To filter or not to filter

"Justin F. Knotzke" wrote in message
...

I just plunked down a lot of change on a rather expensive piece of
glass,
and I am wondering if people generally put protective filters on their
expensive lenses or not.

The lens in question is a wide angled zoom.


I think a lot of it depends on who you are and how you use your equipment.
If you are primarily shooting landscapes or static interior shots, then
being careful with your equipment is probably good enough.

But I shoot primarily outdoor sports (auto racing). During these times, I'm
moving all over the track, and there is dust and small rocks and other
photographers. I *NEED* protective filters for my lenses, especially my
more-expensive 200mm and 400mm lenses.

I keep half-decent UV filters on all my lenses all the time (except my
fisheye which doesn't accept front filters). I will obviously take them off
if I switch to skylight or polarizing filters. On a rare occasion, I will
shoot filterless (using the fisheye, shooting a big landscape, certain night
shots).

"Justin F. Knotzke" wrote in message
...
Hi,

I just plunked down a lot of change on a rather expensive piece of
glass,
and I am wondering if people generally put protective filters on their
expensive lenses or not.

Yes. I am not careful with my gear, as my Sekonic would testify.

--
Martin Francis http://www.sixbysix.co.uk
"Go not to Usenet for counsel, for it will say both no, and yes, and
no, and yes...."

"Justin F. Knotzke" wrote in message
...
quote who= William Graham /:

I know not what others may do, but as for me.....No. I keep my lenses in
the
best protective case I can find when not in use, and then when I use it,
I
remove it from the case, remove the end caps, and attach it to my camera
and
use it. Afterward, I return it to its case. I only use a filter if its
called for in the shot. A possible exception to this rule is if I am
taking
pictures on a boat, or in the wind at the beach, or somewhere else in a
hostile environment where I feel that a protective filter (UV filter) is
called for.

May I ask why you don't feel the need? You mention that you don't feel
you
need the protection in most cases, but what is the downside of having one
on
all the time?

Thanks for the reply,

J
A fair enough question. It's because I feel that the optical quality of the
lens might be compromised by the lesser/inferior quality of the filter. IOW,
why spend a lot of money on a high quality lens, only to shoot all your
pictures through a windowpane? Now, in all fairness, a good quality filter
should be a lot better than a windowpane, but still and all, unless you
really need the protection, why not just use the lens, and nothing but the
lens?

"William Graham" wrote in message
news:1FaYc.327500$a24.53842@attbi_s03...

A fair enough question. It's because I feel that the optical quality of
the
lens might be compromised by the lesser/inferior quality of the filter.

Erwin Puts, on his Leica website, states that a good filter might result in
a maximum image degradation of 2%. A bad filter might raise that figure as
high as 10%. So you are correct in saying that the image is compromised,
but the amount is so low as to be insignificant, especially if an excellent
filter is used.

The OP may have simply posed the question incorrectly. If "maximum image
quality" is what the OP is really seeking, there are other factors that will
have a much greater effect on his lens' performance than will the use of a
filter.

For example, if he handholds, rather than use a tripod, his image resolution
drops by many times that of using a filter. If he religiously uses a lens
shade, he will minimize flare from off-axis light, which would degrade his
lens performance significantly more than would a filter. If he selects his
aperture to minimize diffraction and maximize resolution, he will have a
much more satisfactory result.

If the poster wants to maximize his lens' performance, his concern about
whether to use a filter should be near the bottom of the list.

In my particular situation, my lenses are no longer in production and cannot
be easily replaced. I use top quality UV and Skylight filters on all of
them, simply because I cannot afford to risk any unnecessary damage to the
elements. Also, I tend to put greasy fingerprints on my front elements, and
I'd prefer to sacrifice an occasional filter as opposed to risking leaving
cleaning marks on my front elements. And I do find that the filters do have
a positive effect on the images, especially with respect to reducing the
bluish casts in deep shadows. This effect is most often seen with the
skylight filter.

While there is still a very slight image degradation factor, I have decided
to accept it, as the benefits of using filters outweigh their slight
disadvantages, in my opinion. My approach has been to use only top shelf
filters, to keep the quality loss to an absolute minimum.

See link below for a concise and well thought out list of suggestions to
maximize image quality:

http://www.apogeephoto.com/mag4-6/mag4-6traudt.shtml

"Jeremy" wrote in message
ink.net...

"William Graham" wrote in message
news:1FaYc.327500$a24.53842@attbi_s03...

A fair enough question. It's because I feel that the optical quality of
the
lens might be compromised by the lesser/inferior quality of the filter.

Erwin Puts, on his Leica website, states that a good filter might result
in
a maximum image degradation of 2%. A bad filter might raise that figure
as
high as 10%. So you are correct in saying that the image is compromised,
but the amount is so low as to be insignificant, especially if an
excellent
filter is used.

The OP may have simply posed the question incorrectly. If "maximum image
quality" is what the OP is really seeking, there are other factors that
will
have a much greater effect on his lens' performance than will the use of a
filter.

For example, if he handholds, rather than use a tripod, his image
resolution
drops by many times that of using a filter. If he religiously uses a lens
shade, he will minimize flare from off-axis light, which would degrade his
lens performance significantly more than would a filter. If he selects
his
aperture to minimize diffraction and maximize resolution, he will have a
much more satisfactory result.

If the poster wants to maximize his lens' performance, his concern about
whether to use a filter should be near the bottom of the list.

In my particular situation, my lenses are no longer in production and
cannot
be easily replaced. I use top quality UV and Skylight filters on all of
them, simply because I cannot afford to risk any unnecessary damage to the
elements. Also, I tend to put greasy fingerprints on my front elements,
and
I'd prefer to sacrifice an occasional filter as opposed to risking leaving
cleaning marks on my front elements. And I do find that the filters do
have
a positive effect on the images, especially with respect to reducing the
bluish casts in deep shadows. This effect is most often seen with the
skylight filter.

While there is still a very slight image degradation factor, I have
decided
to accept it, as the benefits of using filters outweigh their slight
disadvantages, in my opinion. My approach has been to use only top shelf
filters, to keep the quality loss to an absolute minimum.

See link below for a concise and well thought out list of suggestions to
maximize image quality:

http://www.apogeephoto.com/mag4-6/mag4-6traudt.shtml


A very good article, and I agree with everything he says. However, I think
that even Mr. Traudt would admit that having all those situations maximized
for any given shot is virtually impossible. There are many instances where
one just has to make do with what is available. If you are not doing studio
work, you may not have the control over the lighting, or have a tripod
available, for example. And, in that situation, it is very unlikely that
your lenses will be in danger, so protective filters might not be a good
idea anyway. Also, photography is an expensive hobby, and it is typical of
Mr. Traudt's piece that he assumes that your financial situation allows you
to buy any kind and quality of equipment that you desire. The article is
great in that it gives the photographer a list of exactly what to shoot, or
hope for, and also gives one an understanding of why ones pictures might not
be top quality, but for me, "top quality" has to differ depending on the
situation. I am happy to get the best shot I can under the circumstances,
but the circumstances are usually never what I could hope for if I had
complete control of every situation. Sometimes you just have to grab your
camera and shoot, and the devil take the best choice of film and tripods and
lighting and filters and etc.......Along these lines, I generally carry my
camera on some kind of automatic mode, and with color slide film installed,
and a decent 50 mm lens without any filter. Then, if time and the situation
permits, I will augment this with tripods, lens hoods, other lenses, and the
other things that are suggested in the article.........

William Graham wrote:

"Justin F. Knotzke" wrote in message
...
quote who= William Graham /:

I know not what others may do, but as for me.....No. I keep my lenses in
the
best protective case I can find when not in use, and then when I use it,
I
remove it from the case, remove the end caps, and attach it to my camera
and
use it. Afterward, I return it to its case. I only use a filter if its
called for in the shot. A possible exception to this rule is if I am
taking
pictures on a boat, or in the wind at the beach, or somewhere else in a
hostile environment where I feel that a protective filter (UV filter) is
called for.

May I ask why you don't feel the need? You mention that you don't feel
you
need the protection in most cases, but what is the downside of having one
on
all the time?

Thanks for the reply,

J
A fair enough question. It's because I feel that the optical quality of the
lens might be compromised by the lesser/inferior quality of the filter. IOW,
why spend a lot of money on a high quality lens, only to shoot all your
pictures through a windowpane? Now, in all fairness, a good quality filter
should be a lot better than a windowpane, but still and all, unless you
really need the protection, why not just use the lens, and nothing but the
lens?

In some countries, notably Australia and New Zealand, the preponderance
of UV radiation is much greater than others - ozone hole etc. - and film
shot without a filter can look decidedly blue, despite claims made that
modern lenses are more or less opaque to UV.

Colin D.

quote who= Jeremy /:

The OP may have simply posed the question incorrectly. If "maximum image
quality" is what the OP is really seeking, there are other factors that will
have a much greater effect on his lens' performance than will the use of a
filter.

I was aware of some of the tradeoffs of using a filter vs not before
posting the question. I had googled for existing posts on the subject. I was
more concerned with what people's personal choices were and why.

I was looking to see if quality loss was significant or not and if the
amount of protection offered by a filter was significant or not and how the
two related.

Thanks,

J



--
Justin F. Knotzke

http://www.shampoo.ca

quote who= Al Denelsbeck /:

I have run into too many situations where a filter degrades the
image, and not once have I seen one do any kind of "protection".

I'd be lying Mr Denelsbeck if I wasn't hoping you'd reply to this question
because I had a sense that you would argue that the use of a filter was not
worth the degradation of the image.

I don't think we shoot the same kinds of subjects, but I may be wrong.

My camera goes everywhere with me. I take it to buy milk. Local shop
keepers know me as the guy with the camera. I also drag it with me to cycling
events etc.

Given that I only own one AF body, I have to switch lenses as opposed to
bodies when I shoot sports. I often rent a 80-200AFS and this year, I got a
few questioning looks from the salespeople of my local rental shop when I
brought back the lens with a scatched B+W filter. It happens when I drop the
lens in the bag, yank out the next lens and one of the lenses gets scratched
in the process.

Luckily, they didn't charge me for the filter because they know me (ie make
money off me).

I am going to purchase a Lowepro Steath Reporter bag because I need a way
to swap lenses without scratching filters. However, the point I am attempting
to make is that I'm not as careful as you in how I treat my stuff.


Let me throw this out, what would be the best way to test lens with filter
and lens without filter? Would setting the camera up with a tripod, pointing
it at a brick wall and shooting a frame with filter and without be a good
test? Or should I shoot into the sun? I'd like to maybe see for myself how
much of a different it makes.

Thanks Al,

J



--
Justin F. Knotzke

http://www.shampoo.ca

"Justin F. Knotzke" writes:

quote who= Jeremy /:

The OP may have simply posed the question incorrectly. If "maximum image
quality" is what the OP is really seeking, there are other factors that will
have a much greater effect on his lens' performance than will the use of a
filter.

I was aware of some of the tradeoffs of using a filter vs not before
posting the question. I had googled for existing posts on the subject. I was
more concerned with what people's personal choices were and why.

I was looking to see if quality loss was significant or not and if the
amount of protection offered by a filter was significant or not and how the
two related.

I personally am a huge fan of filters being on by default. THis keeps
salt spray and pineapple punch off my front element, has saved the
front element from scratches, preventing me munting the front thread
on a nikon 20-35 f/2.8 zoom on a rock, and various other things.

If I'm going to be shooting into the sun or know that I can't keep
stray light off the filter for whatever reason, then I'll take it off
and endeavor to be more careful.

Yes, I also use hoods where possible.

B

quote who= Alan Browne /:

I recently surveyed the group on this matter, and you can google
with "survey" "filter".

Ooh, thanks for that Alan. I missed that thread in a recent google.

With a "rather expensive piece of glass" one should perhaps
invest in a multicoated filter rather than the bargains, unless
you believe it will rarely have a filter on it...

Ok. Thanks again for your input. That helps me a lot.

The lens arrives this week. I think I will purchase a filter and then if
someone would be as so kind as to maybe help me setup a test, I'd like to try
a filter on/filter off test. Any ideas Alan what would be a fair test for
this?

Thanks,

J


--
Justin F. Knotzke

http://www.shampoo.ca