# To filter or not to filter



## Nici

I know there is much substance for ND fitters and Gradient Filters.  The UV protection filters are manly used as protection from breakage and scratches to the mostly very expensive lenses.  There is also much debate as to how much sharpness is compromised in using the UV protectors.  We all know more glass equals less sharpness.    I have always used UV protectors and all my lenses are equipped with one, but after taking the UV protector off my prime Nikon 35mm lens, I could definitely see a difference.   With kit lenses and the cheaper zoom lenses, wouldn't it make even more of a difference to the sharpness and overall satisfaction of a decent, sharp shot.   What are the views out there..  Would love to hear what others think...


----------



## Overread

Few thoughts:
1) Modern DSLRS don't need UV light filtration to take place as they have their own built in filters and coatings on the lens. You might need a UV filter to filter out the UV light if you are shooting at very high altitudes where the UV content is higher. 
As such a clear glass filter is just as effective for protection.

2) A filter of any kind will only offer production against dust, light liquids (rain) and very small particles. It won't stop stones or sticks and if it shatters will  actually cause more damage because:
a) You've got shattered glass from the filter scratching the front element
b) You run the risk that if dropped the filter thread will buckle and get stuck on the lens.

3) Filter glass is VERY think whilst front element glass on most lenses is actually significantly thicker. The result is a knock or bump that shatters the filter likely would not have done much to the lens elements - of course point 2a comes to the fore if you've just shattered your filter.

4) Filters come in many grades and many cheap ones are low grade and thus will affect your image quality; some of the worst can even confuse AF systems. 
In general if you're going to use them use high end options which will have a negligible effect on image quality (esp after editing). 

I'd use a filter for protection if I were shooting on a very sandy beach in good wind just so that I could wipe the element clean of sand without worrying about scratches. I wouldn't bother with a protection filter for general use as general situations that cause likely damage will exceed what the filter can protect from  and often just having the lens hood on is enough protection from many things.


----------



## weepete

I don't use them, they can cause more issues than they solve. 

Lenses in my mind are tools and there is going to be some wear and tear on them, sometimes a bit of damage is unavoidable but they are pretty durable.

But if you really want to keep that lens in top condition don't take it out of the box. Hell, stick the box in a protective box and put it on a shelf, never take it out and you can rest assured that you'll be keeping it in the best condition possible.


----------



## Designer

Nici said:


> With kit lenses and the cheaper zoom lenses, wouldn't it make even more of a difference to the sharpness and overall satisfaction of a decent, sharp shot.   What are the views out there..  Would love to hear what others think...


There is a difference in quality among filters of any type, so if one chooses to put a filter on the front, you should use the best quality that you can afford.  Better filters are made of optically better glass, made flatter, and are coated with better coatings.  

The anti-reflective coatings however are much softer than glass.  Protecting the coatings on the front element makes some sense, but even a good filter will not protect the coatings if it is smashed into the coatings upon breaking.  The glass of the front element is pretty tough.  Besides; small chips and scratches will have a fairly minimal effect on the image being captured.    

The effect of a filter will not have a greater effect on a cheap lens than a more expensive lens, it will be the same effect on the image.  Not having to be overly concerned about the coatings on your cheap lens just makes it easier and more carefree to make photographs without having to worry about whether there is a filter on it.


----------



## astroNikon

I put tightly stretched saran-wrap over my Heliopan UV-IR multi-coated filter to protect the filter from dust and scratches.  

okay, not really.  

If you want to use a filter buy the best one that you can and not the 3 pack filters for $15.99 off of amazon shipped from HongKong/China for free.  Go to a camera website and look at those. Adorama, BHphotography, etc instead.


----------



## DarkShadow

I couldn't pick because you left the option out to buy one and use it for a beverage coaster or as a mini frisbee.


----------



## table1349

Using a UV filter for "Protection" is like a eunuch using a condom to prevent pregnancy.  This is not a space shuttle, redundancy is not required.


----------



## pixmedic

I use filters for protection all the time. 







Sent from my SM-N900P using Tapatalk


----------



## xenskhe

Nici have a read here:
Are digital sensors sensitive to UV?

If I use one on a digital it's to reduce UV. The potential loss of sharpness would be negligible among other factors that might be an influence (handshake, misfocus). If a camera and lens aren't on a strap around my neck/shoulder, they're (lens facing upward) in a shoulder bag, wrapped in a pashmina, and with a lens shade fitted.


----------



## The_Traveler

If your images are good, why would you dick around trying to find yet some other device to affect your image and light transmission?

The camera is a tool to make an image.
The camera is not the item of worship.


----------



## Nici

weepete said:


> I don't use them, they can cause more issues than they solve.
> 
> Lenses in my mind are tools and there is going to be some wear and tear on them, sometimes a bit of damage is unavoidable but they are pretty durable.
> 
> But if you really want to keep that lens in top condition don't take it out of the box. Hell, stick the box in a protective box and put it on a shelf, never take it out and you can rest assured that you'll be keeping it in the best condition possible.[/QU


----------



## Nici

Nici said:


> weepete said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't use them, they can cause more issues than they solve.
> 
> Lenses in my mind are tools and there is going to be some wear and tear on them, sometimes a bit of damage is unavoidable but they are pretty durable.
> 
> But if you really want to keep that lens in top condition don't take it out of the box. Hell, stick the box in a protective box and put it on a shelf, never take it out and you can rest assured that you'll be keeping it in the best condition possible.[/QU
Click to expand...


Thank you for your feedback.  Although your comment gave me a grin at the end, you are absolutely correct in what you say... and since I've gotten so far to take camera and lens out of the box, I can just as well go the extra mile in believing I am able to take good care of both without sacrificing image quality.


----------



## Derrel

No need for a UV filter for protection. Buy a high-quality circular polarizer filter. Cheap polarizers can be pretty bad sharpness robbers. I used to sell photo and video equipment years ago. Filters were always sold as a way to, "Protect your investment." That is because we got a $12 spiff for selling a $2.29 filter for $29.95. Filters have exceptionally high markups on them.

If you think a filter "protects" a lens, that's not really true. YouTube has a nice video demo showing how incredibly WEAK a thin, flat plane sheet of optical glass is. In pretty well-controlled drop tests, the video maker shows that filters break quite easily when struck.

Watch as this fellow takes a broken Canon 50mm f/1.8 EF-II, the *Iffy Fifty*, and pounds on it. Do you think a filter is needed to protect against an accidental finger-smudge, or an errant dog tongue? Or against a mean old soda straw protruding from a McDonald's cup?


----------



## fmw

xenskhe said:


> Nici have a read here:
> Are digital sensors sensitive to UV?
> 
> If I use one on a digital it's to reduce UV. The potential loss of sharpness would be negligible among other factors that might be an influence (handshake, misfocus). If a camera and lens aren't on a strap around my neck/shoulder, they're (lens facing upward) in a shoulder bag, wrapped in a pashmina, and with a lens shade fitted.



It might be valuable to know that a UV filter is just plain, clear, flat optical glass.  All glass filters some UV light, including the glass in lens.  No, UV filters have no effect on image quality except in very rare circumstances.


----------



## Nici

The_Traveler said:


> If your images are good, why would you dick around trying to find yet some other device to affect your image and light transmission?
> 
> The camera is a tool to make an image.
> The camera is not the item of worship.


Harsh word but great perspective.   Thank you...  This is indeed food for thought and I appreciate your feedback.


----------



## pixmedic

Yup. UV filters work great!
Not having any quality dampening issues with mine.







Sent from my SM-N900P using Tapatalk


----------



## Derrel

Zeikos--the best $1.99 filter when bought wholesale by the gross. For a mere $286.56 per gross, a camera shop or internet-ordering photo place could price those at $29.95 per filter, for a total receipts point of up to $4,312.80.

Of course, any decent camera salesman would gladly offer this type of magnificent UV filter at a hefty "discount" of  $19.95 if he needed to close a deal and keep his accessories total to the company's minimum accessory level to collect a nice spiff.

Even if a lousy salesman discounted every one of a gross of $1.99 filters down to $19.95, the company's $286.56 wholesale investment would still rake in $ 2,872.80.

Zeikos....yeah, baby! Pure, coated optical glass, *guaranteed safe* for Perrier-grade use on all the continents.


----------



## 480sparky

The_Traveler said:


> .............The camera is a tool to make an image.
> The camera is not the item of worship.



I nominate this for Post of the Year.


----------



## 480sparky

Derrel said:


> No need for a UV filter for protection. Buy a high-quality circular polarizer filter. Cheap polarizers can be pretty bad sharpness robbers. I used to sell photo and video equipment years ago. Filters were always sold as a way to, "Protect your investment." That is because we got a $12 spiff for selling a $2.29 filter for $29.95. Filters have exceptionally high markups on them.
> 
> If you think a filter "protects" a lens, that's not really true. YouTube has a nice video demo showing how incredibly WEAK a thin, flat plane sheet of optical glass is. In pretty well-controlled drop tests, the video maker shows that filters break quite easily when struck.
> 
> Watch as this fellow takes a broken Canon 50mm f/1.8 EF-II, the *Iffy Fifty*, and pounds on it. Do you think a filter is needed to protect against an accidental finger-smudge, or an errant dog tongue? Or against a mean old soda straw protruding from a McDonald's cup?


----------



## D-B-J

I use filters for 85% of what I shoot.  I'm a huge proponent of the lee system, and if you have a few minutes you can read the blog post I'll attach below. It covers why I think people should use filters, what they're for, how they work, and includes some examples as to what you can achieve when using them. 

Neutral Density Filters and Why You Need Them for Landscape Photography

Best,
Jake


----------



## robbins.photo

fmw said:


> xenskhe said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nici have a read here:
> Are digital sensors sensitive to UV?
> 
> If I use one on a digital it's to reduce UV. The potential loss of sharpness would be negligible among other factors that might be an influence (handshake, misfocus). If a camera and lens aren't on a strap around my neck/shoulder, they're (lens facing upward) in a shoulder bag, wrapped in a pashmina, and with a lens shade fitted.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It might be valuable to know that a UV filter is just plain, clear, flat optical glass.  All glass filters some UV light, including the glass in lens.  No, UV filters have no effect on image quality except in very rare circumstances.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but that simple is not true.  Low cost UV filters do have a very noticeable loss in IQ on higher mp sensors.  I can't speak to the high end UV filters because frankly I never purchased one to test.  Considered it a ridiculous waste of money myself.  But I can personally attest to the fact that your average UV filter does indeed degrade image quality on a 24mp sensor.

Sent from my N9518 using Tapatalk


----------



## fmw

OK, I'll make you a deal.  I promise never to suggest the use UV filters on this forum if you will promise to leave me alone.


----------



## Overread

fmw said:


> OK, I'll make you a deal.  I promise never to suggest the use UV filters on this forum if you will promise to leave me alone.



If you are having problems with another member we recommend that you:
1) Use the ignore feature built into the site 
2) Use the report feature to contact the admin/mods to air your concerns about the users behaviour 
3) Contact a member of the moderating/admin staff via private messages/conversations to discuss the problem

In some instances simply discussing matters with the person in private yourself can also result in a resolution to the problem.


----------



## fmw

Thanks.  I can take care of myself.


----------



## pixmedic




----------



## 480sparky

I don't bother using filters for protection as there is no empirical evidence they prevent the spread of STDs.


----------



## Stradawhovious

Here is why I stopped using filters.

This is the front element of my Nikkor 180mm f/2.8  The damage is a little worse than it appears in this photo, and some of those scratches are deep.  For obvious reasons I didn't pay a whole lot of money for it.






This lens takes fantastic photos.  I have yet to see ANY evidence of those scratches on any of the images I have taken with it.  (sample below)

Kicker... many of those scratches were caused by a damaged UV filter.  

Here's a sample image from that 180mm with the scratchy front element.


----------



## astroNikon

Stradawhovious said:


> Here is why I stopped using filters.
> 
> This is the front element of my Nikkor 180mm f/2.8  The damage is a little worse than it appears in this photo, and some of those scratches are deep.  For obvious reasons I didn't pay a whole lot of money for it.
> 
> View attachment 118116
> 
> 
> This lens takes fantastic photos.  I have yet to see ANY evidence of those scratches on any of the images I have taken with it.  (sample below)
> 
> Kicker... many of those scratches were caused by a damaged UV filter.
> 
> Here's a sample image from that 108mm with the scratchy front element.
> 
> View attachment 118117



You needed to put a plastic UV filter over the glass UV filter in order to protect it.


----------



## Stradawhovious

astroNikon said:


> You needed to put a plastic UV filter over the glass UV filter in order to protect it.



Tell that to the guy I bought it from!  I don't filter my glass unless the filter is supposed to affect the image somehow.


----------



## 480sparky

astroNikon said:


> You needed to put a plastic UV filter over the glass UV filter in order to protect it.



What kind of UV filter will I need to protect the plastic UV filter?


----------



## Derrel

pixmedic said:
			
		

> View attachment 118083






Okay,okay, time for a little user-directed mediation on this issue. And remember, it is now, and always shall be---*LADIES first*, Pixmedic!!!


----------



## Derrel

480sparky said:


> astroNikon said:
> 
> 
> 
> You needed to put a plastic UV filter over the glass UV filter in order to protect it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What kind of UV filter will I need to protect the plastic UV filter?
Click to expand...


The UV filter brand or type of coating system is not all that important--what's important is the cleaning system used to keep the precision coated optical surfaces immaculate. Whatever one thinks of the brand wars, realize that NIKON is the leader in helping Canon users keep their optics clean. Check out Nikon's high tech cleaning system for non-Nikon users, here, on one of my favorite sites, Camera Quest: Nikon Prototype Lens Cleaner for Canon Lenses


----------



## 480sparky

Derrel said:


> The UV filter brand or type of coating system is not all that important--what's important is the cleaning system used to keep the precision coated optical surfaces immaculate. Whatever one thinks of the brand wars, realize that NIKON is the leader in helping Canon users keep their optics clean. Check out Nikon's high tech cleaning system for non-Nikon users, here, on one of my favorite sites, Camera Quest: Nikon Prototype Lens Cleaner for Canon Lenses



Those are for Canon lenses.  What kind do I need for Nikkors?  A Minolta cleaner? Pentax? Zeiss?


----------



## Derrel

I like the Pentax microfiber cleaning cloths for my Nikkors. The gray ones. No longer available unfortunately, having been supplanted by the SupaClean line.

I've had good luck with the Hanes brand cleaning system. Hanes Men's Classic Crew (Pack of 3) at Amazon Men’s Clothing store: Undershirts


----------



## xenskhe

Derrel said:


> The gray ones.



The gray ones are known to seriously reduce image quality; the crimson ones in the clear plastic wallets are highly regarded but nowadays very scarce.

And i only use Cokin filters, found in the pockets of old camera bags.


----------



## Dave442

I like filters, nothing like screwing a filter onto the front of a lens. 

Actually, I wish I had used a filter at a waterfall a couple days ago. It was with the macro lens and last night when I pulled it out to take a product shot I noticed some spots on the front element left by the water drops from the waterfall. First I grabbed a handy microfiber cloth to attack the spots, did nothing, tried a lens pen, nothing, finally went through more than a few sheets of lens tissue and drops of eclipse along with much harder than usual pressure to remove the spots. 

Anyway, I think it was just having to take the time to clean the lens when I could have just taken off a dirty filter to get the quick product shot. And reminder to self to clean the lenses at the end of the day.


----------



## nerwin

Nothing better than putting a 8$ UV filter on a $2,000 lens. Okay...I suppose to could get ProMaster's UV filters, they are like $100+. 

But seriously, I don't use them and I stopped using them years ago. I had a decent Nikon NC filter and I did a test with and without and I noticed a huge difference. The shot without the filter was clearly sharper and more contrasty than the one with Nikon's NC filter. 

The only filter I would use are ND and polarizers. I had a very expensive B+W multicoated polarizer but ended up returning it because I didn't care for the effect as much as I thought. Honestly you don't even need a ND filter, you could easily do the same effect by shooting multiple frames at a slow enough shutter speed, on tripod of course, and stack them in photoshop and you will get the same effect. 






Now variable ND filters are very handy for recording video and want to be able to achieve that shallow depth of field during a sunny day. I need to pick on up, but they are not cheap.


----------



## thereyougo!

nerwin said:


> Nothing better than putting a 8$ UV filter on a $2,000 lens. Okay...I suppose to could get ProMaster's UV filters, they are like $100+.
> 
> But seriously, I don't use them and I stopped using them years ago. I had a decent Nikon NC filter and I did a test with and without and I noticed a huge difference. The shot without the filter was clearly sharper and more contrasty than the one with Nikon's NC filter.
> 
> The only filter I would use are ND and polarizers. I had a very expensive B+W multicoated polarizer but ended up returning it because I didn't care for the effect as much as I thought. *Honestly you don't even need a ND filter, you could easily do the same effect by shooting multiple frames at a slow enough shutter speed, on tripod of course, and stack them in photoshop and you will get the same effect. *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now variable ND filters are very handy for recording video and want to be able to achieve that shallow depth of field during a sunny day. I need to pick on up, but they are not cheap.



(My bolding) Wash your mouth out.  Fake 'long' exposures are an aberration on photography (IMO of course).


----------



## nerwin

thereyougo! said:


> nerwin said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing better than putting a 8$ UV filter on a $2,000 lens. Okay...I suppose to could get ProMaster's UV filters, they are like $100+.
> 
> But seriously, I don't use them and I stopped using them years ago. I had a decent Nikon NC filter and I did a test with and without and I noticed a huge difference. The shot without the filter was clearly sharper and more contrasty than the one with Nikon's NC filter.
> 
> The only filter I would use are ND and polarizers. I had a very expensive B+W multicoated polarizer but ended up returning it because I didn't care for the effect as much as I thought. *Honestly you don't even need a ND filter, you could easily do the same effect by shooting multiple frames at a slow enough shutter speed, on tripod of course, and stack them in photoshop and you will get the same effect. *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now variable ND filters are very handy for recording video and want to be able to achieve that shallow depth of field during a sunny day. I need to pick on up, but they are not cheap.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (My bolding) Wash your mouth out.  Fake 'long' exposures are an aberration on photography (IMO of course).
Click to expand...


Hey to each their own.

But its not like you are taking a single frame and manipulating it in photoshop to "look" like a long exposure. It's still multiple exposures taken at an interval and then blended together to simulate a single long exposure frame without having a darkened piece of glass in front of your lens where you require a tripod. Its just another way of getting this kind of shot. I forgot to mention that you don't need a tripod to do it this way, hand holding is fine as long as you don't move too much. No idea why I said you need a tripod. 

Is it ideal in all situations? Absolutely not. But it could work in a pinch if you don't have a tripod with you and or invested in good quality set of ND filters.

But I'm sorry I offended you. Didn't mean it, just giving my opinion.


----------



## thereyougo!

nerwin said:


> thereyougo! said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nerwin said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing better than putting a 8$ UV filter on a $2,000 lens. Okay...I suppose to could get ProMaster's UV filters, they are like $100+.
> 
> But seriously, I don't use them and I stopped using them years ago. I had a decent Nikon NC filter and I did a test with and without and I noticed a huge difference. The shot without the filter was clearly sharper and more contrasty than the one with Nikon's NC filter.
> 
> The only filter I would use are ND and polarizers. I had a very expensive B+W multicoated polarizer but ended up returning it because I didn't care for the effect as much as I thought. *Honestly you don't even need a ND filter, you could easily do the same effect by shooting multiple frames at a slow enough shutter speed, on tripod of course, and stack them in photoshop and you will get the same effect. *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now variable ND filters are very handy for recording video and want to be able to achieve that shallow depth of field during a sunny day. I need to pick on up, but they are not cheap.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (My bolding) Wash your mouth out.  Fake 'long' exposures are an aberration on photography (IMO of course).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey to each their own.
> 
> But its not like you are taking a single frame and manipulating it in photoshop to "look" like a long exposure. It's still multiple exposures taken at an interval and then blended together to simulate a single long exposure frame without having a darkened piece of glass in front of your lens where you require a tripod. Its just another way of getting this kind of shot. I forgot to mention that you don't need a tripod to do it this way, hand holding is fine as long as you don't move too much. No idea why I said you need a tripod.
> 
> Is it ideal in all situations? Absolutely not. But it could work in a pinch if you don't have a tripod with you and or invested in good quality set of ND filters.
> 
> But I'm sorry I offended you. Didn't mean it, just giving my opinion.
Click to expand...


No offence taken at all.  Just different horses etc...


----------



## robbins.photo

nerwin said:


> But I'm sorry I offended you. Didn't mean it, just giving my opinion.



You never seem sorry when you offend me.  Come to think of it, you never ask for a second cup of my coffee either... hmmm..

Lol


----------



## 480sparky

robbins.photo said:


> ......... Come to think of it, you never ask for a second cup of my coffee either... hmmm..
> 
> Lol


----------



## nerwin

robbins.photo said:


> nerwin said:
> 
> 
> 
> But I'm sorry I offended you. Didn't mean it, just giving my opinion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You never seem sorry when you offend me.  Come to think of it, you never ask for a second cup of my coffee either... hmmm..
> 
> Lol
Click to expand...


Then I'm sorry I offended you. If I always offend people, I guess there isn't any reason for me to stick around haha.


----------



## robbins.photo

nerwin said:


> Then I'm sorry I offended you. If I always offend people, I guess there isn't any reason for me to stick around haha.



Actually I would think that would be the best reason to stick around.  If not then what are all these poor souls going to be able to vent that righteous outrage on?  Come on man, it's a public service.  Lol


----------



## astroNikon

robbins.photo said:


> nerwin said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then I'm sorry I offended you. If I always offend people, I guess there isn't any reason for me to stick around haha.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually I would think that would be the best reason to stick around.  If not then what are all these poor souls going to be able to vent that righteous outrage on?  Come on man, it's a public service.  Lol
Click to expand...

It's like a Banana with no appeel.  A-Peel .. banana .. get it ... never mind


----------



## robbins.photo

astroNikon said:


> It's like a Banana with no appeel.  A-Peel .. banana .. get it ... never mind



Umm.. hmm... could you go over that middle part again?  Lol


----------



## chuasam

Many Nikon AF-S lenses have a cheap plastic border around the lens. The filter is good for protecting that ring. This is more to do with resale value.


----------



## table1349

astroNikon said:


> It's like a Banana with no appeel.  A-Peel .. banana .. get it ... never mind


----------



## table1349

chuasam said:


> Many Nikon AF-S lenses have a cheap plastic border around the lens. The filter is good for protecting that ring. This is more to do with resale value.


Then get a $2.00 uv filter, take the glass out and screw the filter ring into the lens ring.  No IQ degradation.


----------



## Watchful

When flat glass alters a light path, we need to make lenses out of air...but air causes refractions...OK, new lenses made purely from vacuum.
Solved.


----------



## chuasam

Watchful said:


> When flat glass alters a light path, we need to make lenses out of air...but air causes refractions...OK, new lenses made purely from vacuum.
> Solved.


Not as good as B+W filters which are made of pure hype.


----------



## astroNikon

Watchful said:


> When flat glass alters a light path, we need to make lenses out of air...but air causes refractions...OK, new lenses made purely from vacuum.
> Solved.


I should stick a vacuum cleaner on the end of my camera?
That sucks
Or vacuums I mean

But it does bring a new meaning to clean air


----------



## table1349

astroNikon said:


> Watchful said:
> 
> 
> 
> When flat glass alters a light path, we need to make lenses out of air...but air causes refractions...OK, new lenses made purely from vacuum.
> Solved.
> 
> 
> 
> I should stick a vacuum cleaner on the end of my camera?
> That sucks
> Or vacuums I mean
> 
> But it does bring a new meaning to clean air
Click to expand...

Oh you silly Space Ball you.










May the Schwartz be with you.


----------

