Filter or no filter?

[cteagles]

As the title states, do you use a filter on your lens?

I personally have always used one..

Discuss!

[markmullen]

A UV or protection filter? No.

I use filters for artistic effects (NDs, grads, polarisers etc) but not a UV filter, a) they are not necessary for digital and b) they degrade image quality (to a lesser or greater degree) and introduce flare.

[RobDickinson]

^ that.

[cteagles]

Interesting, have either of you ever noticed the difference in quality from shooting through a cheap filter?

[markmullen]

I've only ever used them when shooting rallying where there is lots of mud, rocks and st flying about.

[S47]

NO
Nothing else to say on this subject.

[Pints]

I'm evidently doing it wrong. I use clear filters and give them regular cleanings - to keep the quality as good as possible.
The way I see it is it's cheaper and easier to replace or clean a filter than it is a lens.

[RobDickinson]

Except your more likely to damage a lens with a filter on than without.

I have seen so many stuck filters that damage the thread or break easily then you have sharp bits of glass ready to damage the front element.

Filters may protect from seaspray etc and may be required on some lenses for proper weathersealing but they do not really protect from physical impacts.

[K12beano]

S47 said:

NO
Nothing else to say on this subject.

+1

[GetCarter]

K12beano said:

S47 said:

NO
Nothing else to say on this subject.

+1

+2 Don't do it.

[Elderly]

S47 said:

NO
Nothing else to say on this subject.

Except I always use a lens hood.

[GetCarter]

Elderly said:

S47 said:

NO
Nothing else to say on this subject.

Except I always use a lens hood.

..is the way to go.

[Simpo Two]

In the days when multi-coatings could rub off if you were careless they had a point, but not now.

As for smashing your lens head-first into a rock, just be careful.

All you need in these digital days is ND and CP - and then only in certain circumstances.

[DIW35]

Pints said:

The way I see it is it's cheaper and easier to replace or clean a filter than it is a lens.

In 30 years of photography I've never had to replace a lens, so I can't see how having to fork out for a filter makes it cheaper.

[Thunderace]

Yes, I have a Hoya Pro1 Protector on all my lenses that will take one - mainly Canon L-series, one lens that won't take a front mounted filter. I also always use a lens hood. Usually only comes off to fit an effects filter.

I would much rather clean or replace a filter than clean or repair/replace a lens. I have had lenses ruined by scratches in the past.

Twice I've dropped a substantial lens onto concrete both times the filter was smashed and the lens unscathed. In 30+ years of using SLRs I've never had a filter jammed on a lens.

While in theory an additional piece of glass can cause image degradation I've never perceived a difference in practice, this includes regularly shooting into the light.

[RobDickinson]

All you have proved there is that filters break...

[Simpo Two]

Buy a £1,000 lens. Then you'll be amazed how you never drop it

[Thunderace]

RobDickinson said:

All you have proved there is that filters break...

Or maybe that the filter took the force of the impact . . .

[Thunderace]

Simpo Two said:

Buy a £1,000 lens. Then you'll be amazed how you never drop it

I wish The two accidents I referred to were with 70-200 F2.8 IS and 100-400, I also managed to chuck a 5D2 and 24-70 several feet when I slipped on wet rocks which scraped the camera but didn't harm the lens. There's never a cheap camera around when you need one

[Simpo Two]

Thunderace said:

I wish The two accidents I referred to were with 70-200 F2.8 IS and 100-400, I also managed to chuck a 5D2 and 24-70 several feet when I slipped on wet rocks which scraped the camera but didn't harm the lens.

Aha, then I think you should buy the full 'clumsy mofo' pack which includes 100 filters, 5 full size rubber gym mats, knee and elbow pads, a crash helmet and an emergency button that calls the nearest casualty unit

NB Don't try DIY...