To filter or not to filter...

I have recently decided to remove the filters from my lenses when shooting, and I have been quite pleased with the results.

Naturally there will be occassions when a CP or ND Grad will be required, but it has got me wondering, what is the view on the use of filters amongst forum members?

So, to filter, or not to filter, that is my question to you?

Apart from filters being a very nice "add on" for retailers when they sell a lens, they have little usefulness on digital cameras. Graduated and poloarising filters do actually do something, and under some circumstances haze filters may be useful, but for almost everything else the answer is available in Photoshop.

The "protection" issue has been a subject of fierce debate time and time again, so I'll avoid adding to that!

I have just removed mine (hoya) off my lenses, was mucking about taking pictures of the tree decorations, some close-up with slow shutter and was getting some horrendous flares. Thing was only after downloading the card I realised what the cause was, removed the filter on the next attempts no flare at all.

Still have the CPL in the bag, and going to experiment with the ND grads in the near future, more to see if I am going to use them then maybe upgrade them in the future. But as far as going with the permanently fitted skylight/UV filters not any longer.

I have a Circular Polariser permanently attached for landscapes. It makes a huge difference, especially on skies and water, but also enhances colour saturation on all elements in the image. I also use ND Grads for almost all my landscape shots. I have tried shooting without, but the results are poor in comparison.

I have stopped using AV and Skylights as they have no benefit and make the images less sharp, more so on some lenses than others. It's been documented on here before, but it's worth mentioning that the 55-300 hates filters for some reason.

Regards
David

I'm thinking of using a UV filter if/when I go out in the rain. I doubt that adding the filter will affect the IQ of a rain spattered lens - and I'm hoping that, along with a camera cover, it will improve the weather resistance of a K30 and non-WR lens to at least the level that I'd get with a WR lens and no rain cover.

Andrew

Never used them since seeing the detrimental effect they were having on sharpness and detail.

Never used them, lens hoods are for protection, I am not putting £10 worth of glass on the front of my £500+ lenses why would anyone want to do that????

Good point, well made cabstar

I have a UV filter fitted to all my lenses and wouldn't go out without one. On a recent trip abroad I managed to touch/brush the front element of my lovely Fuji X10 five times (I hadn't realised filters could be fitted, I've since discovered otherwise).

With the best will and care in the world, dirt, dust, pollen, grease and finger marks will find their way onto lenses; with a two pound filter fitted I'm happy to clean off the muck with whatever is to hand. I hate touching the front element of any lens.

No doubt the image is horribly degraded but, as the kids say, "whatever..."

I have been cleaning my own lenses for years. I think photographers worry unnecessarily about front elements and protection via filters.

I have seen more lenses damaged from broken filters than lenses damaged without. The front element is also possibly the cheapest element to replace.

A bridge camera is a different kettle of fish as they don't usually have hoods to protect them...

I have filters on some of my film cameras and after an incident involving a 5 year old, a ME super and a pristine 50mm I will continue to use them.

It did however smash the paving slab they hit to pieces.

£10 is a tidy sum.

Some of my lenses can't take filters. The remainder do and are fitted with "expensive protection" filters. The reason for me is simple, I shoot in some very dusty and harsh locations.

Anything in front of a lens will subtract image quality. In an extreme situation link it can be quite bad.....

However, when there is canned drink spray and food flying about or airborne sand etc, it’s easier to clean/replace a HQ filter than chance a Pentax repair centre obtaining a new front element for your lens.

It's an easy exercise to take two shots with and without a filter to see if you can see the difference. Perception is all.

Each to their own.

Best regards

This reply was interesting...

On December 28, 2011 at 5:35 AM
LensRentals Employee
Roger Cicala said:
Eric,
Our point would be there’s no sense using a cheap filter to protect a lens – it reduces image quality. Plus the filter doesn’t protect the lens, it protects only the front element which costs only a tiny fraction of what the lens does. A good example is the Canon 70-200 f4 IS, where the front element costs $79. It makes little sense to buy an expensive filter to protect the front element which costs about the same as a good filter. It makes little sense to put a bad filter on the lens and reduce it’s excellent image quality.

I totally agree with your point made by the quoted reply. Good filter or bad filter? The guy makes two distinctly different statements.

I doubt a Pentax service centre in the UK would provide a front replacement lens element for say the 50-135mm for the equivalent of $79 and would that include labour? Then there’s the waiting time involved for the repair and we are talking Pentax not Canon or Nikon.

I would put a good filter on the front. To date, none of the clients I have taken images for would even see a difference and that is what it comes down to. They would not have a clue if I used Nikon or Pentax never mind a filter or not.

I do agree that technically, image quality is affected by filters.
I shoot with other Pentax users over here that won't use them. We just accept each other’s choices.

Best regards

If you have several lenses and consider the likelihood of damaging the front element, then IMO buying a filter for that reason is not a good investment.... If I have, say, 10 lenses, I have to pay several hundreds to buy filters... And in some cases it could be those very filters damaging the front element.

I used to have filters on all my lenses, but stopped after reading similar threads in the past.