How many of you use lens filters to protect your lenses?   I have either a UV or skylight filter permanently attached to all my mine.  I'd much rather have a $20 piece of glass scratched, get wet or worse... than the actual lens element itself.    Do these filters degrade image quality? Any other pros/cons?  Interested in feedback on this subject.

Thanks,

J:blink:E

Hello,

Well, that is one of the worst subjects in photography.  Because nobody has the "final" answer.
Optical theory (optics to be short)  will say that each time you add an element to a lens the "quality" is affected. Light has a "longer" way to follow. That's pure logic.

But it depends more than on your way to work and on the conditions where the lens will be used. (I won't speak here of the polarizer filter or gradient filters who are designed for specific situations)

Now one question is : is it really necessary to put a $20 UV Filter on a  lens ? :)
I'm using "pro" lenses ($1000-$2000) with "pro" UV Filters $100-$200 HOYA Pro Filter and B+W. (they're are quite expensive because of the big diameter of the lens) and my production come from 80% from studio work (except a stiletto high heeled shoe flying in my direction, no real treat there).

If you want to repair the front lens in case of scratching or break, it cots between $250-$300. So make the count ... a friend of mine once said. The only problem is that : if lens would be scratched or worst broken ... I couldn't use it for weeks waiting for the repair. So it costs time and finally money.

The only thing, I can tell you always be careful with your lenses,  adding a uv filter by safety has some sense but it degrades  the quality of your lens. But again in 80% of time you won't notice the quality loss. ( if you put a "cheap" filter on a expensive lens = nonsense and the inverse is also true ). I know that's not THE answer with THE solution but I hope it will help you to make your own choice.

The only thing that is sure (for me) always put the hood on your lens  it is one the first-aid moves for your lens and be careful but not be scared.

Aegy.

Hey Joe,

i think Aegy as said everything ! He is right.
I'm using too some expensive lens (Leica Summicron, elmarit, etc.. about 1000$-3000$), and i work only on the street, no studio.
Like Aegy, i know what my lenses can do, and i want it, not less. So a filter to protect is always something i don't want, because i don't what will be the exact result.
The polarizing filter is different, but you will pay the quality (different because he is here to add an effect, not the UV)

A very good solution is the hood ! Never forget it ! It adds protection & contrast !

See ya ;o)
Olivier

Ditto to the above.

If you want a REAL eye-opener, go into a pro camera shop and ask them to bring out every brand of UV filter they have in the size you're looking for, and lay them down on a white piece of paper/board.

Don't think this is a hassle, it's their job - it used to be mine, and we always looked forward to people who actually want to understand HOW things worked - so understand in doing this you aren't aggravating them in ANY way.

I'll give you a hint, the most expensive one will be the most transparent - obey your budget, but don't skimp, and at least you'll be comfortable with what you're getting in comparison to other brands.

Good luck and have fun!
-Lew ;-)

I concur with the above and prefer to use a lens hood for protection rather than a filter, I very much doubt anyone would be able to actually see a difference in quality in the photograph providing a good quality filter were used, so it is personal preference I believe.

The only lens I do have a UV filter on and leave it on there permanently is my macro lens. I do this because the lens hood is a distinct disadvantage in getting close to insects. I want protection because I am moving the front of the lens close to objects which could damage it.   

Thanks for the feedback.  The 4 used  lenses that I had bought recently already had either Promaster or Minolta Skylight//UV filters attached by the prior owner.   Not real sure of the quality of these filters, but  I like the added protection.  Especially since i go to the beach/shore alot here in New Jersey, where blowing sand and misty salt air are ever present. 

I also had an incident recently with a bunch of turkey Vultures, who got SPOOKED and  LET LOOSE right over me.  UGH! .  :blink:

I'm suddenly missing my white-splattered hat that read "Damn Seagulls!"
Yuck!
-Lew ;-)

MHO is use lens hoods whenever possible, as Ive noticed image degradation on even some of the most expensive filters like Tiffen's and Hoya's... however if youre shooting, as you say near the beach, I'd recommend using a  filter instead (circular polarisers are great on seascapes etc...), as Iv found the salt tends to pack onto the glass, and its just a nasty business trying to clean it off in the wind and grit... Another trick I learned when changing lenses outdoors, is to do this inside a clear plastic bag... this prevents the nasties getting onto your sensor... it saves having to schedule a panic attack for yourself, and cleaning the sensor :)

Here's something you may find useful in a bit of jamb... if you dont have a hood.

http://www.lenshoods.co.uk/

In the studio I don't use UV filters (it's product - not much worry there) because it does make the image a slight less contrast (I like it as punchy as possible), but a friend of mine uses them no matter what because she's had a dog jump up and lick her lens during a shoot.

I use a lens hood most of the time but not always.  Speedy shots have no hood, so I do have clear high quality "uv" filters on most lenses.   I have not noticed a degredation of image quality with high grade filters.  The most costly was for my tele zoom, 82mm.   That one I could have done without since the hood is always on when the lens is used.  Still, I would rather wipe dust and such from a filter than from the lens itself.  So much for that.      TomDart.