first bought a camera I bought UV filters and Polarizers for all lenses. ( cheap ones. ) Anyway, I had a cheap tamron long tele zoom and always hated the way it looked and would adjust the contrast in post. I just assumed it was a cheap crappy lens. 'Til one day I took the filter off to clean it and forgot to put it back on before shooting. Night and Day. The lens actually wasn't half bad for being cheap. UV filters have use as protection as stated above, but only in very extreme cases. Otherwise they are a waste of money and can be more of a hinderence. Use a lens hood.

The only filters I own are

77mm Tiffen UV for my L lenses just incase I need to enter a really hostile environment like stated above. ( and thats the ONLY time I would use them )

- B&W CPL

- Hoya and Tiffen ND8 filters

- and as we speak, I just got a delivery from UPS carrying my Cokin P-series adapter with 2 graduated ND filters.

Also, if you have such expensive lenses, and are that worried about them, add them to your homeowners insurance policy, or TAKE an insurance policy out specifically for them. If you can't afford an insurance policy, then you shouldn't be buying a lens that is so irreplaceable that you can't even stand to touch or breath on the element for fear of financial ruin.:mrgreen:

 

[sobolik]

Has anybody here ever had to replace a lens because of something that a simple UV filter could have protected against? I'm curious to know. :scratch:

Thanks!

Why does the anti UV filter crowd insist with hostile constant rebuttals demand that everyone agree with them?

 

[prodigy2k7]

It is a 2 part answer.

1- contrary to the hostile types that demand that the use of a UV filter to protect your lens is not needed and degrades image quality - do use a UV filter. First you are likely to never notice nor care about this image quality that they carry on and on about and second you are probably not made of money to replace a several hundred dollar lens vs a few dollar filter should a disaster happen.My daughters friend soaped her car wiindows as kids do with soap from the dollar store. Every window was severly scratched and had to be replaced. I'm sure someone can appear proclaiming that soap can not scratch auto glass but it did. Things happen use the filter.
2- Filter selection in the digital age is simplified. If software can do it then you do not need a filter. Thus you should have a circular polarizer and ND filters. Neither can be replaced by software.

Nor can software correct the possible softening of focus or lens flare caused by a poorly performing, mostly useless filter.

If damaged, the entire lens rarely requires replacement, a disengenuous agrument. If it does, a UV filter sure isn't going to help.

Car windows are not made from the same kind of glass lenses are made from. Your comparison doesn't apply.

You are correct, things happen. Particularly if the photographer lacks situational awareness, or has poor camera handeling habits. At any rate, a lens hood provides more benefit than a filter does.

But by all means, if you cannot be bothered with using a lens hood, use a UV filter for 'protection' on all your lenses.

The filter protects against dust and other airborne crud, not against a direct blow. The point is that cleaning a lens over and over is not good practice. It is harder to clean the curved surface of a lens than the flat filter, and with the superior anti-reflection coatings on filters today, even the flare issue is hard to argue.

The 'protection' is against dust and the need for constant cleaning, not mechanical damage.

What is so hard about cleaning curved glass?
If something has enough force to break the front-element, it EASILY has enough force to break the filter. The filter wont help in any way.

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

 

[sobolik]

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

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?

 

[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?[/QUOTE]

You aren't taking a picture with safety glasses? IQ Matters with photography, safety glasses dont?