Airliners.net

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]

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.

-Joge

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.

Cheers,
Ian.

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.

-Manuel

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!

/Simon.

i have the hoya Super HMC Pro filters for my 100-400L and 17-85,

rather pay £40 for a new filter than £1100 for a new 100-400L, as a wise old man once told me   dead if he reads that

especially when in aviation they get heald up to fences so much....

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?

/Simon.

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

Quoting Airplanepics (Reply 6): But isn't that what the hood is supposed to do? To protect the glass from object's such as fences?

Not really! Sometimes you need to put the lens just to the fence hole. The hood is to avoid reflections from the sun when shooting backlit.  

-Joge

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!  

/Simon.

Quoting Airplanepics (Reply 9): Shouldn't be shooting in backlit condition's anyway!

So true. But sometimes you just have to.  

-Joge

Here's a thread I started on the topic of cheap filters:
https://www.airliners.net/discussions...ation_photography/read.main/194141

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!  

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.

I use filters on the lenses I use:

Jessops Ultra Violet on the tele
Hoya HMV UV(N) on my wide angle.

-David

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

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

[Edited 2006-07-15 15:45:14]

You should always use protection 

Tim

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.

Can somebody show me some reasonablely priced filters for my Sigma 70-300mm.

Tom.

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..!

Quoting AirbusA346 (Reply 18): Can somebody show me some reasonablely priced filters for my Sigma 70-300mm.

Did you read this thread?
https://www.airliners.net/discussions...ation_photography/read.main/194141

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.

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

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.

Take care

Fergul   

Shots like this are almost impossible if you use a filter.

View Large View Medium

Photo © Jid Webb

Never use them now.

Jid

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

Quoting Jid (Reply 23): Shots like this are almost impossible if you use a filter.

Why do you think so?

Quoting Jid (Reply 23): Shots like this are almost impossible if you use a filter.

You really need to write a reason why, it's a bit of an open statement.

Quoting Airplanepics (Reply 9): Shouldn't be shooting in backlit condition's anyway!

Why?


View Large View Medium

Photo © Ian Woodcock



Ian.

[Edited 2006-07-15 20:04:00]

Quoting Chris78cpr (Reply 21): i found that they all introduced a lack of softness

Wouldn't that be a good thing?   

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 with reasonable care you shouldn't have any problems. And, by the time you wear the original coating off the lens, I'm sure you'll be wanting another lens anyhow.

Art

Quoting EDDL (Reply 25): Why do you think so?

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 light sources.

Jid

I used to use a Hoya Skylight filter on my 100-400 but have found the quality is better without, just be careful

Ian

Quoting Jid (Reply 29): 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 light sources.

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

Hi all

I stopped using filters many many months ago.

Regards

Gary

Quoting Chris78cpr (Reply 21): i found that they all introduced a lack of softness and contrast inmy images.

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 out them.

Take care

Fergul  

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 carefull and always make sure i put the hood up. My equipment is also insured so if the worst come to the worst im covered....

As for the new 400 L USM F5.6 ... well ..... Its not one of the big boys but hell can it kick ar#e !!!!!!

https://www.airliners.net/addphotos/b...dy/EK-777-A6EBJ-150706-LHR-SJC.jpg

Simon C
   

[Edited 2006-07-15 21:35:46]

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.  

Quoting Joge (Reply 1): if you get for instance one which is multicoated, like the Hoya HMC (which is a very good buy!)

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 there's no change in picture quality between said filter and filterless. I had for a little while a Multicoated filter on the lens, It did make shots slightly softer.

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

Quoting Scbriml (Reply 27): Quoting Chris78cpr (Reply 21): i found that they all introduced a lack of softness Wouldn't that be a good thing?

Quoting Fergulmcc (Reply 33): Quoting Chris78cpr (Reply 21): i found that they all introduced a lack of softness and contrast inmy images. 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 out them. Take care Fergul sun

Meant to write a lack of contrast and some softness! I was very hungover when i wrote that! lol

Chris

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 the runway such as St. Maarten and Calgary.
It would be heartbreaking if you were trying to shoot a departing heavy and its jetblast happens to kick a super speed sand grain or gravel right at the 77mm wide lens chipping the hell out of it.

Also for photographers who take pictures while working on the ramp, the same concern applies.

I myself am also kinda limbo with the decision to buy a filter or not. If I do not buy a filter then I will have to remember to put my lens away when there is a plane throttling up close by.

Quoting BO__einG (Reply 39): myself am also kinda limbo with the decision to buy a filter or not.

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 repair a lens.

Maybe they will offer you a discount as you spend soooooo much money? Who knows? Stranger things have happened.

Quoting Jid (Reply 29): 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 light sources.

Dead right, I've removed mine. Was making serious light ghosts on night shots.

Quoting JeffM (Reply 40): 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 repair a lens.

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 was closed. Almost had a heart attack when I picked up the lens:



It was actually only the filter that cracked, on the following picture you can see where the impact took place:



No damage to the lens whatsoever. Although filters are probably not designed for that purpose, I think I wouldve had to spend another 1500$ for a new lens had I not bought a filter. I thought I would never drop it but hey, shit happens.

Quoting Crank (Reply 42): I have to agree, a 25$ UV filter saved my 100-400 a few weeks ago.

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 of glass on the front of a $1,500 lens? At least put a decent $150 filter on it.

Quoting Crank (Reply 42): I accidentally dropped the lens and camera in a parking lot

You wouldn't drop it on purpose, would you?  

Quoting Granite (Reply 32): I stopped using filters many many months ago.

As did I........... about 6 years ago and never looked back.

Willem

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 justification could be on safety grounds. Having said this, I do have a good quality Hoya filter on my 17-40mm lens, as the front element moves in and out within the body in such a way that without a filter the front would not be sealed.

I feel somewhat safer using my 70-200mm lens with the large hood attached, though I cannot deny some feeling of vulnerability - having done exactly what Crank above describes twice in my life and smashing the filter (thankfully not with an 'L' lens), which did protect the lenses from more serious damage  . On both occasions the cause was the same - pulling my camera bag on to my shoulder without zipping it up first. This would be in my top ten list of photography lessons.

I now just try hard to zip up and hold on tight !

All the best.

Paul

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 pay.