Jump to content

To use a filter or not to use a filter on a lens?


Recommended Posts

I'm using filters on my lenses for the following reasons:

 - If you buy good quality filters, the impact on the optical quality of the lens in my opinion is negligible (like 0.3% light loss and almost zero additional ghosting/flare).

 - I clean my lenses quite often. Even when first blowing/brushing off dust before a wet wipe, you'll inadvertedly cause abrasion on the front element. In time, the degradation of the coating on this element will have adverse effects on image quality as well. Replacing a front filter is cheap, replacing a front lens element not so much.

 - Don't expect the filter glass to protect your front element from a direct impact with a solid object, but having some metal ring protruding beyond the front element certainly helps in keeping it from harm. A lot of impact energy can be dissipated by the deformation of the filter ring before wrecking the front of your lens. Always keeping the lens hood on also helps here.

- Resale value: a minor scratch on the front element (e.g. by accidentally rubbing a grain of sand over the lens while cleaning it) won't affect image quality much, but it severely affects resale value.

Have a read here, you might find it interesting:

https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2017/06/the-comprehensive-ranking-of-the-major-uv-filters-on-the-market/

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

Have a read at that link I posted, some good ones there. Filters always affect image quality, but good quality filters have such incredibly small influence that - in my opinion - the influence is negligible.

Some people however just don't accept anything that might affect image quality. Filters are not for them.

Edited by Pieter
Link to post
Share on other sites

I only use a filter when it produces an effect I want or to experiment on what results a new filter type gives.

There is no evidence that significant protection is gained from normal UV type filters so I rarely use them on digital (film is highly UV sensitive so I do  use them for film). Many experiments show that impact damage can be increased by such a filter, but with salt spray etc their protection is meaningful.

I regularly use infra red filters, polarisers, & (at least fairly often) one of a host of more exotic filters. I typically get huge differences from using filters :)

With most lenses I find the IQ effect from using cheap old filters to be perfectly acceptable, but on my 150-500 and other very long focal length lenses regular filters can give visual problems.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 months later...
On 11/26/2020 at 11:56 AM, Pieter said:

I'm using filters on my lenses for the following reasons:

 - If you buy good quality filters, the impact on the optical quality of the lens in my opinion is negligible (like 0.3% light loss and almost zero additional ghosting/flare).

 - I clean my lenses quite often. Even when first blowing/brushing off dust before a wet wipe, you'll inadvertedly cause abrasion on the front element. In time, the degradation of the coating on this element will have adverse effects on image quality as well. Replacing a front filter is cheap, replacing a front lens element not so much.

 - Don't expect the filter glass to protect your front element from a direct impact with a solid object, but having some metal ring protruding beyond the front element certainly helps in keeping it from harm. A lot of impact energy can be dissipated by the deformation of the filter ring before wrecking the front of your lens. Always keeping the lens hood on also helps here.

- Resale value: a minor scratch on the front element (e.g. by accidentally rubbing a grain of sand over the lens while cleaning it) won't affect image quality much, but it severely affects resale value.

Have a read here, you might find it interesting:

https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2017/06/the-comprehensive-ranking-of-the-major-uv-filters-on-the-market/

All excellent points.  I've had a very expensive lens saved because I had a filter on the front -- it broke the fall.  I've also had a very expensive lens saved because I had a METAL lens hood on the front -- it broke the fall.  No, I'm not clumsy, and it was a LOT cheaper to replace the filter and the lens shade.  Just make sure your lens shades are metal.

And I agree that a good quality filter will not degrade the image enough to make a difference, BUT a correct lens shade WILL make it better in lots of cases.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I generally use filters. Although I do use lenses with no filter in terrible conditions that require cleaning multiple times a day and had no issues except 1 time on a boat. The coating got marred some. Otherwise, no issues. And the 1 time was an old legacy lens. The reason I didn't use a filter those times were the lenses were fisheyes.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have uv filters on all my lenses except my Tamron 15-30mm and my Minolta 500mm reflex (they don't have filter threads) for protection.

I then have a Firecrest filter holder that I use with Formatt Hitech,  Polariing, ND and ND grad/reverse grad filters.

The Minolta reflex lens has rear mounted ND filters that slot into the lens mounting.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, slackercruster said:

I generally use filters. Although I do use lenses with no filter in terrible conditions that require cleaning multiple times a day and had no issues except 1 time on a boat. The coating got marred some. Otherwise, no issues. And the 1 time was an old legacy lens. The reason I didn't use a filter those times were the lenses were fisheyes.

Just curious.  Why would use NOT use filters "in terrible conditions"?  It seems to me that those would be the BEST times to use filters.

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, thebeardedgroundsman said:

I have uv filters on all my lenses except my Tamron 15-30mm and my Minolta 500mm reflex (they don't have filter threads) for protection.

I then have a Firecrest filter holder that I use with Formatt Hitech,  Polariing, ND and ND grad/reverse grad filters.

The Minolta reflex lens has rear mounted ND filters that slot into the lens mounting.

FYI, Minolta's 500mm reflex lenses have filter threads -- TWO, in fact.

They have a 39mm rear filter thread, and they have a 77mm front filter thread:

http://www.subclub.org/minman/500.htm

These also have an INTEGRAL rear 39mm UV filter that is part of the optical system -- and is often mistakenly removed.

Their 100-500mm zooms have 72mm front threads:

http://www.subclub.org/minman/1005008.htm

FYI, any 500mm reflex lens CLAIMING to be f8 with a filter thread LESS than 77mm can not possibly be f8.  There are MANY out there.  These are f8.5 at best and suffer from severe light fall off.

Edited by XKAES
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for that info Xkaes, my 500 reflex didn't come with a handbook, so I assumed the lens hood was integral,. As it turned out, it was just screwed in really tightly. 

The filter diameter is 82mm and the rear one is a drop in filter rather than a screw thread.

I guess I'm about to purchase a new UV filter and steppe ring!

PS, Skip the step up ring - the Firecrest filter holder is based on an 82mm ring - Result!

Cheers

Edited by thebeardedgroundsman
Found that filter holder has 82mm ring
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, thebeardedgroundsman said:

Thanks for that info Xkaes, my 500 reflex didn't come with a handbook, so I assumed the lens hood was integral,. As it turned out, it was just screwed in really tightly. 

The filter diameter is 82mm and the rear one is a drop in filter rather than a screw thread.

I guess I'm about to purchase a new UV filter and steppe ring!

PS, Skip the step up ring - the Firecrest filter holder is based on an 82mm ring - Result!

Cheers

You must be using an AF Minolta 500mm -- MAXXUM or Sony lens.  That has an 82mm front thread.  Minolta's earlier manual focus models had a 77mm front thread.  The optical design is basically the same for both, but they added an extra element in the MAXXUM AF model to allow for auto-focusing.  My understanding is that it is the only auto-focusing CAT ever made.  Sony just re-badged it as "SA50080" -- or something like that.

Edited by XKAES
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Posts

    • OSS (stabilized optics) and IBIS (stabilized sensor) work in conjunction so the combined stabilization will be better than either one separately. The difference isn't huge though: remember that if the combined stabilization is twice as effective, it's only one stop. So e.g. if both OSS and IBIS give 4 stops of stabilization, the combination might give up to 5 stops of stabilization (not 8). Each type of stabilization has its strengths and weaknesses though: OSS can't correct for roll motion but from personal experiece it's better for video than IBIS. OSS can also correct pitch and yaw motion better than IBIS, which is especially relevant for long tele lenses. When combined, you benefit from the strengths of each type of stabilization.
    • I’ve bought two different lenses, and had the same issue. First I bought a cannon lens adapter, and a Yongnuo YN50mm F1.8, and then I went onto buy a Sony compatible lense called the Meike 35mm F1.7. When I try to to change the aperture with the AEL button, it pops up a tab saying  “This operation or setting not available as follows”. When I try to use the dial on top, the f stop stays blank, and does not change. With the Meike lense, there is an aperture ring, which allows me to control how much light comes in but I can’t see any difference I’m the depth of field? I’m frustrated and confused and help helps!
    • My a850 probably uses a different battery, but the "dynamics" are probably the same.  It's a rechargeable Lithium-Ion battery pack. It states in the manual that when the light on the charger goes out, a "Normal charge is completed".  It goes on to states that one hour AFTER the led goes out, a "Full charge is completed". It goes on to state that a "Normal charge" for a "fully depleted" battery takes 175 minutes.  A "Full charge" takes 235 minutes. It does NOT state what percentage you will get from a "Normal charge".  I have to assume it is below 100%. Why the LED goes out before a "Full charge" is completed is a puzzler to be, but maybe you should read the fine print in your manual.  It very well may say the same thing as my manual -- in small print with an asterisk.  Assuming that you have a relatively new battery, try charging it until the LED goes out.  Then check the percentage.  I bet it will be below 100%.  Then charge it for another hour and see what you get. It may also be different if you are charging in the camera versus in a charger (my only option).
    • Try using the battery all the way down to around 15% charge or so. Then charge it back up and see if it gets to 100%.
    • Does the usage of stabilized lens (like Sony FE 24-70mm f2.8 GM) on stabilized body (like Sony a7c) give us double stabilization? Will it have an advantage over non stabilized lens (like Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 DG DN Art)?
  • Topics

×
×
  • Create New...