Filters for protection

[HankScorpio]

What's the general opinion on this?

I've got a 77mm skylight 1A that fits a couple of my lenses but I think I prefer them without it.
Is there something more appropriate I could use for protection?
What are you boys and girls using?

>> Edited by HankScorpio on Friday 6th May 17:58

[Bee_Jay]

I always use UV filters for mine for protection (Hoya Pro).

You should not be using skylight with digital, UV.

The only lenses I don't use protective filters on are my 50 and 85 primes, I use them on all my zooms which tend to go 'out and about' for general use a bit more than my primes.

[Bee_Jay]

Another thing, is I take them off to use circular polarisers. They are only for protection, not for image modification, so why leave them on when you are using another filter...

[poah]

a skylight filter is what most people use to protect the lens element. I use a UV cause they are cheaper. Hoya HMC.

[LongQ]

I read a piece by a pro (I think) recently that suggested modern lenses really do not benefit from filters for protection as they are coated well enough for most purposes. Something like that.

I'll see if I can find the item.

Hope it wasn't a thread on here - that would be embarrassing ...

[LongQ]

I have surprised myself - I remembered to bookmark it.

Here we are.

www.luminous-landscape.com/columns/sm-feb-05.shtml

[beano500]

I'm with LongQ on this one - and I read LL on the subject recently.

My reckoning is that extra surfaces are just likely to add a reason for degradation of the final image. Very few filters make any difference when your working with digital and have the entirety of Photoshop to throw at the work-in-progress stage.

If anything a polariser, a grad, plus possibly a ND is about all you could need in the way of you and a good raw image.

[LongQ]

Having some old 35mm kit and a few films to use up (yeah right) I ventured into eaby a few weeks ago and snagged a Canon FD 70-200 f:4.5 for £16.50.

Bog standard lens, loads around all under 30 quid even for mint in box. This was local to me so I picked it up and chap had correctly pointed out that there are a few marks on the front lens but nothing much.

So my first tryout was at the Donington GT meeting. I can't see anything wrong with the results at all. The thing is a bit sensitive on focus at or around infinity but when you get a sharp one it's very sharp considering it's just a cooking lens.

No sign of any marks coming through to the negs - or maybe I am going blind!

I don't have a spare filter for it and, tbh, a filter would cost as much as another lens - probably - so I don't think I will bother. May seek out a lens hood though.

[poah]

I use a filter to protect the lens element from being damaged. better to have a scratch on a filter than on the lens

[dcw@pr]

There was a thread about this a couple of months ago I think. I use UV filters, but I don't really see there would be a huge problem with Skylight, it is quite a subtle effect. Also people now make plain glass ones specifically for digital use.

It may be true that modern lenses have tough front elements that don't really *need* filters, but back when I was a nipper I dropped a camera lens first onto a conrete floor. There was a sickening crunch of glass, and my heart stopped. When I picked it up, I found that the Skylight had almost completely shattered, but the actual lens itself was still in perfect condition. I am 100% sure that had the filter not been there to absorb the impact, it would have been the front element that wnt instead. for that reason I will always use a filter.

>> Edited by dcw@pr on Friday 6th May 23:31

[LongQ]

poah said:

I use a filter to protect the lens element from being damaged. better to have a scratch on a filter than on the lens

OK, but that is exactly what was discussed in the linked article I referred to above. So what is your experience that makes the writer's reasoning unsound in your opinion?

Is flare on an image acceptable as a compromise for protecting something which, it is claimed, is already very tough indeed?

[poah]

don;t have problem with flare. I live in scotland I hardly ever see the sun

even when there is sun I never have a problem

[dcw@pr]

LongQ said:

Is flare on an image acceptable as a compromise for protecting something which, it is claimed, is already very tough indeed?

if there's flare then unscrew the filter. i do that with my 50mm that has a bit of a cheapo UV on it at the moment. If it's gong to be flarey conditions for a while then leave it off for that, but most of the time I find it's not a problem. You could always buy multicoated filters too, which cut down the reflections

[LongQ]

poah said:

don;t have problem with flare. I live in scotland I hardly ever see the sun even when there is sun I never have a problem

The examples offered in the article had street lamps not sun - so bright light sources in a particular position might lead to the problem and might not be noticed at the time.

And of course the flare possibility was not the only point made in the article.

[LongQ]

dcw@pr said:

if there's flare then unscrew the filter. i do that with my 50mm that has a bit of a cheapo UV on it at the moment. If it's gong to be flarey conditions for a while then leave it off for that, but most of the time I find it's not a problem. You could always buy multicoated filters too, which cut down the reflections

Yep, there are work arounds - though I'm not convinced one might always be aware of the flare at the time.

Nor do I feel that great about the possibility of a greater frequency of filter handling that might be required. In taking mode I prefer to be ready prepared kit wise if possible.

But the points are for discussion as principles rather than seeking specific solutions.