How much can a cheap filter ruin a good lens?

[jimothy]

I've just bought myself the OM-D with the kit lens and the 12mm M.zukio f1.7. The shop chucked in an own brand UV filter for each lens for free.

This got me wondering.

If you buy an expensive lens based off it's image quality and chuck a cheap UV filter on it to protect it, are you doing the lens a disservice? Does it have a detrimental effect on the image quality? Is it better to buy a better filter (and if so any recommendations) or none at all and risk it?

[RobDickinson]

jimothy said:

Does it have a detrimental effect on the image quality? Is it better to buy a better filter (and if so any recommendations) or none at all and risk it?

Yes. On some lenses ( normally longer ones) it can really destroy IQ.

A good filter is better.

No filter is best.

[Pints]

I leave one of my filters (not especially expensive) on my bridge camera but remove it if I want to take a decent shot.
Even on a bridge camera the difference is noticeable, and it takes longer for the AF to find its subject.

[mcdjl]

I have two polarisers, a hoya (cheapish) and a Neewer (cheaper). My camera can't focus (not even manually) with the Neewer. i think thats taught me plenty about cheap lenses.

[tinman0]

jimothy said:

If you buy an expensive lens based off it's image quality and chuck a cheap UV filter on it to protect it, are you doing the lens a disservice? Does it have a detrimental effect on the image quality? Is it better to buy a better filter (and if so any recommendations) or none at all and risk it?

I look at this way - if I'm working then the camera gets the filter just because there is dirt and crap, moisture, and the camera is going to get 'handled'. If I'm doing my competition stuff though, the filters come off.

(And I did drop a lens last year, totally smashed the filter up, but the lens was fine.)

[GetCarter]

NO filter is best.

All modern lenses have UV coating, so the only reason to use a UV filter is because you think you are going to scratch it, get crap on it, etc.

Use a hard lens hood. Cheaper and better. No flaring either.

[Elderly]

GetCarter said:

NO filter is best.


Use a hard lens hood. Cheaper and better. No flaring either.

/\ what he says.

Also the kit lens on the OMD wouldn't be that expensive to replace if you
did accidently damage the front element (which is unlikely with a hard hood fitted);
it's a weather sealed lens anyway, but maybe the 'seal' between a filter and the lens
wouldn't be.

[jimothy]

Thanks everyone.

It's not just the kit lens I'm thinking of, I've also got the 12mm F2.0 which wasn't cheap (HK$6,000).
Olympus do have a protective filter, weighs in at 40 quid or so. Are these any good, or is the lens hood still the best way to go?

[anonymous-user]

The only filters I use at present are circular polarisers (CPL) because I find them very useful in a number of situations.

I bought a 72mm Hoya CPL (the bottom of the range model) for my 18-200 travel lens and was a little disappointed to be honest. I wasn't seeing any great effect from it. It just seemed to make the photo very slightly darker no matter how I adjusted it.

I then bought a 77mm Hoya CPL for my wide angle, but this time I bought the top end 'Pro 1 Digital HMC' version which cost considerably more.

What a difference.

With the 'Pro' filter, reflections from glass, water and car paint were greatly reduced, colours popped, and the sky became really nice and contrasty.

I wouldn't have thought a company like Hoya would churn out poor 'budget' filters but there you go!