Filters

paulr

I am probably opening a Pandoras Box with this topic, but do you use Filters. There are so many companies making them thats its a problem getting the right ones. I tended to avoid filters and added the Grads in post production. This, however created Chromatic Aberration and other anomalies .I am sure in the top names of Filter makers, there is not a lot of difference. OK Guys lets not have a Canon/Nikon situation of which is best. I have under duress started to use the new Lee IRND filters and although way too much money, I have to say, been some what impressed with the results.
Over winter I will be living in a very light sunny place, so its is important to get the exposure right, and find the filters will help. Down side is yet more weight to carry.

WestEndFoto

I use UV filters for protection and Sing Ray ND filters (3, 5, 10 and 15 stop).

spraynpray

I use big stoppers frequently and polarisers occasionally.

PB_PM

UV filters are a waste of money, unless you are working in extremely dusty or wet environments, but that’s just my point of view. I use circular polarizers and ND, both screw on and square filters. Just avoid cheap uncoated ones and you’ll be fine.

retread

I do not use UV filters. I use completely clear ones when protecting a lens. Also have polarizers and neutral density filters. I get ones made to the same quality as the lens I put them on.

Pistnbroke

All the tests I have carried out show that a UV filter degrades the image. On one occasion I fitted a UV to my 150-600 tamron and got 700 blurred bird photos

retread

My 150-600 Tamron is a bit soft on distant subjects but not closer ones. No filter. Sharp on closer subjects and all focal ranges. My other lenses I see no difference with high quality filters. They defiantly are not cheap but I have had one take scratches the lens did not have to suffer.

sport

I use ND and graduated ND filters on occasion. Usually it's only when I am at a scene that I won't be able to come back to later. Anytime you add glass to the front of your lens you risk degrading the image. It's all a balancing act.

Capt_Spaulding

i bounce back and forth. I have UV/crash filters for most all my lenses. Some times I use them, sometimes not. I haven't noticed any image degradation with them on, but as lens protectors I suspect the lens shades are better. So, after writing this, I'll probably go back and take them all off again.

mhedges

I've taken the UV filters off all my lenses. They were causing problems with ghosting /flare/contrast loss in some situations. And I don't have any super high $$ lenses that I feel I have to protect.

Pistnbroke

retread…..I struggled with the 150-600 tamron for two years very hit and miss if you got a sharp image at 600mm ..the solution was simple swopped it for a Nikon 200-500 and now everything is sharp.

retread

Pistnbroke said:

retread…..I struggled with the 150-600 tamron for two years very hit and miss if you got a sharp image at 600mm ..the solution was simple swopped it for a Nikon 200-500 and now everything is sharp.

I have shot with a 200-500, it is a good lens. I have 120-300 sport lens and love it. I would like to try a 150-600 sport lens to see what it is like. Sometimes the Tamron will surprise me and be really sharp other times not so much. Down side of the sport lens is they are heavy.

HankB

Having the vulnerable front element protected with a cheap, easy to replace filter makes for a more casual, relaxed, and enjoyable day. Not having to screw around as much with front lens caps, even when swapping lenses, is a luxury all by itself. For me, that certainly makes up for the theoretical loss of a couple of lines of resolution or very occasional bit of flair.

For those of you who won’t make that “sensible” trade-off, I feel your pain each time I dodge a pothole with the low profile 30 series tires I use just for that slight handling edge.

Sports

For graduated or polarizing filter, I think you get what you pay for. For UV/protection filters, it's "fairly cheap" filter or no filter, if you ask me. I found a big scratch on my 24-70 the other day. Or rather, it was on the protection filter. So that's it: I'll leave my "fairly cheap" filters on. As long as they are multi-coated (MC), they don't add much reflections or anything. But they do degrade the image quality ... obviously. All additional glass do. So if you want the best image then don't buy an expensiv filter - lose the UV filter entirely.

PB_PM

Been using cameras for 20+ years and never scratched the front element of a lens, even the ones I’ve dropped and have had to repair. The biggest problem in a dropped lens is lens fittings getting warped or optical elements getting knocked out of alignment. Scratches are the least of your worries. Lens hoods work much better for that than glass filters in my experience, and the plastic from a broken hood won’t scratch the glass like broken bits of filter glass can. I’ve Seen more examples of lenses damaged by the broken glass from “protective” filters than them actually protecting anything.

HankB said:

For those of you who won’t make that “sensible” trade-off, I feel your pain each time I dodge a pothole with the low profile 30 series tires I use just for that slight handling edge.

Huh? I guess if you leave your camera sitting on the seat next to you that could be an issue. More of a safety issue for you, since in an accident the camera could hit and injure you, but hey if that’s your cup of tea. So please tell me how does a filter protect the lens elements from getting knocked out of alignment from harsh bumps? I find a well padded camera bag a far better solution.

kanuck

UV filters are needed to protect the front element so yes I always throw one on instantly either a Nikon, or B&W job. I'd like to give the expensive HD3 from Hoya a shot actually though. I use polarizers occasionally and big stoppers and split grads a lot.

I've broken 3 front elements in my time. An 18-140, 18-200 and a 50mm. Two times from a toppling tripod and once from a body drop. It happens, but your right PB_PM usually other problems occur after a drop especially the F-Mount and zoom ring. Fortunately I have only damaged consumer cheapies. Its been about 13 years now since its happened to me now. Touch wood

HankB

PB_PM said:

HankB said:

For those of you who won’t make that “sensible” trade-off, I feel your pain each time I dodge a pothole with the low profile 30 series tires I use just for that slight handling edge.

Huh? I guess if you leave your camera sitting on the seat next to you that could be an issue. More of a safety issue for you, since in an accident the camera could hit and injure you, but hey if that’s your cup of tea. So please tell me how does a filter protect the lens elements from getting knocked out of alignment from harsh bumps? I find a well padded camera bag a far better solution.

Sorry for my obtuse automotive analogy. I guess it was clear only to me.

To clarify, I was trying to equate by analogy, trading off a bit of IQ to protect the lens with a filter, vs. trading off a bit of car handling and road feel in order to protect the wheels, tires and suspension against potholes with the higher tire sidewalls of lower performance higher profile tires. (If you don't live in pothole country, you may not fully appreciate how lousy the roads can get).

I have to dodge potholes with my high performance low profile tires just to maximize that exhilarating driving edge.

spraynpray

I got it Hank, I think PB was a bit slow there.

PS I hate low profile tyres because I like smooth quiet rides.

Capt_Spaulding

Crap, now I'm going to put my "cheap" B&W UV/protection filters back on. Come on guys, make up my mind.

I trade off the 30 series tires for 50s. I like the instantaneous turn in the 30s offer, but the NVH and the expense of wheels makes me surrender a little performance in the service of longevity and usability. Sort of like filters on lenses, I guess.

Kind of a self energizing process, Hank. You have low profile tires because you like the instant response they provide which you then have to use more frequently dodging potholes because you have low profile tires.

HankB

Capt_Spaulding said:

Crap, now I'm going to put my "cheap" B&W UV/protection filters back on. Come on guys, make up my mind.

I trade off the 30 series tires for 50s. I like the instantaneous turn in the 30s offer, but the NVH and the expense of wheels makes me surrender a little performance in the service of longevity and usability. Sort of like filters on lenses, I guess.

Kind of a self energizing process, Hank. You have low profile tires because you like the instant response they provide which you then have to use more frequently dodging potholes because you have low profile tires.

A lot depends on the car design itself. On decent roads — not perfect, just decent — I find the "comfort" suspension setting actually gives better NVH than many cars and crossovers with higher sidewall tires. Of course that all falls apart on the deep potholes.

And yes, your "self energizing" observation is dismally true