is it good practive to add a UV or maybe skylight filter (if so which one?) to every lens just to protect it or do most people not bother? they seem about 17 quid a pop for high street branded ones so if it makes bugger all difference i'd probably leave it... what you reckon?
protective filters?
- Thread starter MuGeN
- Start date
If anything they'll drop IQ. IMO UV filter are obsolete for anything other than protection now (made for the film days) as lenses have a UV coating and sensors have a 'hot' filter.
Skylight filters are ok for making shadows less prominent, but that's also achieveable in post processing.
I do own Protector filters though (Hoya Pro1-D MC Protector) for when I'm in situations such as strong winds + beach to protect the front element of the lens.
What I'd suggest is a genuine hood and keep it on there all the time. It'll protect the lens just as much as a filter but without any drop in IQ, it'll also stop any flare which a filter is unable to do.
Skylight filters are ok for making shadows less prominent, but that's also achieveable in post processing.
I do own Protector filters though (Hoya Pro1-D MC Protector) for when I'm in situations such as strong winds + beach to protect the front element of the lens.
What I'd suggest is a genuine hood and keep it on there all the time. It'll protect the lens just as much as a filter but without any drop in IQ, it'll also stop any flare which a filter is unable to do.
I use UV filters - cheap Hoya ones. Not for any other reason other than to protect the lens. Kind of like a lens cap. I take them off when im taking pics as i've been told they reduce quality.
The argument that was put to me was this:
"you spend £400 on a lens and then stick on a cheap filter on it and you seriously think it will still produce quality pictures!"
Unless your willing to spend big bucks I wouldn't bother
The argument that was put to me was this:
"you spend £400 on a lens and then stick on a cheap filter on it and you seriously think it will still produce quality pictures!"
Unless your willing to spend big bucks I wouldn't bother
managed to find a Canon UV one for 12 quid so I got that to be used just when we're out on the lake or especially the sea just for protection... spose its one of these things that's good to have in the bag in the event of harsh environments where things may get into the lens...
thanks for the advice
- saved me some money as i was going to buy one for each lens
thanks for the advice
- saved me some money as i was going to buy one for each lens thanks for the advice
Thats the beauty of the screw thread, you can use one filter on several lenses of the same thread size
This, high quality ones are expensive and low quality ones rape IQ.
With cheap UV:
Without:
These have just been resized, Tamron 90mm @ f2.8. With the filter there is a huge difference in contrast and sharpness.
That image really shows the value of a high-quality filter, which I'm not refuting.
I used to use a Hoya Pro1D protection filter but now I just don't bother.
I guess you can't post the same shot with no filter at all but it would be an interesting comparison to see if the good filter makes any difference.
Panzer
I used to use a Hoya Pro1D protection filter but now I just don't bother.
I guess you can't post the same shot with no filter at all but it would be an interesting comparison to see if the good filter makes any difference.
Panzer
^ Absolutely. I don't use filters and I've never yet had any glass damaged but I always use a hood.
That is with no filter, I also just use the hood
Ah sorry mate, I thought the second one was with a pro filter.
Read your post too quickly.
I think it's quite clear from your example just how much sharpness one can lose!
Panzer
depends what youre shooting.
ive got a UV on the 70-200 that comes to rallys with me. which is good because it gets covered in dust and grit and stones etc. theres a nice dink out the coating on the side of the lens from a stone this year so the worst CAN happen.
the 18-50 doesnt have one, no real need for it.
the 120-300 doesnt have one, the hood is MAHOOOSIVE anyway. plus at 105mm filters arnt cheap lol
ive got a UV on the 70-200 that comes to rallys with me. which is good because it gets covered in dust and grit and stones etc. theres a nice dink out the coating on the side of the lens from a stone this year so the worst CAN happen.
the 18-50 doesnt have one, no real need for it.
the 120-300 doesnt have one, the hood is MAHOOOSIVE anyway. plus at 105mm filters arnt cheap lol
A hood will only protect accidental impact against large objects or dropping the lens but a piece of grit won't damage a lens.
I'd argue that any object large enough to damage the front element of a lens will also go straight through the filter as well.
The only time I would suggest using a filter for protection would be when it's required to provide water protection (such as the 17-40 L) or if you are likely to have some particular nasty liquids such as aviation fuel being sprayed about.