LHRSIMON From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2002, 1343 posts, RR: 22 Posted (8 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 5856 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
[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, 1444 posts, RR: 39
Reply 1, posted (8 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 5846 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.
ManuCH From Switzerland, joined Jun 2005, 3012 posts, RR: 46
Reply 3, posted (8 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 5845 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.
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!
Dazbo5 From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2005, 2936 posts, RR: 2
Reply 14, posted (8 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 5757 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.
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: 15
Reply 15, posted (8 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 5747 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
Fergulmcc From Ireland, joined Oct 2004, 1916 posts, RR: 52
Reply 22, posted (8 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 5676 times:
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.