# Protective Filters...Yes or No???



## table1349

My Not Quite Complete Protective Filter Article


----------



## petrochemist

An interesting read. TFS


----------



## nerwin

Yeah that was interesting. It's about time someone had the motivation to do an in depth technical test of protective filters. 

However, I still won't use them.


----------



## runnah

Hey if you can sell a bit of aluminum and clear glass to people* for $200+ more power to you.


*morons


----------



## nerwin

runnah said:


> Hey if you can sell a bit of aluminum and clear glass to people* for $200+ more power to you.
> 
> 
> *morons



I honestly never understood why some buy really expensive lenses, like $3000 and then put a cheap $5 UV filter on it. I mean come on....


----------



## Designer

I think they need to do more testing.


----------



## cgw

They do more good than harm. That mid-to-high end filters don't measurably/meaningfully(that's Cicala's key finding) degrade image quality puts to rest the near-urban legend that they're a damaging factor. Can only say they've spared pricey-rare-favorite optics from harm on more than a few occasions. Cicala's especially good at debunking various "flat earth" arguments I see all too often here and elsewhere.


----------



## fmw

nerwin said:


> runnah said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey if you can sell a bit of aluminum and clear glass to people* for $200+ more power to you.
> 
> 
> *morons
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I honestly never understood why some buy really expensive lenses, like $3000 and then put a cheap $5 UV filter on it. I mean come on....
Click to expand...


Why does it bother you?  Would you feel better if it were a $50 filter.  A protective filter is just a flat piece of optical glass.


----------



## Shafty

I have a CPL which I take off and put on as I need it.


----------



## OldManJim

I wish I was good enough to be able to see the difference these filters make in my images........


----------



## Shafty

OldManJim said:


> I wish I was good enough to be able to see the difference these filters make in my images........



Just test a filter on instagram 

I didnt notice a difference at first but then I twisted it and my blues went more blue


----------



## Derrel

Filters: handy during the springtime when trees drop thousands of minute sap particles into the air: makes for easy,quick cleaning of the lens. Same at the seashore on days when the wind blows a lot of fine,fine salt-air particles onshore...easier to wipe down that flat, exposed filter.

Mostly, filters are sold as high-profit items for sales associates.


----------



## benhasajeep

I used too, until I saw pictures of comparisons with and without.  Even with cheaper lenses (assuming lower quality).  A direct hit to the main lens caused very little marks on the glass (using slide hammer, I think 3# slide).  But a lens with a cheap filter on the front.  Would get several marks (from the broken glass of the protector hitting and marking the good lens glass).  The test lenses were all MF lenses from different brands.  Would have several of each one (same exact lens).  One would get the filter, and other would have nothing.  Believe it or not, the lens barrel / actual lens piece mount would break more often than the glass (again the cheaper lenses).  So, for the most part just chips in the glass were the worst, until they used more force than just letting the slide fall on the slide hammer.

After I saw that article.  I thought to myself.  How thick is that filter.  They are all pretty thin actually.  They actually take less abuse than the lens itself.  And when they break, cause more damage than if it had not been there in terms of marks on the lens.


----------



## pixmedic

I use UV filters all the time and I think they work great. 






Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk


----------



## table1349

pixmedic said:


> I use UV filters all the time and I think they work great.
> 
> View attachment 141905
> 
> Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk


The 72mm, while more expensive, has the necessary room to keep the condensation off your desk all day.


----------



## paigew

I have never used a filter on my lenses.


----------



## zombiesniper

cgw said:


> Can only say they've spared pricey-rare-favorite optics from harm on more than a few occasions.



Until you do side by side comparisons you have no idea that it saved anything.



benhasajeep said:


> I used too, until I saw pictures of comparisons with and without. Even with cheaper lenses (assuming lower quality). A direct hit to the main lens caused very little marks on the glass (using slide hammer, I think 3# slide). But a lens with a cheap filter on the front. Would get several marks (from the broken glass of the protector hitting and marking the good lens glass). The test lenses were all MF lenses from different brands. Would have several of each one (same exact lens). One would get the filter, and other would have nothing. Believe it or not, the lens barrel / actual lens piece mount would break more often than the glass (again the cheaper lenses). So, for the most part just chips in the glass were the worst, until they used more force than just letting the slide fall on the slide hammer.
> 
> After I saw that article. I thought to myself. How thick is that filter. They are all pretty thin actually. They actually take less abuse than the lens itself. And when they break, cause more damage than if it had not been there in terms of marks on the lens.



I remember a similar article and it made perfect sense to me not to have an additional thing that could shatter into my expensive glass.


----------



## cgw

zombiesniper said:


> cgw said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can only say they've spared pricey-rare-favorite optics from harm on more than a few occasions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Until you do side by side comparisons you have no idea that it saved anything.
> 
> 
> 
> benhasajeep said:
> 
> 
> 
> I used too, until I saw pictures of comparisons with and without. Even with cheaper lenses (assuming lower quality). A direct hit to the main lens caused very little marks on the glass (using slide hammer, I think 3# slide). But a lens with a cheap filter on the front. Would get several marks (from the broken glass of the protector hitting and marking the good lens glass). The test lenses were all MF lenses from different brands. Would have several of each one (same exact lens). One would get the filter, and other would have nothing. Believe it or not, the lens barrel / actual lens piece mount would break more often than the glass (again the cheaper lenses). So, for the most part just chips in the glass were the worst, until they used more force than just letting the slide fall on the slide hammer.
> 
> After I saw that article. I thought to myself. How thick is that filter. They are all pretty thin actually. They actually take less abuse than the lens itself. And when they break, cause more damage than if it had not been there in terms of marks on the lens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I remember a similar article and it made perfect sense to me not to have an additional thing that could shatter into my expensive glass.
Click to expand...


Filters have saved front elements and/or lens-side filter rings on at least a half dozen of my lenses. And no, they didn't shatter. Try acquainting yourself with evidence-based discussion sometime. Cicala is pretty good at it. You're plainly not.


----------



## table1349

Filter Failed.


----------



## pixmedic

For me, it was never about protecting the front element. I find the lens hood to do a good job of that. And the front element is pretty tough. 

I just found the idea of a UV filter odd on a digital camera that doesn't need one like film cameras did. People make such a fuss over "good glass", pixel peeping and comparing mtf scores... looking for the sharpest lens. then put an unnecessary piece of glass in front of it. 
Even of its an expensive filter...it just seems weird. In 25 years of shooting film and digital I've never wrecked a lens.
Maybe I'm just lucky. 

Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk


----------



## zombiesniper

cgw said:


> Filters have saved front elements and/or lens-side filter rings on at least a half dozen of my lenses. And no, they didn't shatter. Try acquainting yourself with evidence-based discussion sometime. Cicala is pretty good at it. You're plainly not.



An evidence based discussion is what was lacking in your post. I was just pointing out that if you don't do comparisons with and without a filter it is merely speculation that the filter protected anything.


----------



## BrentC

The only time I use a filter is if I am going into conditions like blowing sand or some type of condition where the lens will could easily get dirty, splashed or grit.  Otherwise the lens hood does a better job of protection.   If you drop or bang the lens a filter is not going to help.   If something smashes the lens, the filter which is a lot thinner and less durable, has a higher possibility of cracking and scratching the lens glass.  At least that is my opinion.


----------



## Buck777

I always use B+W 007's or Fuji (not tested in that article). Its purely for protection only. I have sold the odd lens and have found that advertising that a protective filter has been on the lens since purchase always gets a quick sale at a good price. I might sell them without the lens as quick but consumers always like the fact that the glass is protected, as I would do as well. I don't like hoya, and that was confirmed (to me ) in that article. I used to get B+W 010's but read an article that there is a small amount of distortion with them, whereas the 007 has none, which is fine by me.


----------



## cgw

zombiesniper said:


> cgw said:
> 
> 
> 
> Filters have saved front elements and/or lens-side filter rings on at least a half dozen of my lenses. And no, they didn't shatter. Try acquainting yourself with evidence-based discussion sometime. Cicala is pretty good at it. You're plainly not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> An evidence based discussion is what was lacking in your post. I was just pointing out that if you don't do comparisons with and without a filter it is merely speculation that the filter protected anything.
Click to expand...


Er, that's* why *I use them, Chief. No confusion about causation when it comes to damaged-vs-undamaged front elements and absence/presence of a filter. But then this really wasn't the point of Cicala's article.


----------



## Peeb

I found your article to be a great read!  Thanks for sharing.

BTW, I don't (currently) use protective filters but back in the 70s and 80s when I shot a lot of film I ALWAYS used one.  Thought it was pretty much 'required'.    Here is a recently scanned slide (shared in another thread) of a shot from 1979 right into the sun with a filter:



Philmont Scout Ranch 1979 by Peeb, on Flickr

I would agree with the proposition that the filter likely introduced a fair bit of optic 'trash' into the image, but I must also admit that (IMO) it kinda helped the image in this case!  Of course the sun star was created by the aperture blades, but see the lower left corner.

Thanks again for your reasoned and thoughtful analysis- very helpful!!


----------



## Gary A.

I use protective filters.  I find it easier to remove a damaged front filter and keep shooting than replace a front element.  I've tested filtered against unfiltered and found the differences to be insignificant. Filters go a long way in protecting the front element against destructive airborne stuff.  If I shot in a controlled environment (studio) or a safe environment (overprotective) then I wouldn't consider a filter. But I don't ... so I filter.


----------



## webestang64

I am always amazed at how many lenses come into our store to have the broken filters removed and how delighted our customers are when they find out the filter saved their lens.


----------



## BrentC

webestang64 said:


> I am always amazed at how many lenses come into our store to have the broken filters removed and how delighted our customers are when they find out the filter saved their lens.



I'd be curious on what caused these broken filters and what damaged the filters would have damaged the lens.  Also if a lens hood would have prevented it.  Can you give use some of the causes?


----------



## webestang64

BrentC said:


> webestang64 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am always amazed at how many lenses come into our store to have the broken filters removed and how delighted our customers are when they find out the filter saved their lens.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'd be curious on what caused these broken filters and what damaged the filters would have damaged the lens.  Also if a lens hood would have prevented it.  Can you give use some of the causes?
Click to expand...


At least 75% are from dropped cameras where the lens hit the ground first. Also I have noticed that most do not use a lens hood.


----------



## table1349

webestang64 said:


> BrentC said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> webestang64 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am always amazed at how many lenses come into our store to have the broken filters removed and how delighted our customers are when they find out the filter saved their lens.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'd be curious on what caused these broken filters and what damaged the filters would have damaged the lens.  Also if a lens hood would have prevented it.  Can you give use some of the causes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> At least 75% are from dropped cameras where the lens hit the ground first. Also I have noticed that most do not use a lens hood.
Click to expand...

I find it curious how many people attribute a cheap filter as having "saved" their lens when the do not know it to be true.  But there is more profit in pushing cheap filters rather than pushing the using of the OEM hood ALWAYS.  Len's hoods provide protection.  Protection from stray light as well as protection from objects, bumps and drops.


----------



## webestang64

gryphonslair99 said:


> webestang64 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BrentC said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> webestang64 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am always amazed at how many lenses come into our store to have the broken filters removed and how delighted our customers are when they find out the filter saved their lens.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'd be curious on what caused these broken filters and what damaged the filters would have damaged the lens.  Also if a lens hood would have prevented it.  Can you give use some of the causes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> At least 75% are from dropped cameras where the lens hit the ground first. Also I have noticed that most do not use a lens hood.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I find it curious how many people attribute a cheap filter as having "saved" their lens when the do not know it to be true.  But there is more profit in pushing cheap filters rather than pushing the using of the OEM hood ALWAYS.  Len's hoods provide protection.  Protection from stray light as well as protection from objects, bumps and drops.
Click to expand...


Darn right....filters make for good profit.


----------



## oldcamera

Thanks for all the work and money you put into this. I don't see the answer to the question whether or not to use a filter. If I missed  it I apologize. 


Sent from my iPhone using ThePhotoForum.com mobile app


----------



## OldManJim

I use a filter on all my lenses because, unlike everyone else, my lenses seem to attract fingerprints, dried drops of ?, dust, and various other airborne stuff. I find it's much easier to clean a filter than to risk the coating on the lens. (I don't do much studio type shooting.) When the filter gets scratched, I can just through it away.

If an image I'm making is important to me, I can just remove the filter, take the image, and replace the filter. I do agree that shooting through crappy filters is a dumb idea - unless you're going for "that" look.


----------



## idcanyon

What the heck are you all doing to your cameras that even makes this an issue?

I am a caver and I thoroughly abuse my cameras...mud, water, impacts. In ~20 years the only damage ever done was from really fine powdery dirt getting into a lens, presumably through the the zoom ring. I don't use filters because my lenses aren't at risk in this way. I do use hoods, mainly so I can put cameras into dirty bags without having to put on the lens cap.


----------



## fmw

I have always used UV filters.  They are cheap and don't affect image quality.  I've broken a few front elements before I started using them.  They are nothing but a thin flat piece of optical glass.  If you think that might reduce the contrast you can bump it up a tiny bit in post process.  I don't think it does.


----------



## TheFloridaShooter

nerwin said:


> runnah said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey if you can sell a bit of aluminum and clear glass to people* for $200+ more power to you.
> 
> 
> *morons
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I honestly never understood why some buy really expensive lenses, like $3000 and then put a cheap $5 UV filter on it. I mean come on....
Click to expand...



I have to agree with you!  I've only ever utilized filters for creating the necessary effect.


----------

