Lens protection (1 Viewer)

[grumps]

Just a thought for your views.
A friend has an expensive lens and found that a poor protective filter/skylight was affecting the quality of his pictures.
I have a cheaper lens but am wondering if to keep my protective clear filter on or not.

Wonder what most of you do? The lens are 300 amd 400mm

Thanks,

Hugh

 

[stevo]

Ditch the protective filter they affect picture quality,as long as you have a decent lens hood on & are careful when cleaning then i`d not worry.

 

[Roy C]

IMO filters do degrade the IQ of telephotos quite a lot (even med. - good quality ones) - after many trials several years ago I ditched all mine.

 

[grumps]

Thanks-really appreciate your views.

Many thanks again,

Hugh

 

[Steve Babbs]

Another tip: always carry a spare lens-cap, as they're very easy to lose.

 

[Ashley beolens]

I agree with what has been said, I dumped my filters after I found the IQ was affected quite a bit with one attached to my old 100-400.

 

[mrmarklin]

Just a thought for your views.
A friend has an expensive lens and found that a poor protective filter/skylight was affecting the quality of his pictures.
I have a cheaper lens but am wondering if to keep my protective clear filter on or not.

Wonder what most of you do? The lens are 300 amd 400mm

Thanks,

Hugh

I have never understood those who spend a lot of money on a lens and then cheap out on a filter.

That being said there are good filters by B +W, Schneider Optic,

I never really believed in filter protection (but always used itB ) until something sharp poked at my lens cap while I was carrying the camera, cracking the filter beneath. Thank heaven it wasn't the forward element!!! Lens caps are only plastic after all.

I have only Canon L lenses, and use only the above named filters.

 

[hollis_f]

So-called 'protective' filters are, in most circumstances, a waste of money. On a long lens they're nearly always a waste of money. LINK.

 

[frinky]

I use filters for some of my shorter lenses, although they are typically lenses used in the field or where they have shallow lens hoods and so they're very easy to get finger prints, dirt etc on. They sometimes have useful filters on eg CP or ND instead of purely protective UV. Could get away without them but I've spent enough times wiping off salt spray, sticky plant sap etc that I'd be happier not getting such stuff on the front element (or inside the barrel where some front elements move).

In particular my 100mmL macro spends a lot of its time without a lens hood on and being poked in some very mucky, wet, scratchy places, and a filter also completes the weather sealing. I use good quality filters and have never noticed any degradation apart from additional flare in extreme lighting. I would never bother with one on a telephoto lens (other than occasionally a CPL, maybe) or a lens that isn't going to be 'abused' though.

 

[hollis_f]

In particular my 100mmL macro spends a lot of its time without a lens hood on and being poked in some very mucky, wet, scratchy places, and a filter also completes the weather sealing.

Really? Why isn't this mentioned in the manual?

 

[jalethbridge]

I use B+W UC MRC filters on all my lenses below 300mm. I can see no degradation in quality at all. Lenses 300mm and above tend to have much bigger/deeper hoods, and in any event, on the big teles you can't put a filter on anyway, and the front "element" isn't actually in the optical formula, it's just a flat piece.

 

[hollis_f]

on the big teles you can't put a filter on anyway, and the front "element" isn't actually in the optical formula, it's just a flat piece.

'protective' filters use.
Nope. The front element on my 300mm isn't flat. So-called 'protective' filters cause flare and contrast reduction because they are flat. The front element on Canon's big lenses is designed to be easily and, relatively cheaply replaced. It is a protective filter. However, as well as being curved, it's a damn sight thicker than the flimsy glass that

 

[Dave Smith]

I'm pleased to have read this thread. I have always had uv filters on my lenses for protection and have never questioned it. Time for some with and without shots.

Dave

 

[mrmarklin]

I'm pleased to have read this thread. I have always had uv filters on my lenses for protection and have never questioned it. Time for some with and without shots.

Dave

Let us know how it goes.................

On the really big telephotos, the filter is behind the lens. There is no "protective" feature. The filter size on my 600mm lens is 58mm, and is actually a poloarizer.

 

[mr30]

i have the sigma 120-300 OS and have just got a cheap..ish uv filter for it, should i take it off ? :/

does the image quality get that reduced or is it a very small price to pay to protect such a huge piece of glass from damage?

 

[Roy C]

i have the sigma 120-300 OS and have just got a cheap..ish uv filter for it, should i take it off ? :/

does the image quality get that reduced or is it a very small price to pay to protect such a huge piece of glass from damage?

Put it the other way around - the price of the lens is a lot to pay just to stick a cheap filter on it!
Why don't you do a few controlled test shots with and without the filter and judge for your self (this is what I did several years ago before ditching my protective filter).

 

[mr30]

thats a very good point, i'll definately try this cos wouldnt want my lens to be under performing

http://mikesbirdpics.weebly.com/index.html

 

[livefats]

Interesting thread. It is still the case that some lenses (in my experience, the 17-5 EF-S and the 24-105) benefit from an attached filter to improve their weather imperiousness. The 17-55 has a particular problem here.

Also, the resale price of lenses can be affected by an "always used with a UV filer fitted statement."

And I'm a bit of a klutz. I HAVE had damage to filters - never to lenses. The hood solution is fine - unless/until you store the lens with the filer reversed.

 

[mrmarklin]

The hood solution is fine - unless/until you store the lens with the filer reversed.

All too true.

BTW all UV/Haze filters are not made equal. Many are uncoated, and of course will glare etc, esp. with digital cameras.

The best filters are coated and this is greatly reduced if not eliminated.:t:

 

[Steve Babbs]

I have never understood those who spend a lot of money on a lens and then cheap out on a filter.

That being said there are good filters by B +W, Schneider Optic,

I never really believed in filter protection (but always used itB ) until something sharp poked at my lens cap while I was carrying the camera, cracking the filter beneath. Thank heaven it wasn't the forward element!!! Lens caps are only plastic after all.

I have only Canon L lenses, and use only the above named filters.

If I cracked a front element it'd be time for an insurance claim. Accidental damage is certainly included on my household insurance.