Which filters are must-have?

[Idahophoto]

I would not call it a hated debate. Just there is a big split in UV filters. When in school I was told never to use filter for a protection and I never have. So I don't personally I couldn't care less if someone else does. Each have there own way of going about it. If you wante hated ask if you should go Nikon or Canon lol Just kidding... sort of

 

[timlair]

Lets not open that can of worms.

 

[Idahophoto]

LOL. I agree, let's not

 

[Taylor510ce]

QUOTE]

Those cheap UV filters that I mentioned, that were degrading my cheap tamron zoom, were Sunpak. Throw them away.

 

[Petraio Prime]

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.

The best multi-coated filters will cause almost no flare, even directly into the sun, and there is no image degradation. In the field, outdoors in dusty environments, dust can become a problem, and cleaning the lens surface under such conditions can be awkward. It is comparatively easier to clean the filter in such conditions.

In short, there is no reason to avoid a Uv filter and I recommend them for people who do outdoor photography, provided it is top quality.

 

[pgriz]

The filters I use often are: CP filter, ND 2 & 4 stop filters, and 2&4-stop graduated density filters for controlling bright sky, dark ground. The last I don't use often, but there are shots that you just can't make well without them.

If you invest in glass, then putting cheap glass or plastic in front of the lens just doesn't make sense. I've learned the hard way when a bunch of shots were ruined because I used a cheap UV filter... Didn't notice until I got home and uploaded the shots - some were sharp as expected, but others were kinda blurred. Once I figured out what was going on, I got rid of the cheap filter and replaced it with a much more expensive filter... and tested it to make sure there was no image deterioration with it on. That was my take-away lesson, when you add to your gear, test it first before using it in a shooting situation.

As for whether UV filter works for you - test it. Take some shots under identical conditions with the filter on and off. If there is no difference, you don't need it for UV. Of course, you need to be at a location/scene where UV "may" be a factor.

 

[Petraio Prime]

The filters I use often are: CP filter, ND 2 & 4 stop filters, and 2&4-stop graduated density filters for controlling bright sky, dark ground. The last I don't use often, but there are shots that you just can't make well without them.

If you invest in glass, then putting cheap glass or plastic in front of the lens just doesn't make sense. I've learned the hard way when a bunch of shots were ruined because I used a cheap UV filter... Didn't notice until I got home and uploaded the shots - some were sharp as expected, but others were kinda blurred. Once I figured out what was going on, I got rid of the cheap filter and replaced it with a much more expensive filter... and tested it to make sure there was no image deterioration with it on. That was my take-away lesson, when you add to your gear, test it first before using it in a shooting situation.

As for whether UV filter works for you - test it. Take some shots under identical conditions with the filter on and off. If there is no difference, you don't need it for UV. Of course, you need to be at a location/scene where UV "may" be a factor.

Uv filters were useful in the days of color film in shooting at high altitudes (where Uv is more abundant) or in open shade, where the filter provides a slight warming effect. With digital, where the color balance can easily be altered, the filtering effect is less important. An 81A or 81B is stronger for warming. The sensors' sensitivity is not the same as that of film, which has sensitivity to Uv.

 

[prodigy2k7]

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.

The best multi-coated filters will cause almost no flare, even directly into the sun, and there is no image degradation. In the field, outdoors in dusty environments, dust can become a problem, and cleaning the lens surface under such conditions can be awkward. It is comparatively easier to clean the filter in such conditions.

In short, there is no reason to avoid a Uv filter and I recommend them for people who do outdoor photography, provided it is top quality.

I said cheap filters. Of course the best filters aren't bad. And of course in extreme conditions like dust dirt or mud you may need a filter. There is a reason to not have a uv filter. If you don't need one. I don't need one. I do t shoot in dusty windy muddy conditions. I don't feel like spending money on a quality filter if I don't need it.

 

[Petraio Prime]

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.

The best multi-coated filters will cause almost no flare, even directly into the sun, and there is no image degradation. In the field, outdoors in dusty environments, dust can become a problem, and cleaning the lens surface under such conditions can be awkward. It is comparatively easier to clean the filter in such conditions.

In short, there is no reason to avoid a Uv filter and I recommend them for people who do outdoor photography, provided it is top quality.

I said cheap filters. Of course the best filters aren't bad. And of course in extreme conditions like dust dirt or mud you may need a filter. There is a reason to not have a uv filter. If you don't need one. I don't need one. I don't shoot in dusty windy muddy conditions. I don't feel like spending money on a quality filter if I don't need it.

I do a mostly outdoor work, and the filters accumulate dust rather quickly, just being exposed to outdoor conditions. Studio photographers have no need for them, of course. I don't see the need to discuss this to death. If you get a top-class Uv filter with multicoating there is no need to worry about image degradation at all. Several lenses were designed with flat Uv filters as part of the design. One I know of is the 280mm Telyt-R f/4 from Leica. You can see the flat front element that is part of the lens and it's shown in the engineering drawing:

 

[usayit]

The best multi-coated filters will cause almost no flare, even directly into the sun, and there is no image degradation.

OMG.. I found something I am in agreement with PP!

None are a must haves but I hate caps... front and rear. I am also a bit rough with my stuff. So I use good UV filters for some measure of protection; mostly from me quickly wiping dirt/dust (usually with my shirt). I also will carry ND filters with fast lenses when I feel like shooting with wider apertures in full sunlight. Polarizers on occasion.

Also with the M8, the sensor is rather sensitive to IR... so for that camera I have IR cut filters rather than UV but its all the same... I've been known to carry that camera like this (with no bag):

yup. with no caps... I think I've lost of mine..

 

[Taylor510ce]

Not to keep this argument going because I can agree to disagree, and many points on both sidez are valid. However, I just wanted to point out one flaw to PP's logic.

"Several lenses were designed with flat Uv filters as part of the design"

You seem to have missed the keyword there..."designed" that actually does more harm to your argument than it does good. Why would they need to design the lens to handle an extra piece of glass, if adding glass makes no difference?:lmao:

 

[Taylor510ce]

Not to keep this argument going because I can agree to disagree, and many points on both sidez are valid. However, I just wanted to point out one flaw to PP's logic.

"Several lenses were designed with flat Uv filters as part of the design"

You seem to have missed the keyword there..."designed" that actually does more harm to your argument than it does good. Why would they need to design the lens to handle an extra piece of glass, if adding glass makes no difference?:lmao:

 

[Petraio Prime]

Not to keep this argument going because I can agree to disagree, and many points on both sidez are valid. However, I just wanted to point out one flaw to PP's logic.

"Several lenses were designed with flat Uv filters as part of the design"

You seem to have missed the keyword there..."designed" that actually does more harm to your argument than it does good. Why would they need to design the lens to handle an extra piece of glass, if adding glass makes no difference?:lmao:

The flat front element is merely protective, and is not necessary optically. When I say 'designed' I mean mechanically integrated; it cannot be removed, I believe.

 

[Overread35]

Quit a lot of the super telephoto lenses are built that way in the canon L range - my underestanding is that its partly for the weather sealing and also partly because replacing the simple clear glass front element is simpler and cheaper than replacing the coated glass behind.

 

[Petraio Prime]

Quit a lot of the super telephoto lenses are built that way in the canon L range - my underestanding is that its partly for the weather sealing and also partly because replacing the simple clear glass front element is simpler and cheaper than replacing the coated glass behind.

Yes. It could also be that the glass used in these Leica APO and Canon lenses is in some way easier to damage.