Filters for lens protection

Geoffc

Senior Member
Firstly, I don't want to start a debate about pros and cons of filters as it's been done many times on many forums. I personally have clear protection filters on all my lenses except the Tamron 150-600, however I have often thought about what value they actually offer and what if any problems they cause. For example, I was out with my Fuji X100T the other night and got a lot of ghosting on street lights. I need to try the shots again without the filters but it got me thinking. I primarily got the filter for that camera as it sucks dust according to some reports.

Also, if I attach a CPL to my clear filters on my DSLRs I get more vignetting.

So as if by magic this video popped up on Nikon Rumours the following day

UV filters - do you need them or not? | Nikon Rumors

Personally I would always retain filters for use in hostile environments such as sand or sea spray, but perhaps not for general use.

The way we amateurs baby our gear reminds me of a previous hobby of mine which was RC aircraft and helis. We used petrol engines that were essentially the ones from weed wackers with a converted power take off for the propeller. We used them for a few hours per week but people insisted on all kinds of magic oil to make them run better and longer including doing this and that to them after every session. The guys who actually use weed wackers for their job abuse them ten hours a day, oil them once a year, throw them in the back of their truck and they run for a lifetime!! I think it may be similar for this photography game.

So my actual question is, how many of you run your lenses naked and if so has it caused any problems over the years?



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
 

Ironwood

Senior Member
I run mine naked as well.
I did buy a UV filter to put on my Nikon 105 macro, because I was poking it in and out of the branches etc chasing insects, but I ended up taking it off as it was degrading my images. I now use a Hoya HD CPL on that lens and it seems to be working for me, but its not on there for protection.
 

mikew_RIP

Senior Member
Filtered after losing a lens to something getting on the front element and marking it,never considered using them for physical damage as shattered filter glass could scratch the element anyway,most of my photography is on the sea shore or very close.
 

oldsalt

Senior Member
Naked for me... I'll put one on if near the sea but that's it. I've got a lovely soft artists brush and a good supply of "Nikonites" microfibre cloths for cleaning ... works for me.
cheers
 

BackdoorArts

Senior Member
Always have a filter on when I'm not shooting, don't always have one when I do. When your light source is in front of you that extra glass can only cause problems since most front lens elements are more reflective than anything inside and you create a perfect environment for ghosting with any filter in front of it. With IR, I'm still doing testing but I suspect that UV and even clear filters have some impact on what IR light gets through, and whether/when you get hot spots. '

I'm starting to use them like lens caps. I just prefer the screw-on aspect of the filter when walking around since it's not likely to get knocked off by the same thing that scratches the front. It's a bit of a pain, but so are a lot of things worth doing.
 

Horoscope Fish

Senior Member
I shoot with a CPL probably 90% of the time or better but that's because I like what a CPL does for my shooting outdoors. If you shoot the deserts and/or beaches out here you'll find a CPL, or ND, is almost essential just to control exposure, but filters are also easier to clean since I can just use the kitchen sink when I get home. While I don't abuse my gear I don't treat it like Ming porcelain either and impact damage is not something I'm overly concerned about.

I do have one of those "anecdotal" stories where my camera took a wicked tumble down a rocky embankment, the filter took a nasty hit and the front element was left untouched. There's no telling what would have happened had the filter not been there sooooo... I dunno. I try not to overthink this stuff. I like CPL's so I use them a lot but I don't fret over my front lens element.
....
 

cbay

Senior Member
All three of my lenses have them. If i'm missing anything i wouldn't know because they have stayed on the whole time.
 

Geoffc

Senior Member
Thanks for the replies, I think they have helped to make my decision to go naked unless in hostile environments.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
 

RocketCowboy

Senior Member
In the past, I've always had either a clear UV or protective filter, or a CPL on my lens. More recently, I'm shedding the UV filter unless it's a hostile environment.

I did photograph a team building event a few months ago ... an outdoor paintball tournament, where I was grateful to have that protective filter on the front of my lens, but otherwise I've not had a strong need for them in the past. For me, it's been more carryover from film, where the UV filter provided an extra (needed) function.
 

Moab Man

Senior Member
I keep them on for protection never knowing what might happen, but if I know I'm going to be in a safe environment I go naked.
 

RON_RIP

Senior Member
I use cpl's all the time except when shooting indoors, but like others have said, it is not for protecting the front element except has a happy secondary benefit
 

Retro

Senior Member
I suppose there is a direct correlation between experience and protective filters. Thom Hogan seems to be pretty critical of those of us who 'baby' our gear. Here's a quote:



  1. [*=left]Treating your gear as priceless. You carefully take your camera out of the protective bag you carry it in, take a picture, make sure no spec of dirt, water vapor, or dust has landed on it and not been cleaned off, then put it back in your bag, and then maybe even put that bag in another protective bag. Photographs are moments in time. You missed nearly an infinite number of moments in time while you were coddling your gear. Cameras should be accessible. Heck, you've probably got a rubber protective coat over your camera and lens and a UV filter on the front of the lens, plus you've put another protective cover over the rear LCD. Yet you still coddle your camera. And you're adding visual artifacts to the light getting to the sensor and you can't evaluate what little color fidelity the rear LCD gives you properly. I know that everyone reading my articles cringes every time I mention this, but the true pros treat their gear as almost disposable. We're not afraid to risk it for a shot. The shot is more important than the gear for a very simple reason: we can replace the gear, we can't usually replace the shot. Even in a studio with controlled lighting. If you miss the sly smile, you aren't going to get it back by saying to the model "hey, do a sly smile." Shot first, gear second. (Source: Photographic Sins)


My dad told me to put a UV filter on my zoom lens way back in 1986, when I bought his OM-10, specifically to protect the lens. I bought a Marumi 'Lens Protect' lens from Photo Outfitters when I bought the 50mm 1.4, and I've never removed it. I guess I could say that my dad, a third rate amateur, taught me to coddle my gear, and as a third rate amateur I intend to continue to do so. Maybe if I got the chance at some real photography in 'the field' and learned how much abuse my F100 or F5 could take, I might change my tune, and I might even throw my gear into the back of my minivan and drive off. But for now I will be quite content to coddle my cameras.

I will most likely also remove whatever filter is on the lens when a shot means that much to me, since I recognize the wisdom in Thom's view.

That being said, I do cringe when I read Thom's words. If I buy a D750 next year, I can pretty much guarantee I'll be treating it like it's Ming porcelain! And the first scratch or gouge will bother me for days afterward - until I learn to look at that damage as marks of experience and adventure, much like most of us men think about our own scars. Does that mean I'm willing to let an objective lens element get scratched? NO!
 
Last edited:

cbay

Senior Member
If i go dragging my Tamron through the woods and a limb or something gouges the front element or whatever i like to have some protection. I haven't seen any images with the same lens that are noticeably sharper. If they can make thick elements with the quality they do then it shouldn't come as a surprise that they can make excellent quality with a thin piece of glass.
 
Last edited:

Blacktop

Senior Member
If i go dragging my Tamron through the woods and a limb or something gouges the front element or whatever and have damaged it, where will the naysayers be then? I haven't seen any images with the same lens that are noticeably sharper. If they can make thick elements with the quality they do then it shouldn't come as a surprise that they can make excellent quality with a thin piece of glass.

No one is saying that you shouldn't use them or that you should . This is a discussion, not an argument.

I use a CPL filter and an ND filter when the shot calls for it. I usually just leave them on the lens unless I don't need them for the shot. If I do go walking through the woods, I usually don't drag my lenses through it.
 

Horoscope Fish

Senior Member
No one is saying that you shouldn't use them or that you should. This is a discussion, not an argument.
....
that-point-bears-repeating.jpg

.....
 

cbay

Senior Member
This is a discussion, not an argument.
There ya go, i fixed my post respectfully. Now i know it's been a tough week trading the market, but does it show that bad?
I didn't think so, but anyway, go packing the Tamron around for a while and it feels like a drag. ;)
 
Top