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

    • Haven’t you tried using a program that would correct the barrel distortion of whichever lens you might choose to use or buy? There are many, but of the ones I know, I can recommend DXO Photolab, that corrects optical distortions of most lens suitable for Sony cameras and with which you can develop your raw files. I have checked with the version of the DxO Photolab I have, and (just as an example) it does include the profile for the Sigma 24-70mm F/2.8 lens mounted on a Sony AS. I think that buying a program that efficiently corrects optical distortions of lenses would be a cheaper option than buying a lens that would have no distortion at all (which is kind of impossible if thinking of a zoom lens).
    • Had the same problem but it wasn't the dummy. Mine FIRST started with the dummy but soon migrated to EVERY battery swapped out. Lived with that massive inconvenience for a year before I sent the camera in for repair of a wonkified menu system. Though there's no user swappable memory battery there must be an internal one that keeps a wee amount of power keeping things charged when the battery flatlines.
    • Hello, I do a lot of clothing photography (the clothes are laid flat and the camera is overhead facing the ground about 3.5-4 ft above) and I currently use a Sony A6000 with a sigma 16mm lens. It works pretty good. There is some barrel distortion which I guess is to be expected.  I am looking to upgrade to a FF (likely Sony AS iii) and I'm exploring lens choice. I'm considering the sigma 24mm-70mm F2.8 DG DN art lens because I'm hoping to buy one lens to not only satisfy my clothing photography needs, but also do portraits, video, ect. ect. Sigma also seems somewhat equivalent to the Sony G series and lot cheaper.  Would using a prime lens really be beneficial over a zoom one for my clothing photography? I'd like to avoid barrel distortion if possible but I'm also trying to avoid buying a bunch of costly equipment. Open to all ideas and advice. 
    • Olaf!!!!! I just did a test with my GH5 with 120fps and it has the same effect!! So i guess its the IKEA light 🙂 Tanks for your input again.  
    • Hi Olaf. Thanks for the input.  Its artificial light from IKEA 🙂   I just tested again and the effect is much more visible shooting in 60 or 120fps. By 24fps its moderate. But the footage would be unusable. I really don't know what to do. 
  • Topics

×
×
  • Create New...