DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register) 
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Photography Discussion >> Protective Filters - Do You Use Them?
Pages:  
Showing posts 26 - 46 of 46, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 09/04/2006 05:11:37 AM · #26
My camera has to work, so I give it what protection from me I can! I bash my stuff around all the time acidentally and I know I would have scratched an "L" lens once without it. One other time a filter saved a lense from damage when it got caught on something and dropped to a concrete floor. That crash bent the filter and blew up my camera battery. The filter ring absorbed most of the impact, thankfully, so I could continue working. Not paying out a huge amount to replace stuff is worth the loss of a tiny bit of quality to me.
 09/04/2006 05:19:36 AM · #27
Originally posted by Ristyz:
Not paying out a huge amount to replace stuff is worth the loss of a tiny bit of quality to me.


you got a point there.
and as a side-track, it's something like wearing "protection"...
like soldiers wearing kevlar but at the expense of agility and stamina.
for the case of UV filters, the loss might be very tiny to none, especially if you have a good quality filter instead of a $5 one.
 09/04/2006 05:31:22 AM · #28
When someone looks at one of my photos and says

"I think that would have been 10 times better if you hadn't used a UV filter"

then I'll stop using them. Until then I'm happy with that extra piece of glass that could stop a baby's ice-cream / small piece of grit / jammy dodger smearing all over the front element of a five hundred quid lens.
 09/04/2006 05:48:46 AM · #29
I think that the most protection a filter gives is in relation to drops where the filter hits the floor first - as mist says. The filter ring gets bent, not the ring around the front of the lens. The same or better protection can be obtained by leaving the hood on.

The other protection is in relation to dust and sand when cleaning - you can clean a filter with less care than you would the lens itself. However, if you are careful to sweep hard dust/grit off the lens before cleaning, then there is little risk.

If you drop a lens hard enough to break the glass of the lens, then I don't think that the presence of a filter is going to save it.

Personally, I have stopped using filters as protection for my expensive lenses. They seem to add little protection while adding cost and (potentially) degrading image quality. They may create a false sense of security, making you less careful about equipment, and are a pain when using filters for their proper use (because stacking starts creating vignetting issues).
 09/04/2006 06:12:21 AM · #30
I should probably add that I don't currently have hoods for my lenses - because those Canon guys helpfully neglect to include them in there expensive boxed retail product.

I've recently ordered hoods for mine, though. When i get them I expect there will be less use for the filter, as the lens will be kept away from direct contact with other objects by the hood.
 09/04/2006 08:04:10 AM · #31
Nope, don´t use protective filters anymore, just hoods on every and all lenses. Reason? In the three and a half years I have been using a DSLR I have never ever once been even close to scratching a front of my lens and just don´t think it´s worth it, using UV filters, they just decrease the image quality as far as I am concerned.

I still have one and I used to use UV filters all the time but not since the beginning of 2005.
 09/04/2006 08:44:04 AM · #32
i thought it was a bit of a scam, until i was having lunch with my friend and he knocked his camera off the table. it hit the floor lens first.

the uv filter busted completely, but the rest of the lens remained intact. if not for the uv filter, i'm sure that he'd be up for a huge replacement cost from cracking or breaking the lens glass.

now i use a UV filter on all my lenses. maybe it's "amateur" but i've seen it work.
 09/04/2006 09:09:19 AM · #33
Age old debate. I'm kinda ruff on my equipment so I feel better with some protection. Also, I find it is easier to clean the uv filter than cleaning the lens.
 09/04/2006 11:31:01 AM · #34
Maybe I'm just odd, but I can't see degrading quality to protect a lens a good enough reason. I don't have an excess amount of money, but I would rather save up for a new lens and have outstanding photos. I have had an SLR off and on for the last five years, and have never come close to dropping it. The only time that I can really justify a filter is when shooting during a rain/lightning storm, or perhaps in Yellowstone, when you never know if the sulfery water/smoke will blow in your face and leave residue on the lens element.
 09/04/2006 11:46:56 AM · #35
I have UV filters that fit all of my lenses, but generally I only use them if I think there is a chance to damage the front glass of the lens (i.e. very dusty / sandy / wet shooting conditions) otherwise I just make sure the lens cap is on when I am not shooting.
 09/04/2006 06:24:26 PM · #36
bump
 09/04/2006 06:31:54 PM · #37
nope
 09/04/2006 06:34:41 PM · #38
It's not as much low quality filters that affect the photo. It's more of the internal glass within the lens itself. In most cases if the outside of the lens glass is a little dirty it makes little difference. So a UV filter will cut down a small amount of light but so does a dirty lens. If all is equal and you keep your lens clean it is better with no filter. If you take a couple of pics with and without a skylight or UV filter and a couple with no filters (all being clean) and process them to look good most will see no difference. Just remeber that with the filter on you may have to process for a small amount of light loss.

This discussion is something like the Nikon Vs Canon and Ford Vs Chevy. Heck we should all sell our cameras and buy some oil paint and brushes, that is what art is all about ;)
 09/04/2006 06:40:15 PM · #39
Nope.

Here's why.

You can do whatever you want.
 09/04/2006 06:41:07 PM · #40
I also put a UV filter on every lens. I'm with the camp that believes a lens on the order of $600-$2000 is best protected with a simple filter. I'm not a pro, so it's difficult for me to notice any difference in quality or luminosity with the filter added.

As someone else mentioned, I also take my camera out in the rain, and prefer to wipe the drops off the filter, rather than the lens. As well, I use decent quality Hoya filters.

edit:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Nope.

Here's why.

You can do whatever you want.

...though that's a good article. Thanks for posting, at least food for thought.

Message edited by author 2006-09-04 18:46:26.
 09/04/2006 06:48:18 PM · #41
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Nope.

Here's why.

You can do whatever you want.


Thanks spazmo! That was helpful.
 09/04/2006 08:01:05 PM · #42
I can't find my originals for that test I did, I could do another one but to be honest, I'm lazier than f**k today.
 09/05/2006 10:30:22 AM · #43
i keep a UV filter on all the time. especially outside. you never know what nature will throw at you.

i've also become fond of my polarizer, but only sometimes.
 09/05/2006 01:07:51 PM · #44
I'm still fairly new to my SLR (only a couple years), so I still keep UV filters on them as "protection" at all times. They're L-series glass, a purchase I didn't want to make twice.;)

I've recently picked up some strobes and backdrop support to try my hand at studio work, and for that I might remove the filters. For the outdoor/landscape stuff I've done, though, I'll probably keep them on, since as was said above, you never know what mother nature is going to hurl at you.

Maybe in a few more years when I get over the "OMG EXPENSIVE!" reaction I still have with it...;)

Message edited by author 2006-09-05 13:08:24.
 09/05/2006 06:20:10 PM · #45
I do, but that's because I'm a noob and my camera is not a true SLR :( Someday, and if you know anyone selling one ;)
 09/05/2006 06:34:47 PM · #46
Well, I'm an amateur and am firmly in the "Yep, use one" camp!
I agree with an earlier posting that I the photographer counts. I am not a techincal photogrpaher but enjoying trying to 'see' an image. Therefore, that's what I concentrate on and use my protected lens to capture it the best I can.

Message edited by author 2006-09-05 18:35:10.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 06/05/2025 07:09:04 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 06/05/2025 07:09:04 AM EDT.