To filter or not to filter...where do you stand.

Golf007sd

I have come across this topic many time with other photographers. My stance has always been to buy good quality filters in order to hedge agains damaging your lens front element. Yet, some have stated that by doing so you end up taking some of the lenses sharpness away and possibly adding flare and ghosting. So tonight I came across this article which proved very fruitful.

Do Filters Affect the Resolution of Lenses?

Your thoughts are welcomed.

Sidebar: The only lens I do not have a filter for is my 14-24 2.8. One day I just might get the Lee Filter or one by Fotodiox.

PB_PM

I read this article earlier today and I also found it interesting. In the past I have been against the use of "protective" filters, but I think Nasim's post shows that I may have been hasty in that viewpoint.

kyoshinikon

I wont use them due to ghosting and being unwilling to spend $200 on one that doesnt ghost only to shatter it. Then again my prime shooter is the 14-24mm so it hardly applies. Interesting read tho. I had always thought most filters were resolution killers too...

spraynpray

I think the author of the test missed an opportunity to make his finding useful to everybody IMHO. Of course if you buy an el cheapo crappy plastic filter it is going to be a problem - duh! What would have been useful to know is what the difference is between B+W or Lee and £25 Hoya or other more accessible brands that are bought by the majority of camera owners. 8-|

sevencrossing

I have high quality filters on all my lenses
but I sometimes take them off if I am in a clean, safe environment and shooting against the light

e.g. I am not on a windy foreshore or a dusty field

TaoTeJared

High end UV filters only on all my lenses (i.e. 77mm = $60-$120) each and have rarely ever seen any IQ degradation. Some flaring & ghosting though - you just have to know when those times are (mostly at night with street lights) and remove it. The better filters are coated on BOTH sides which helps stop this.

I have seen cheap (and even older (10+yr) high end) filters degrade quality greatly-and I do mean greatly! Even "name brand" stuff. Why on earth people put a $30 filter on a $1,200+ lens is beyond me.

Ultra wides are where flares and ghosting have the largest opportunity due to the wide curvature of the front element.

When it comes down to it, I plan on selling my lenses when I upgrade and you can easily loose 25% or more if your lens element has even the faintest cleaning marks. A chipped/scratched front element can easily cost $200 to fix plus you are without your lens. I figure I can easily live with a small amount of IQ variance for $80 and save me the cost and hassle.

Thinking of Lee Filters - I find flat filters are a pain since it is hard to "hood" them. I always find glares in many shots when I get home if I'm not careful enough. I do wish someone would come up with a better system.

Gareth

I never suffer filter degradation unless I have to. Why would you?

WOW, you have never had to replace your front element. Neither have I, and I dont use anything other than ND and CPL filters.

If you use your hood and cap, then I don't see the need to even chance it.

proudgeek

The way I see it, I'm not a good enough photographer to notice the difference or any lens degradation with a $100+ filter, and I'm not rich enough to be replacing front elements every time I mistakenly bump into something.

Ironheart

I hate lens caps. I only put them on when the lens is in my case. A NC filter is my clear lens cap :-) I will unscrew the filter if the shot warrants it, usually at night with bright lights.

donaldejose

I use Nikon NC filters on all my lenses (and lens hoods since I found they can increase contrast) except macro lenses which have a recessed lens. I rarely shoot into the sun. I doubt a Nikon NC filter degrades image quality but even if is does by a small bit I figure there are many other things I do which degrades image quality more. I don't think any filter degradation is the limiting factor in the images I produce. For example" hold that camera more steady, compose better, capture a better moment, obtain more precise exposure, etc are more of a factor in my case. I would also suggest that protective filters are not needed in the studio, however I don't bother to take them off. Finally, I did have sharpness issues with a lens I bought used and when I took the filter it came with off it sharpened right up. That was not a Nikon NC filter.

Vipmediastar_JZ

I have put filters on all my lens. Except when I had the 50mm 1.8d which was recessed and now the 85mm 1.8g is also filterless.

When I got the sigma 35mm it came with some free filters. I didn't bother because of the cheap feel to it and also my previous understanding that quality filters makes a difference. That lens is now protected with a B+W. I have not noticed a difference.

I will check what filter the 24-70 has and see if it makes a difference when I take it out. I already had a 77 filter that I transferred to it and never bothered to test before and after with it.
I'll report to see if my feelings with this lens changes.

DenverShooter

Anything placed in front of a lens will have an impact on the optical performance. And many lenses can't support filters. 14mm to 24mm, 400mm F/2.8, 600mm F/4 and the 800mm F/5.6 come to mind..

As my HS shop teacher always said "don't stick your hand where you wouldn't put your face..

Same applies to lenses..

Denver Shooter

SquamishPhoto

And many lenses can't support filters. 14mm to 24mm, 400mm F/2.8, 600mm F/4 and the 800mm F/5.6 come to mind..

You do have the option for drop-in filters with the telephoto lenses you mentioned, and they each have a protective front element that is easily replaced by Nikon if damaged - essentially acting as a front filter. :]

PB_PM

Indeed, many super telephoto lenses have that drop in filter as part of the optical formula.

DenverShooter

Correct. And there is a clear placeholder in each of those super telephotos. When you run the polarizer for example you remove the clear element. Unlike adding a filter to the front of a lens the number of pieces of glass doesn't change. Additionally the lenses are designed for it.

Denver Shooter

Msmoto

Having dropped cameras in the rocks, and as one who drops things easily nowadays, LOL, I like a high quality UV filter on the front of my lens. I have cleaned from this, dirt, mud, Coca Cola, rubber bits, and other garbage.

I would note, unless there is some real grunge on the front, I simply blow it off and avoid touching the front element (or filter) unless absolutely necessary.

One point, on a PC lens, when in a full shift or tilt, the filter must be removed as it will vignette the image.

@DenverShooter.... I never thought about the little 52mm in the rear of the big lenses, but it certainly makes sense that this assures the number of glass surfaces does not change with the use of a filter.... Thanks

SquamishPhoto

If your consideration for protection is from the perceived potential for dropping a camera and lens on rough surfaces with rocks then a hood is really all you need to think about. The chance of having small particles of pulverized glass near my front element from a smashed filter scares me more than the thought of possibly scratching the front element of my lens during a drop. And a drop good enough to smash the filter is a large enough drop for large shards or even said rocks to possibly damage the front element during impact. The main reason to use a filter, IMO, is to guard against dust and moisture. Insurance is how you deal with the damaged gear if it ever happens.

Vipmediastar_JZ

Reporting back with my findings.
D800 +24-70 with cheap tiffen filter (yeah yeah ) with flash and no flash it has a vignette to the photos. By removing the filter that vignette is gone. Checking the histogram with and without the filter there is a diffrence.

D800 +sigma 35mm with B+W F-Pro there is no diffrence in the photo. Checking the histogram there is a hair like diffrence but not as noticeable like with the cheap tiffen.

So if the tiffen is a cheap filter compared to the B+W then yes it makes a difference.
By using a good filter with the sigma I didn't notice anything different.

Killerbob

Having used UV filters for years, I am certain they have saved me numerous times, against sand (I've actually had to replace a filter due to scratches), against dust and so forth. Hence I have UV/Protector filters on all my lenses, bar of course my 14-24mm and my 500mm.

IMO it is much easier to quickly clean a flat filter then a sunken, possibly concave, front element.

I have always stuck to Hoya filters, the Pro1 Digital and the HD filters, as well as B&W F-Pro. I don't know which one I like best, and see no difference between the three of them.

TaoTeJared

.. The chance of having small particles of pulverized glass near my front element from a smashed filter scares me more than the thought of possibly scratching the front element of my lens during a drop.

Never seen this video have ya

Photobug

I have also used a UV filter on every lens. I started with Nikon for years, even when I could not afford them and then switched and stuck with Hoya filters, the Pro1 Digital and the HD filters. From the testing I did using film and digital I saw no difference.

NSXTypeR

Filters do make a difference. I'm not sure if buying a more expensive 52mm UV filter would have helped, but here is a comparison with a cheap Tiffen 52 and without.



And without.



I still keep it on because it's very rare that it would ghost like that, but I do keep it in mind.

Golf007sd

@NSXTypeR: 1) At night time, unless you have a good UV filter, I would not use one. 2) High quality 52mm filters are not that expensive, compared to the 77mm ones. 3) Should you get a good 77mm UV filter, a step-up-ring is worth looking at. Personally, I have Hoya HD filter on all my lenses. I also have 77MM CPL & ND filters for the lenses that I might use that are not 77mm, I purchased the step-up-rings. Note, should you decide to only use step-up-rings...the lens hood for the lens will not fit.

spraynpray

Step-up ring maximise the chance that you will hit that area of your camera on something though.

Golf007sd

@spraynpray: Very true. Specially if the front of the lens is not metal...like my 85 1.8G. It has a permeant 67mm UV filter on it, but when I want to use the 77mm CPL or ND...I put the step-up ring on it and I'm carful in how I is it. With the ND it is usually mounted on a tripod.

Vipmediastar_JZ

I have uploaded my test findings:

Cheap UV Filter vs. Quality UV Filter Test.

On a separate question is it me or is it me but at 35mm the 24-70 still has some distortion. The sigma has virtually no distortion.

Photos where shot on a tripod with a remote. no editing was done.