Filters? UV?

[vandergus]

You should always have a UV filter on every lens at all times. Always.

Blanket statements like this are not helpful in such conversations. It's obviously a situation where there are pros and cons as stated by people from both sides of the issue. State your preference/reason, allow others to state their preference/reason, then let the reader decide what is best for themselves.

[inkista]

Originally Posted by Elmo

If UV filters are so important why are filter threads omitted on all upper end long telephotos?

S'whah---? I have an EF 400mm f/5.6L USM. It takes a 77mm filter. It's definitely got the threads, and I've definitely slapped a UV onto it. In fact, I should probably replace the UV filter, since it's really munged, now. No idea what happened to it, but the coating is pitted. And the front element of my 400L remains pristine. I prefer replacing/cleaning filters to getting scratches on my lens front elements and/or their coatings.

The reason the huge superteles (e.g., the 800mm) don't have filter threads is because they're too big at the front element for someone to manufacture an effective screw-on filter. They also tend to come with hard cases and $3000+ price tags, so you can pretty much assume someone's going to handle it with kid gloves when they use one--it's not going to be on the camera with the camera hanging on a strap around your neck.

This is a personal preference, but I'm with Major Small--I have UV filters on all my lenses all the time (although like others, I will remove them for the moment if they introduce flare, they go right back on when the shot's over). I shot with a 50mm f/1.8 lens on my OM-10 for 20 years. It was my only lens. I never had a lens cap or a lens hood. I protected that lens with naught but a skylight filter and a Zing. I took that camera/lens with me to Antarctica and the beach. I shot with it in the rain. That 50mm f/1.8 is still in pristine shape with nary a scratch, smudge, or fingerprint on the front element of that lens, and I've never had to clean it.

[dakwegmo]

Originally Posted by vandergus

Blanket statements like this are not helpful in such conversations. It's obviously a situation where there are pros and cons as stated by people from both sides of the issue. State your preference, allow others to state their preference, then let the reader decide what is best for themselves.

Rational comments like this won't be tolerated. Don't you realize this is the internet?

[KimberleyPhotography]

Well I can see there are definitly people for and against this practice. I will have to figure out if the one I got was any good and possibly replace it for one of the better quality brands if thats the case! Thanks!

[blejavac]

I u
have my UVs on all the time..but thats not important
what Ive been wondering for a long time now is how do u put a filter of any kind on a 7mm lens?!?!
Heres an idea: u know how f1 drivers and bikeracers have this foil on their visirs that they just strip of and throw away..well what about a filter foil - soft, somewhat sticky (like the foil on a glas of a new watch or a dvdplayer) - sure it wouldnt be a physical barrier for protecting the lens but would function in matters of light...
hm
L

[thecornflake]

This is a subject I've seen debated before. there are basically two points of view - it's worth having the filter on the lens to protect it all the time, and it degrades IQ. Plus with lots of lenses with different filter threads you have to buy lots of filters.

I've read very convincing articles for both sides of the argument. The only thing I would say is if you are going to use one make sure it's a decent one. Other than that it's down to personal choice, although I do usually see more people saying they use them than not.

I googled and found a comparison here - http://www.pbase.com/jpeper/filter_compare

Also there is an article about possible bad effects of filters here -
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/co...m-feb-05.shtml

Personally I don't use them, if I did it would only be in certain conditions, for example when shooting at the seaside.

[daft_biker]

I hardly ever use filters. They degrade image quality....maybe not so the average user would notice but it's an extra bit of glass (or plastic) in the optical path that I find is almost always unnecesary. (then again some folk don't mind the sort of image quality superzooms provide....each to their own and all that )

I probably use a polariser or ND grad more often than a UV.

Lens hoods....in my opinion that's a much better way to protect the front element whilst shooting. I fit a lens cap when not shooting and use filters only for effect or when I'm photographing bikes splashing through mud and am likely to get splattered.

[ni2sml]

Where possible I'd much rather keep an appropriate hood on the lens for physical protection. No adverse IQ effects at all.

Depends on the environment though. Sand, rain and spray, or when I'm shooting closeups of our pets (I've had my lens licked more than once! ) would be good times to have a protective filter on there, just to keep the front element crud-free.

This is all a bit hypothetical in my case, as I'm still using a point-and-shoot with no hood or filter, but I've got plans to upgrade and so have been thinking on this issue as part of my research. In short, I wouldn't buy an expensive filter to protect a cheap lens (that's just silly, I'd rather put the money toward a better lens!), I wouldn't put a cheap filter on any lens full-time (IQ), and I wouldn't put any filter on an expensive lens full-time (IQ).

It's worth noting that the lens on my current camera has survived nearly 5 years of unprotected use without so much as a scratch, despite such atrocities as being cleaned with the end of my t-shirt and the previously mentioned cat tongue action.

I'd be much more twitchy about mechanical damage to the internals that might happen in a drop or impact.

[inkista]

Just one more opinion, from Neil van Niekerk's blog, Planet Neil. Sometimes having the hood on isn't enough.

[daft_biker]

Originally Posted by inkista

Just one more opinion, from Neil van Niekerk's blog, Planet Neil. Sometimes having the hood on isn't enough.

For me if the camera is slung over my shoulder the lens cap would be on so I'd have no need for a filter in that situation.....

....suspect new lens caps cost less than $110