LHRSIMON From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2002, 1342 posts, RR: 25 Posted (6 years 10 months 1 week 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 3170 times:
A quick question in light of my new purchase of a Canon 400 L F5.6
At the moment its not got a filter on the lens. As im in 2 minds.
1) I remember a few months ago a thread about filters and how they effect the picture quality on lenses. To a point where some people did not even use a protective filter of any type.....This seem a great idea and makes sence as the lens has nothing to shoot through !!!
2) BUT is this not a big risk. Theres nothing to protect the glass and any scratch is going to cost big bucks to get fixed.
So the question is do you use filters or take the risk but have better quality photo's
Thanks
Simon C
[Edited 2006-07-15 12:29:38]
Canon 1D Mk III,Canon 20D+17-40 L f4.0,70-200 L IS USM f2.8,400 L USM f5.6,135 mm L f2.0, 50 mm f1.8,1.4 x II extender
Joge From Finland, joined Feb 2000, 1441 posts, RR: 48 Reply 1, posted (6 years 10 months 1 week 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 3160 times:
I got a new lens a week's time back. I don't yet have a filter on it, but I'll be getting one soon. There are more advantages than "issues" about having a filter. Really, if you get for instance one which is multicoated, like the Hoya HMC (which is a very good buy!)
...unless if you go for the cheapo filters, which usually reflect the sunlight badly and indeed they affect the image quality. This problem is not present with the MC filters.
And it's always cheaper to buy a new filter instead of a new lens in case of an accident.
The filters also had more meaning with film cameras, but with DSLRs the white balance settings do the same thing as the filter. As an exception here is the polarizer.
Woody001 From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2004, 529 posts, RR: 24 Reply 2, posted (6 years 10 months 1 week 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 3159 times:
Hi Simon,
I only use HOYA Super HMC Pro1 filters now on the 300 f/4, 70-200 and 100-400L. I have tried different makes and they just degrade the picture quality.
I have actually seen a marked improvement in the quality from the 100-400L lens after using the above filter, gives the images an extra bit of bite.
If you look on here Peter has good prices for filters, he's a good bloke as well.
ManuCH From Switzerland, joined Jun 2005, 2971 posts, RR: 51 Reply 3, posted (6 years 10 months 1 week 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 3159 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW HEAD MODERATOR
I only use a hood and no filter. I have never tried a protective-only filter. I own a multi-coated circular polarizer by B+W, but only use it when - well - there's a use for it.
Honestly I've never considered the use of a protective filter, but then again, by most expensive lens is a 70-200 f/4L. If I had a 400L I'd probably give protective filters a try, and then evaluate myself if there is any loss in quality or not.
Airplanepics From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2003, 2725 posts, RR: 45 Reply 4, posted (6 years 10 months 1 week 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 3155 times:
I don't use any kind of Filter at all. Just the original hood. Before, when I had the Tamron 70-300, I had it for three year's and didn't get a scratch on the glass at all.
If you look after your glass, it'll look after you!
Airplanepics From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2003, 2725 posts, RR: 45 Reply 6, posted (6 years 10 months 1 week 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 3140 times:
Quoting Gary2880 (Reply 5):
especially when in aviation they get heald up to fences so much....
But isn't that what the hood is supposed to do? To protect the glass from object's such as fences?
Javibi From Spain, joined Oct 2004, 1370 posts, RR: 46 Reply 7, posted (6 years 10 months 1 week 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 3137 times:
I dropped my 100-400L once; filter shattered, no damage to the lens. Does this answer your question? Of course always use good quality filters, B+W and Hoya seem to be the most recommended brands.
j
"Be prepared to engage in constructive debate". Are YOU prepared?
Airplanepics From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2003, 2725 posts, RR: 45 Reply 9, posted (6 years 10 months 1 week 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 3128 times:
Quoting Joge (Reply 8): The hood is to avoid reflections from the sun when shooting backlit.
Shouldn't be shooting in backlit condition's anyway!
Since my "discovery" I have only used Hoya Super HMC Pro 1 filters.
However, I have been tempted to do away with filters completely. Why? A combination of reasons actually:
- My 10.5mm fisheye cannot take a filter, so that's one of my lenses that doesn't have one.
- In nearly 35 years of photography I haven't yet managed to scratch a lens or filter.
- I always shoot with a lenshood on - for all but the wide & mid-range zooms, the hood offers nearly as much protection as a filter.
- Any additional piece of glass that you shoot through will reduce the quality of your shots.
- As an amateur I tend to take more care of my kit than many professionals. I feel I'm far less likely to accidentally damage a lens than a pro who throws his kit around.
I understand the "better to damage a filter" philosophy, and have long subscribed to it myself. Now I'm thinking about converting to the other side!
An approach I am considering adopting is to use or not use a filter depending on the conditions. If I'm in dry & dusty conditions, I'll use a filter, otherwise I might go without. I'm on the fence at the moment, but wobbling a bit!
ChrisH From Sweden, joined Jul 2004, 1136 posts, RR: 18 Reply 12, posted (6 years 10 months 1 week 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 3110 times:
Keeping a filter on increases second hand value. There's coating on the front lens, if you keep polishing it now and then for a few years you will wear down the coating.
An expensive Hoya or B+W is cheap compared to a new lens. I never noticed any image degradation.
Dazbo5 From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2005, 2572 posts, RR: 2 Reply 14, posted (6 years 10 months 1 week 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 3071 times:
Personally, I don't use filters of any kind for protection on the basis why pay a fortune for good quality glass then put another piece, whether its good quality or not in front. If you are very careful, always use lens caps when not using the lens, store them carefully (out of reach of kids!) and use them with care, then there should be no need to protect the front element. A lens hood will protect from minor mishaps in most cases. Just be careful and take care of your equipment and everything should be fine.
Darren
Equipment: 2x Canon EOS 50D; Sigma 10-20 EX DC HSM, 50-500 EX APO DG, Canon 24-105 f/4 L, Speedlite 430EX
EDDL From Germany, joined Dec 2002, 738 posts, RR: 17 Reply 15, posted (6 years 10 months 1 week 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 3061 times:
70-200 => Hoya Super HMC ... sometimes I use this lens in harsh weather conditions (rain, snow), therefore always with filter protection. Re-sale value will be higher.
24-85 => Hoya Super HMC ... my wideangle workhorse, often collides with other gear and/or people
50-500 => no filter here, because I couldn't find a good one (86mm, multi-coated), It's more a sunshine-lens, so no problems here.
10-20 => no filter, would need an expensive slim variant ... better quality without extra glass.
50/1.8 => no filter, if there's a scratch on the front element I'll throw the lens away and buy a new one
JeffM From United States of America, joined May 2005, 3266 posts, RR: 53 Reply 17, posted (6 years 10 months 1 week 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 3032 times:
Quoting LHRSIMON (Thread starter): 2) BUT is this not a big risk. Theres nothing to protect the glass and any scratch is going to cost big bucks to get fixed.
Don't use them. Just make sure your gear is insured.
AirbusA346 From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2004, 7434 posts, RR: 2 Reply 18, posted (6 years 10 months 1 week 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 3017 times:
Can somebody show me some reasonablely priced filters for my Sigma 70-300mm.
Tom.
Tom Walker '086' First Officer of a A318/A319 for Air Lambert - Hours Flown: 17 hour 05 minutes (last updated 24/12/05).
Airplanepics From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2003, 2725 posts, RR: 45 Reply 19, posted (6 years 10 months 1 week 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 3013 times:
Quoting AirbusA346 (Reply 18): Can somebody show me some reasonablely priced filters for my Sigma 70-300mm.
What would you count as reasonably priced though? You could spend hundreds on a filter..!
If you are going to put a filter on your lens, put on the best one you can afford. A cheap filter may protect you lens, but it will screw up your shots.
Chris78cpr From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2004, 2813 posts, RR: 52 Reply 21, posted (6 years 10 months 1 week 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 2994 times:
I don't use filters any more as after i conducted tests with several high quality filter brands i found that they all introduced a lack of softness and contrast inmy images.
I now shoot without filters and never ahve a problem.
I don't even own the hood for my 17-40 any more and still have not damaged the glass, and most of you know im not exactly kind to my equipment.
My new 70-200LIS and 24-105 are both filterless and are fine after shooting nearly 1000 images with the two.
Don't bother and just be carefull with the glass. Always use the hood if you can.
Chris
5D2/7D/1D2(soon to be a 1Dx) 17-40L/24-105L/70-200F2.8L/100-400L/24F1.4LII/50F1.2L/85F1.2LII
Fergulmcc From Ireland, joined Oct 2004, 1916 posts, RR: 54 Reply 22, posted (6 years 10 months 1 week 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 2990 times:
Simon
Ever since my holiday to South Africa I haven't used them anymore. I took them off by accident and when I reviewed my photos I found them to be better than with the filter so I left them off. The only filter I use now is the circular polarizer filter, Sigma EX, quite expensive ones but I find they produce better results then the cheaper ones. I am carefull with my gear but as always, accidents can happen, but at least my gear is insured and I can get them repaired.
Quoting LHRSIMON (Thread starter): BUT is this not a big risk. Theres nothing to protect the glass and any scratch is going to cost big bucks to get fixed.
Sure but then look at my 300 f2.8 and the 500 f4, you can't fit any filter on them, other than a drop in one at the back, but they do both have a rather long hood so I tend to always use put the hoods on my lenses when I'm using them, I feel there is enough protection there.
If you do want to put filters on them Simon then go for the expensive ones, they are much better.
JAT74L From United Kingdom, joined May 2004, 618 posts, RR: 16 Reply 24, posted (6 years 10 months 1 week 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 2975 times:
I've found the quality of the shots taken with my 100-400L have improved since removing the skylight filter I had on it. So, it's stayed off and I've been extra careful!
John
I like trains just as much as planes but trains don't like the Atlantic!
28 AAGOLD: A friend of mine just went to the traveling Nikon school and they recommended you not use a filter on the lens. The lens is coated for protection and
29 Jid: Just try it and see the glare you get from the lights. Filters even expensive ones cause terrible light ghosting when pointing them near most strong
30 GBOAB: I used to use a Hoya Skylight filter on my 100-400 but have found the quality is better without, just be careful Ian
31 JAT74L: I agree. This is another reason I didn't put it back on as I like head on shots where the lights are on. Not a problem no more! Regards John
32 Granite: Hi all I stopped using filters many many months ago. Regards Gary
33 Fergulmcc: I feel they introduce softness, not a lack of it. Anyhow I am much happier that I don't use them, I can see the quality of my photos are better with
34 LHRSIMON: Jeez im even more confused. I was so impressed today with the lens without one that I think im going to go with not using one. I will just have to be
35 9VSPO: I once bought a filter from Jessops which now is being used as a beer mat. If you use the hood and don't have butterfingers you should be ok.
36 DLKAPA: Multicoated filters actually do more to disrupt light passing through them than fused glass filters. I have the latter on my Sigma 80-400 OS, and the
37 Lennymuir: Hi I stopped using filters many many years ago. (Expect for the odd occasion I feel I need to use a polarizing filter on a Cokin mount) Regards Gerry
38 Chris78cpr: Meant to write a lack of contrast and some softness! I was very hungover when i wrote that! lol Chris
39 BO__einG: I think this issue also depends on the airport which you are doing your photography at. Some airports have spotting locations close to the apron or th
40 JeffM: You of all people should buy some. As hard as it is to pry a few bucks out of your wallet, I'd hate to read your posts if you actually had to pay to
41 Eadster: Dead right, I've removed mine. Was making serious light ghosts on night shots.
42 Crank: I have to agree, a 25$ UV filter saved my 100-400 a few weeks ago. I accidentally dropped the lens and camera in a parking lot thinking that my bag w
43 Scbriml: You see, this is where I have a problem - from the optical point of view (or should that be perspective?), what's the point of slapping a $25 piece o
44 Aviopic: As did I........... about 6 years ago and never looked back. Willem
45 Psych: I am in the camp that now does not use a filter on my main zoom lens - thanks in no small part to Jid's advice, as above. I feel now the only justific
46 Viv: I no longer use filters. My photos are better than when I did. I spend a tool to be used. I have never broken a lens. If I ever do, the insurance will
Sponsor Message: 
From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2002, 1342 posts, 
From Finland, joined Feb 2000, 1441 posts, 
From Switzerland, joined Jun 2005, 2971 posts, 
dead if he reads that
From Spain, joined Oct 2004, 1370 posts, 
From Sweden, joined Jul 2004, 1136 posts, 
From Iceland, joined Jan 2005, 3070 posts, 
From Germany, joined Dec 2002, 738 posts, 
From Netherlands, joined Apr 2002, 3674 posts, 
From United States of America, joined May 2005, 3266 posts, 
From Ireland, joined Oct 2004, 1916 posts, 
From Barbados, joined Dec 2004, 960 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
