I'm taking my filters off....!

[TonyHetherington]

I'd seen advice to keep a UV filter on my lens (my best at the moment is a 17-85 IS USM F4-5.6), and so when I bought the lens along with a CP I also bought a UV one too, and keep it on there all the time - apparently, to protect it more than anything. Happy with my shots, mostly, but sometimes they do come out slightly less sharp than I want; more than likely me.

ANYWAY, a few mentions recently in this forum of people (quite loglically) saying "why put a £40 filter on a £1000 lens" type approach. Well, it makes perfect sense....?! Why HAVE I had it on there?

And the real crunch was the guy who had his brand new 400L (k-WALITY lens that one!) and the result being his filter making it sub-sharp.

So, UV off....and just use the lens cap more I guess. Ihave a hood for it so should stop anything catching it.

Thought I'd share that with you all, like, y'know, kinda.

[Andy M]

Buy a good filter and you shouldn't have any problems.

[Cuban]

Andy M said:

Buy a good filter and you shouldn't have any problems.

I don't have a £1000 lens, both mine are Nikon's worth £200 each.
I'm using Jessops UV filters, mailny for protection as there are a lot of
stones flying around as I hang out of cars.

Would my images be suffering at this level with the Jessops filter?

[Shadytree]

It's like buying a pucka HD TV then skimping on the cables.

Get a decent HOYA or LEE filter !

[TonyHetherington]

Fair piont about the quality of the filters! I can't recall the make I purchased...I want to say Cokin, but could be wrong. I'll double check! It certainly wasn't Lee or Hoya though

Edited by TonyHetherington on Friday 1st June 12:04

[Mr Noble]

It was me who had the new Nikon 70-200 f2.8 that was soft.

Went back to Nikon twice for a tune up before they realised it was the cheapo "free" filter that was cocking it all up!

I don't bother with them.

If a stone hit the lens at 80mph, I doubt if a 0.4mm uv filter would make much difference!

[cuneus]

I was testing a new 1.4x teleconverter (which is sharper than cropping) and have just done the same with the filters I have fitted

These are Hoya Super HMC - £16 off ebay

I cannot see any difference

[Shadytree]

or it could just be the photographer blaming his tools

[GetCarter]

My UV filter cost more than my first 5 cameras put together. I ain't taking it off!

[SGirl]

I had a filter on my 24-120mm VR when I dropped the tripod. The camera fell nose down, shattered the filter into a million pieces. The lens survived with just some cosmetic damage to the plastic around the front glass.

I think I'll be keeping my filters on for the foreseeable future.

Edited by SGirl on Friday 1st June 12:16

[TonyHetherington]

Hmmm, so the advice is keep a filter on the lens, but make it a GOOD filter, huh?

[nick_bbb]

I use Canon Protect filters on my L lenses. Quality wise you'd never know they are there, they were about £60 I think.

[nick_bbb]

Acutally they were £50 each I've just check on whorehouseexpress

[nick_bbb]

Also to add I did have a cheap filter on my 50mm 1.8 that destroyed itself to save the lens when I dropped my my tripod on it.

[SGirl]

nick_bbb said:

Also to add I did have a cheap filter on my 50mm 1.8 that destroyed itself to save the lens when I dropped my my tripod on it.

So in fact we should all be grateful to our filters, for sacrificing themselves to save our expensive kit.

I'm off to buy mine a pint. Except the dead one, of course.

[EmmaP]

Just been discussing this with a photographer friend. They don't have one on their 'back-up' camera because the lens is shite. They don't need one on their studio cameras as they rarely leave the stand. I however won't be taking mine off as I don't want to risk getting rain, scratches, greasy finger prints on my lens. I have Hoya Pro UV filters and B&W polariser. At £50 a throw (and £125 for later) it should be sufficiently good quality. In all honesty I don't think any of my clients would be able to tell the difference, or me for that matter. I'm not worth risking damage to a £1,000 lens (the front element on its own isn't worth £1K) and I don't like making insurance claims.

I know I have had misfocusing issues but I think that that was a result of me mis-focusing when shooting people/faces in low level light and the AF sensor not having enough contrast to focus on. In these situations I switch to manual focus. I used manual focus lenses for almost 15 years so should be able to cope

I always use a lens hood. I only wish Canon made metal ones for their DSLRs as these have saved my arse and my lenses in the past.

[beano500]

EmmaP said:

I always use a lens hood.

Sound advice! and much more important on a dSLR than a filter. Have filters, rarely use them - extra reflective layers? No thank you!

EmmaP said:

I only wish Canon made metal ones for their DSLRs as these have saved my arse and my lenses in the past.

Why? Are they "only" plastic? Several of mine are (I put a hood designed for a 28mm on the 20mm nowadays, that is plastic as is the 70-300) but are quite well built - most of the metal ones (45mm (but it's small and a clever design), 180mm and 500mm) all look like they could buckle if you put a reasonable pressure on them (the 85mm looks like it would survive a small war and certainly does more to protect the lens than a filter normally would!)

[EmmaP]

I've never really battered them (I think they are carbon fibre) but assumed - wrongly perhaps - that the metal ones would be more resilient to heavy impact.

[stuart b]

I don't buy the "why put a £40 filter on a £1000 lens?" argument. If you follow that logic you should be paying £1000 for your memory cards too. If something does the job, it does the job and it's price should be dependent on cost to product. This doesn't mean I go for the cheapest filter out there as there are quality differences.

FWIW I think this applies equally to cables for home audio/visual. That's the classic case where a lot of b*llocks is employed to add a premium. There are differences between cables, but you've got to use your ears and eyes not the price sticker. I'm not suggesting the poster who raised the analogy is not switched on to that BTW.

Stuart

[le gravy noire]

I think Emma has made the most important point..UV filters are for girls.