To filter, or not.....

[Bloosman]

Hi Folks,

Not sure if this is the proper Forum for this query, but "lenses" seemed to suit it better than most....

Over the past 6 years or so, I have bought (and sold) a number of lenses for my 30D.

Each time I buy from a High Street store, or even on-line, I am always advised to purchase a UV filter to go with said lens, for two stated reason:

1. to assist in the protection of the lens glass should I knock it or drop it accidentaly.
2. to improve the photo quality by cutting out all those nasty UV rays from the sun.

My question is - do I need it....?????

Is this a similar ploy to some of our well known electrical retailers who try to sell us extended warranties...????

I have only ever dropped one lens, and whereas the filter was undamaged, the lens broke into a myriad of pieces which resulted in me having to buy another as it was going to cost too much to repair.

I have also tried comparing photos taken with and without a UV lens, and can't really see that much of a difference...

Is it me...?????

[Rasputin]

Re: To filter, or not.....

Hi Bloosman

I found the filters degraded IQ and as a consequence I don't use them. IMO they are a bit of an extended warranty

Regards

[DrJon]

Re: To filter, or not.....

I tend to use decent quality multi-coated UV or Protector filters on most of my Canon lenses, partly for protection against knocks and scratches, but also so if I get something smeared on it (usually me when it's hot) and I need to use it real fast I can rub it off quickly and not worry I might be damaging the lens. Then again on my micro-4/3 stuff I use no filters, even though I have some, so I'm not exactly consistent. I don't think the UV part makes any difference (I had a link on that somewhere, but it's late and I'm giving up on that), unless you buy ones that run into the top of the visible spectrum a bit... but you'd need to go looking for them.

[colin C]

Re: To filter, or not.....

This is a Marmite question - some swear by them, others don't.

I fit Hoya pro ones to all my smaller lenses and as none are available for my big tele's, I don't fit them. I have tested my smaller lenses with and without filters and couldn't discern any quality difference, so I am quite happy to fit them.

Colin

[Bloosman]

Re: To filter, or not.....

Thanks for your thoughts on the subject guys, and Colin, I'm more of a Vegemite guy myself, but I see what you mean.

I have always been of the belief that anything placed between the lens and the subject will degrade the finished image to a certain extent, unless we're talking ND grads or similar, where we are trying to achieve a defined result. So to place more glass in front "for protection, just in case" just doesn't add up. Isn't that what a lens cap is for...???

I can see the point maybe in extreme dusty, windy conditions, or if there is sea/water spray in the area of the shoot, but in normal conditions, if you carry an air blower, use a hood and keep your lens capped until using your camera I imagine you should be ok....

....maybe....

Sorry for the rant, it just seemed to hit home last week when I picked up my new 50mm lens from a well known High Street chain, and it seemed almost as if the saleman was on commission to ensure I left with a UV filter...

...or maybe I've become a "Grumpy Old Man"....

Cheers,

Dougie.

[Trevoreast]

Re: To filter, or not.....

Sorry for the rant, it just seemed to hit home last week when I picked up my new 50mm lens from a well known High Street chain, and it seemed almost as if the saleman was on commission to ensure I left with a UV filter...

Yes they will try to sell you a filter – you could always pretend to be taken in by their tales of doom – then say that you hadn’t budgeted for a filter. Suggest that in light of their very good advice you will postpone your purchase – see what happens.

Trev

[briansquibb]

Re: To filter, or not.....

Yes they will try to sell you a filter – you could always pretend to be taken in by their tales of doom – then say that you hadn’t budgeted for a filter. Suggest that in light of their very good advice you will postpone your purchase – see what happens.

Trev

[Hereford_EOS2]

Re: To filter, or not.....

it just seemed to hit home last week when I picked up my new 50mm lens from a well known High Street chain, and it seemed almost as if the saleman was on commission to ensure I left with a UV filter...

...or maybe I've become a "Grumpy Old Man"....

Nah!! You're just a Scot

[colin C]

Re: To filter, or not.....

I have a thought in the back of my mind that for certain L series lenses, the water resistance is only guaranteed with a filter fitted.

Colin

[Bloosman]

Re: To filter, or not.....

Hereford....you're making assumptions....just cos I stay in Aberdeenshire doesn't mean I'm Scottish.....!!!!!


....although I am...born, bred and proud.....! (and grumpy into the bargain.....!)

:-)

[DrJon]

Re: To filter, or not.....

Ah, Colin beat me to the (true, well for some L lenses) water resistance comment... BTW I talked the salesman into free Kenko UV filters for my first two m43 lenses (as I'd gone as far as I could on price) but still don't use them...
John

[Bloosman]

Re: To filter, or not.....

The more I hear what other people are saying, the more I reckon we've been conned over the years to part with good money for something we don't REALLY need...

...a UV filter does undoubtedly have its place in the photographic world, to absorb ultra-violet rays and eliminate UV haze in certain conditions, but to suggest we require one fitted to every lens we buy in case of accidental damage etc seems a bit far fetched I'm afraid....

...my mind is made up now.....!

Dougie.

[Glenn]

Re: To filter, or not.....

I have a thought in the back of my mind that for certain L series lenses, the water resistance is only guaranteed with a filter fitted.

Colin

Yep. The 17-40mm and 16-35mm are 2 that I know of.

[Woolley]

Re: To filter, or not.....

That's what it says in the manual for the 24-105 as well. Full weather sealing is only achieved with a filter.

Not that I've got one....

[MX5]

Re: To filter, or not.....

I have a thought in the back of my mind that for certain L series lenses, the water resistance is only guaranteed with a filter fitted.

Colin

The 17-40L for one, which is why mine wears a PROTECT filter. Oh it's second the first took several rock hits over a period of time and cracked. Now if I'd been out and about without the filter!

I've seen much written about the use of UV filters on telephotos (Not the sort ColinC has, but the 300 f/4 L for example) and it throwing off AF. So my 300 f/4 is naked (but the lens hood offers a fair amount of physical protection).

As for filter degrading IQ ... I know a few folk who use arc welding goggle glass (so not optical quality per se) as a Hyper-ND (more than a 'big stopper') and there is no noticeable degradation.