Do you use filter to protect your lens?

[KhoKing]

Do you use filter to protect your lens?

[Mike Pearson]

I have heard a lot of photographers state that they do not use filters due to the quality of the lens elements being much better optically and that using a filter for protection causes degredation of the image. I can see that they  maybe are not needed in the studio and I also understand that you have to be carefull with vignetting on extreme wide angle lenses.

However I was taught over forty years ago that one should use a UV or Skylight filter for protection. The reason being that a filter is cheaper to replace than a front lens element and also protects against dust, sand, grit, etc. I always keep a UV filter on the lens, even the 86mm on my Sigma 170-500 (expensive), unless I am using other filters such as a circular polarizer.

Two years ago I dropped a lens pouch containing my Pentax 80-320 - the UV filter took the brunt of the impact and shattered but the front lens element was OK, even the filter threads on the lens were OK. Not sure if the filter actually served as protection but glad I had it on. 

The new slimline filters made exclusively for digital by makers such as B&W are excellent quality glass and should not cause any problems.

Mike

[maverick]

For me, i have UV on all lenses i have got.... (not much to speak of actually)...
But i make a point to remove UV when i shoot unless in crowded places where my front element might be in danger of being damaged by knocks/bumps....

Something OT, Mike.... by any chance you are letting go the 80-320? 
newbie in low budget looking for a good used zoom...

[Tom Brown]

No.

[Mike Pearson]

Maverick,

Sorry but I traded the 80-320 in January.

Mike

[msknight]

Definately, filters on everything because I'm always on the hoof.  Skylights mostly, the new ones have UV.  The only lens without a filter is the 400-600 but I rarely take the metal ring off.  I also don't expect to be able to get one for the fish-eye either, but I expect that to come with a lens cover.  I usually leave the lens covers on as well when not using a lens, even those in the bag.  Paranoia = short of cash

[pentaxie]

Yes, I have filters, all UV, on all my lenses. I was informed that one should use a UV filter for protection. The reason being that a filter is cheaper to replace than a front lens element and also protects against dust, sand, oil, grit, etc.

Nowadays, filters are not thick like yesteryears. The filters maker like B&W make filters exclusively for digital camera from quality glass.

[blackcloudbrew]

Hope it's not to unusual to revive and old thread but I'm basically wondering about this question myself. I recently found this website (we all know that everything on the internet is true, right?) that gave me pause to consider what was taught well more than 40 years ago as well: filters are cheaper to replace than lenses, put a sky/uv filter on all your lenses.

http://www.luminous-lands...m/columns/sm-feb-05.shtml

In the past year and a half due to my resurgence in interest in photography and general clumsiness, I've managed to break two UV filters protecting the lens (my 18-55 kit lens no less) each time. So, I'm validating my own training that having all lenses with UV filters is a good idea (the DA 10-17 fisheye excepted for obvious reasons that it can have one one).

But clearly since the 1960's and my old Minolta film SLR gear lenses and coatings have moved on. So it's worth looking at this again. I have no qualms about popping on a CPL when I'm in daylight or that if I'm shooting in an area where the environment could be an issue, for example dust in Death Valley or spray in my sea kayak, but the rest of the time is it still 1) necessary, and/or 2) worth it? After reading the article above and reading posts in this thread, the answer seems to be maybe yes and maybe no.

So since it's been several years since this thread has been active, I'd like to re-ask the question: do you use a filter to protect your lens? Personally, I'm looking for a why answer here.

Tim

[msknight]

Front element filters - myth or magic?

Well, this is a well troden discussion. I'm going to give you my answer from over the years. There are three different types of filter I consider putting on the front of my lens; Skylight, UV and ND. Even my earliest lenses from twenty years ago have filters on them, either ND or skylight ... more commonly skylight. The modern, "digital," lenses have higher quality UV.

ND was used to simply protect the lens from scratches. It isn't supposed to alter the image in any way although, by its actual presence, it does. Skylight was used to cut the blue haze from over powerful blue skys. UV is meant to cut the UV but not, "warm," the picture like a Skylight will.

To a degree, the use of any of these filters is thus personal taste because if you're using one, then you've got to use a decent one; making do with a cheaper filter is false economy because of what it will do to the light.

But what about the mathamatics? If you're only considering the protection side of the equasion then the filter is only protecting the front element, not the whole lens, so in case the worst happens you're facing a smaller repair bill than the replacement of the whole lens. But even that is a bigger bill than the filter itself.

Scratching is the most common issue for me. Even though the lens hood is almost permanently on all of my lenses, the various cool looking slits let branches and the like, brush against the lens when I'm in the outdoors; it is going to get scratched for sure.

Not only that, but if the element needs replacing this means my lens can be away from me for weeks at a time. Even in the height of the good times, repair queues seemed to be getting longer as more equipment was faulty straight out of the box or shortly thereafter.

If the filter shatters, the argument is that it will do more damage to the front element than would happen otherwise. Well, any damage to the front element means repair so I might as well get hung for a sheep as a lamb. I usually have my camera on a drop-line anyway that will save it from hitting the deck so I've lessened the chance of it shattering.

Having a filter on the lens protects the lens from the day-to-day scratches that could happen; I know that no matter how much I try, when I'm walking I have to give more attention to my life on a cliff path, than to the lens. If the worst happens, I can remove a filter and keep shooting as I'm not without my lens.

So, that is my personal take on the issue. Scratches are much more likely than a shatter and spending the money on a filter gives me protection and saves me from being without my lens should that happen. Damage strong enough to shatter the filter wil be enough to damage the front element anyway so that doesn't really form part of the equasion for me.

Pay your money, take your choice.

For some outdoor occasions I will replace the UV with the polariser all day.

[Mike Pearson]

Like Michelle I have either skylight or UV filters on all my lenses more for scratch protection than anything else.

However, some time ago in Mexico I was not paying attention and dropped my Pentax-FA 80-320 onto a tile floor.  

The UV filter shattered but the lens remained intact with no visible damage. Luckily it was the last full day there as the camera lens mount was lightly damaged but the camera worked OK.

Cost to replace the lens mount was $50Cdn and a ten-day turnaround.

I wouldn't entertain not having a protective filter on my lenses - getting to old and clumsy.  

Mike

[Prieni]

I leave the lens cap on when not shooting and use a filter only when the shot needs it. Never had any problems with scratches or the like.
So I'm with Mike Johnston on this (the author of the article that Jim linked to).

Prieni

[calsan]

I have Kenko (Hoya) Pro 1-D UV filters which I bought in Japan.  Never had a problem with that flare issue that the article mentioned.

[jazz28]

Yes, I switch them to which ever lens I'm taking out, either UV or Skylight. Different in the studio though, no logs to trip over or streams to fall in

[wtlwdwgn]

I use them too although a few pro photo sites recommend against them because of flare. As far as degradation of IQ the newer filters are made of the same glass as the lenses and are coated the same as well. So I'll keep using them.

[xXx]

Not yet.  Depends on the outcome of this poll.