# Should I get a clear filter for my lens?



## omar (Aug 15, 2013)

Should I get a clear filter to protect my lens?
I've seen one other photographer who uses all the time?
Do I need one?
Should I just get a brush and a blow thing (I forget what its called) to keep my lens clean?

Will a clear filter somehow make my images be less in quality?

Thanks


Omar


----------



## Dylan777 (Aug 15, 2013)

Should I get a clear filter to protect my lens? *==> YES*
I've seen one other photographer who uses all the time? *==> YES*

Do I need one? *==> YES*

Should I just get a brush and a blow thing (I forget what its called) to keep my lens clean? *==> YES, you should, at the filter*

Will a clear filter somehow make my images be less in quality? *==> NO*

Should I get a clear filter to protect my lens? *==> YES*
I've seen one other photographer who uses all the time? *==> YES*
Do I need one? *==> YES*
Should I just get a brush and a blow thing (I forget what its called) to keep my lens clean? *==> YES, you should, at the filter*


*Highly recommend this*: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/756818-REG/B_W_66_1066111_77mm_XS_Pro_NANO_Clear.html

I have BW XS_Pro_NANO_Clear on all my lenses. It's so clear that you wouldn't even know it on there. For outdoor shooting, you can add other filters on top of clear filter: CPL, ND etc...without worry your lens got hit with water, dust or rocks.


----------



## duydaniel (Aug 15, 2013)

unless you plan on mounting another filter on top, the B+W F-Pro is cheaper


----------



## omar (Aug 15, 2013)

$105.50 is really expensive
do i really really need?

what's wrong with a super cheap one?


----------



## Dylan777 (Aug 15, 2013)

omar said:


> $105.50 is really expensive
> do i really really need?
> 
> what's wrong with a super cheap one?



You mind if I ask? What are your lenses?


----------



## cid (Aug 15, 2013)

omar said:


> $105.50 is really expensive
> do i really really need?
> 
> what's wrong with a super cheap one?



well, read this, it will give you some more insight 
http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2011/06/good-times-with-bad-filters


edit: and maybe it will answer your question about ND filters too


----------



## cid (Aug 15, 2013)

Dylan777 said:


> omar said:
> 
> 
> > $105.50 is really expensive
> ...



good question, there is no need to waste money on expensive filter for cheap lens


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 15, 2013)

A good filter (e.g. B+W) protects without significant IQ degradation (except increased chance of flare), a cheap filter will degrade your IQ.

I have B+W MRC or Nano filters on most of my lenses (not the 40/2.8 or 22/2 pancake lenses, though).


----------



## littlewildcat (Aug 15, 2013)

omar said:


> Should I get a clear filter to protect my lens?
> I've seen one other photographer who uses all the time?
> Do I need one?
> Should I just get a brush and a blow thing (I forget what its called) to keep my lens clean?
> ...



It's advisable to put UV/clear filters on "L" and expensive lenses for protection. For kit lens, don't worry about it.
For lenses without filters, lens hood and front cap will protect the front element to a certain extent. 

For buying a decent UV filter, people invest 5 to 10%(or even more) of the cost of an expensive lens for peace of mind.

But, it's entirely up to you and depend on what you have.

Good lens cloth, rocket blower and lenspen(with brush) are useful to keep your gears clean.


----------



## schill (Aug 15, 2013)

littlewildcat said:


> It's advisable to put UV/clear filters on "L" and expensive lenses for protection.



But then there are other people who will ask why you would spend so much on an L lens and then risk degrading the image even a little bit by putting a filter on it. 

In general, I don't have clear/uv filters on my lenses. The only one that has one right now is my 70-200/2.8. That filter was over $100.

The recommendation others have made to not go cheap is a good one. If you can't afford a good quality filter, I think you are much better off not using one and being careful.


----------



## Random Orbits (Aug 15, 2013)

It depends on the cost/value of the lens. Good filters cost 50 and up, depending on size, brand, etc. I like B&W, but I've also had Hoyas. The Hoyas are less expensive but I found them harder to keep clean.

I get filters for L lenses, but I don't bother with the EOS-M lenses. 500 is about the threshold when I start considering getting a filter for a particular lens. It also depends on how you intend to use the lens. I tend to use those that are more weather resistant and filtered when the weather gets bad.

Super cheap ones may be uncoated or single coated, and would be more prone to flare and would lead to a higher transmission losses. Some would argue that any filter would degrade the image even if it is undetectable in practice, and it's true theoretically. Any piece of glass will change the transmission characteristics, but so will a dirty front element, and I would rather clean a 100 filter rather than the front element of 1000 lens. In the field, I'll clean it with what's at hand, including my shirt, which is what happened when my 70-200 mounted on camera worked itself loose from a BR strap and fell lens first into the muddy ground. The hood was reversed because I was walking from the car to the soccer field and hadn't yet set up the camera to shoot. I tried cleaning the filter, but couldn't get it clean enough so I just took it off, got my shots, and cleaned the filter once I got home. The B&W filter cleaned up fine and I still use it today.


----------



## HawkinsT (Aug 15, 2013)

I would advise against clear filters. Presumably you have insurance anyway (if not, this is something I really would recommend), and the chance of one actually stopping your lens getting damaged is fairly low, you're far more likely to drop a lens, breaking some of the internal elements, than you are to smash only the front element.

*So why not just use a clear filter to be safe?*
Cheap ones noticeably degrade image quality and often make a lens far more prone to flare... mid range ones do this too, but to a lesser (but still noticeable) degree - if you're using them with cheap lenses, fine (although I would rather just risk having to buy a new lens), and if you're using them with expensive lenses, you are loosing a lot of the quality you've paid extra for. The more expensive filters, such as those by B+W, are fairly good and don't tend to introduce any noticeable change in image quality, but then you're spending £70 on a filter to protect against a very unlikely scenario you're most likely insured for already.

For the record I use B+W filters (having gone through several cheaper varieties in the past), but only when I'm working in especially wet/dusty environments to protect the lenses better then - any other scenario and they're really not needed.


----------



## interpilot (Aug 15, 2013)

I used to have B+W multi-coated UV filters on all of my lenses. However, in all my years of using them, I've never had a scratched filter. What did happen though is that I once bumped the front of a lens (a 50 1.4), which caused some gear in the AF mechanism to break/loose it's teeth; nothing the filter could do about that.

At the same time, the cost of those filters combined would be enough to buy a nice new lens, in case one would get scratched. They also do cause flare in night shots, diagonally opposite to strong point lights, if you forget to take them off.

So, I've stopped using them, using them as extra bargaining chips when selling off lenses.


----------



## omar (Aug 15, 2013)

guys, i didn't know my question was a can of worms to answer
lol

i have:

- 50mm F1.8 - cost £75 - i don't want to pay $100 for a lens protector
- 18-55mm standard lens - costs £70+ - i don't want to pay $100 for a lens protector
- 100mm Canon IS macro - costs £700+ - but this is ONLY used indoors

i do want to go into wedding and portrait photography...
but then... that would be another question in itself: *what lenses should i buy*...?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 15, 2013)

HawkinsT said:


> *So why not just use a clear filter to be safe?*
> Cheap ones noticeably degrade image quality and often make a lens far more prone to flare... mid range ones do this too, but to a lesser (but still noticeable) degree - if you're using them with cheap lenses, fine (although I would rather just risk having to buy a new lens), and if you're using them with expensive lenses, you are loosing a lot of the quality you've paid extra for. The more expensive filters, such as those by B+W, are fairly good and don't tend to introduce any noticeable change in image quality, but then you're spending £70 on a filter to protect against a very unlikely scenario you're most likely insured for already.



The main reasons I use filters are two-fold. First, they are required for weather sealing of some lenses, and beneficial for weather sealing in other lenses. Second, they are easier to clean than most front elements (except the newest Canon lenses with the fluorine coating), and if I need to clean the filter in a hurry (usually following a water splash) and there's a bit of grit, the easily replaceable filter gets scratched, not the front element. 

Regarding insurance, that can be a sticky issue. Yes, all my gear is insured. But at least in the US (not sure if it's the case elsewhere), it's a common and very cost-effective for non-professional shooters to get insurance from their homeowner's/renter's insurer, as a separate policy or a rider. The problem there is that any claims against the policy are reported to the CLUE database, which is used to determine rates and eligibility for the primary policy. So, despite having no deductible, if you make a few claims for damaged lenses you may find yourself paying more for your home coverage, or being denied coverage entirely. So, personally I view insurance as coverage for major loss - if I damage a lens that Canon will charge me $400 to replace, or my EOS M drops to the ground and shatters, I'll cover the repair/replacement myself. If someone steals my 1D X and 600/4L IS II from the back of my car, I'll file a claim.


----------



## littlewildcat (Aug 15, 2013)

schill said:


> littlewildcat said:
> 
> 
> > It's advisable to put UV/clear filters on "L" and expensive lenses for protection.
> ...



So, spending $50 to $200 on a filter for a $1K to $2K L lens (about 5 - 10% of the cost of a L lens) seems to make sense. I think for lens filters of that price range, the quality would be pretty decent.

Recently, due to carelessness, I scratched the coating of the (rear) element of a 24 70 f2.8 L, the cost to repair is over $300 ($258 plus 2 ways postage plus tax etc). If it happens to the front element, which is more likely to expose to risk of scratching/damage, the cost of repair would be more. So, I reiterate that a good UV/clear filter is necessary for a L or expensive lens.


----------



## RAKAMRAK (Aug 15, 2013)

The OP has created two similar threads on the topic of filters. I am writing my opinion to both the threads here.

Well many people will say many things about the end result of cheap filters - but the ultimate point is whether you think that is so or not. So go ahead and buy some filters (clear, ND, variable ND), whatever you think you want and of course can buy. Put on your lens. Take photos of the same things/scenarios with and without the filters. Then come home and look at the photos. If you see you cannot distinguish between the photos qualitatively then well and good. You have achieved your goals of protecting you lenses' front element/desired photo effect and affordable price. Otherwise, dump the cheap filters and buy a little bit costlier ones and carry out the entire above exercise again.


----------



## littlewildcat (Aug 15, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> HawkinsT said:
> 
> 
> > *So why not just use a clear filter to be safe?*
> ...



+1


----------



## Dylan777 (Aug 15, 2013)

omar said:


> i have:
> 
> - 50mm F1.8 - cost £75 - i don't want to pay $100 for a lens protector
> - 18-55mm standard lens - costs £70+ - i don't want to pay $100 for a lens protector
> ...



Now I see your lens list, I would say no filter. Just use the lens hood.

If you plan to go FF in the future, EF and L will be my choices. EF-S line has some great lenses as well:17-55mm f2.8 IS, 10-22mm etc...


----------



## Zv (Aug 15, 2013)

Dylan777 said:


> omar said:
> 
> 
> > i have:
> ...



50mm f1.8 has a recessed front element and doesn't need much protection. 
18-55 is quite cheap but the front element is quite solid. I've knocked it a few times and there's no scratches. If it breaks just but a new one or upgrade to something better.
The macro you said you only use indoors so I don't think you need any filters. 

I have one clear filter that I use if it's really dusty or windy. All other times I use the hood for protection.


----------



## rumorzmonger (Aug 15, 2013)

omar said:


> $105.50 is really expensive
> do i really really need?
> 
> what's wrong with a super cheap one?




- You should buy the expensive one to protect your expensive lens.

- You should also buy a less expensive clear filter to protect your expensive clear filter.

- You should also buy the cheap clear filter to protect your other clear filters.

- Don't forget to remove ALL of the clear filters before taking a picture, because they WILL degrade the quality of your images.


Or, you can just use a lens hood to protect your lens properly, and it will actually improve your images, instead of making them softer like a filter does.

The noobs always buy the protective filters because the salesman in the camera store, who makes more profit from a filter than he does from a camera or lens, convinces them they need one... and then laughs his a$$ off when they leave the store.


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Aug 15, 2013)

Any filter will have some non-zero effect on image quality. The cogent question is whether this effect will be noticible. No, a good quality clear or UV filter can both protect the front of the lens and have unnoticable effects on your image. 

Marumi sells some nice clear filters which are more expensive then their nice UV filters. I am not sure that if you are buying a quality filter whether a clear is clearly worth the money than a less expensive UV filter. 

When ever I buy a lens, I buy a UV filter for it. It stays on the lens unless there is a specific reason to remove it. It is cheap insurance against a scratch. 

But like anything, you get what you pay for. Don't go cheap on filters, but also don't go crazy. ;D


----------



## brett b (Aug 15, 2013)

rumorzmonger said:


> omar said:
> 
> 
> > $105.50 is really expensive
> ...



+1 Funny!
...but I always have a hood attached.


----------



## Hesbehindyou (Aug 15, 2013)

Dylan777 said:


> [adding a filter means you don't have to worry about] your lens got [getting] hit with water, dust or rocks.



This kinda attitude is the reason why the topic is a can of worms.


----------



## YuengLinger (Aug 15, 2013)

One flaw in the lensrental essay about protective filters is the estimated cost of replacing a front element. I believe the author says about $150, which might in fact be his cost if he is ordering the part and doing the labor himself.

However, even for Canon Professional Services members, you'd have to add about $150 for labor, and then the price of shipping the lens (insured!) to Canon, which costs about $70.

And, of course, even with rush service, you don't have your lens for a week.

I'd rather clean the filter than the front element. A filter already saved my older 24-70mm in a tripod mishap some years ago.

As for image degradation, I've taken many test shots to compare side by side, as some experienced photographers have expressed concern about it. I see no loss of image quality with B+W and better Hoya filters--not even star effects in night shots. If I'm concerned about flare, I can pop off the filter briefly. 

To me, the biggest peace of mind comes from being able to clean the filter. So easy in the field to get muck splashed on it, or a stem hitting it while walking through brush. In that tripod incident, the ef 24-70mm fell forward onto a small stone (no, I don't blame my wife, I should have explained the basics of the tripod!). The Hoya filter smashed, but I didn't get a scratch on my front element.

And as has been said: Canon advises using the filters on L lenses to complete weather sealing. If my car manufacturer recommends specific tires, fluids, etc, I take the suggestion seriously.

I remember when people would swear seatbelts cause more harm than good.


----------



## AudioGlenn (Aug 15, 2013)

Question: I bought both a B&W (skylight) filter ($45) AND a lens hood ($20) for my EOS M + 22mm f/2. They are both about the same depth. It seems I don''t really need both and they are adding significant depth to my handy little camera. should I return one? If so, which one?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 15, 2013)

AudioGlenn said:


> Question: I bought both a B&W (skylight) filter ($45) AND a lens hood ($20) for my EOS M + 22mm f/2. They are both about the same depth. It seems I don''t really need both and they are adding significant depth to my handy little camera. should I return one? If so, which one?



Honestly, I'd return both. The lens hood for the EF-M 22mm f/2 is essentially useless - it's not deep enough to provide any protection from flare, given the size of the front element and the AoV of the lens. I haven't done the estimate on the EF-M 22 hood, but the similarly-designed hood for the EF 40mm f/2.8 isn't deep enough to protect a 14mm lens from flare, much less the 40mm lens for which it's designed. Futhermore, since it's a thread-mounting hood, any force applied to the hood won't be transmitted to the barrel as with a bayonet-mount, but rather to the front-focusing element with the STM motor connected to it. Not very protective at all.

As for the filter, IMO the big advantage of a pancake lens is it's thin projection from the body. Making it thicker with a filter doesn't make a lot of sense to me (in fact, I would prefer the 'old' side-pinch cap design, since it's thinner than the center-pinch cap that comes with the lens.


----------



## AudioGlenn (Aug 15, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> AudioGlenn said:
> 
> 
> > Question: I bought both a B&W (skylight) filter ($45) AND a lens hood ($20) for my EOS M + 22mm f/2. They are both about the same depth. It seems I don''t really need both and they are adding significant depth to my handy little camera. should I return one? If so, which one?
> ...



Thanks for the reply, neuro.


----------



## Rocky (Aug 15, 2013)

My own general rule:
1. Used rigid lenshood ALL the time for protection. 
2. No filter 90% of the time
3. Use UV fiter in hazard condition: rain, on beach etc.

So far I am lucky enough not to have any damaged front element.


----------



## Dylan777 (Aug 15, 2013)

Hesbehindyou said:


> Dylan777 said:
> 
> 
> > [adding a filter means you don't have to worry about] your lens got [getting] hit with water, dust or rocks.
> ...



Giving correct quote before comment would be nice.

My original "I have BW XS_Pro_NANO_Clear on all my lenses. It's so clear that you wouldn't even know it on there. For outdoor shooting, you can add other filters on top of clear filter: CPL, ND etc...without worry your lens got hit with water, dust or rocks."


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Aug 15, 2013)

I originally bought a high quality B&W or Heliopan filter for each of my lenses. Over time, I started removing them when I found that very fine detail was better without them, and flare was much less.

Its not anything major, but I now have all my clear filters put away and only take them out when the lens needs protection from blowing dust or sand, or some other nasty element.

I've never had a scratched or damaged lens element, I'm pretty careful.

BTW, there is one exception. I kept a filter on my 17-55mm EF-s believing that it would help keep dust out. I don't know if it worked, but I never had a dust issue with the lens over three years of heavy use.


----------



## cocopop05 (Aug 16, 2013)

Here is my two cents worth - It depends. 

I have a 5D Mark III with 24-105mm f4 L lens, the manual states in order to complete the weather sealing a filter is required.

So I use a clear filter if there is a chance my camera and lens are going to get wet (eg: when using the camera at the beach or if it starts to rain or if it is snowing). In these circumstances weather sealing is more important to me than a very very slight degradation in image quality.

All other times I have the filter off. 

I always use my lens hood.


----------



## fegari (Aug 16, 2013)

My advice to you is to better spend that money in the highest quality possible polarizers for each of your lenses. 

-You get the extra protection AND the advantages of a polarizer
-You avoid vigneting in case you had an UV and wanted to add a polarizer on top
-Or avoid the hassle to remove the UV when adding the polarizer
-A helluva lot more useful than a UV
-Looks cooler 8)
-Remember to always use the lens hoods as well

Coupled to a 5dIII or the like, you won´t even need to remove them in low light situations if you do not want to. 

I used to have a few UV´s (BW high quality) and those I could not sell are gathering dust. The polarizers get to go outside each and every single time. To me UVs are kinda useless. I have a B+W pol for each of my lenses, I´ll advice strongly on the XS-Pro series that have front threads, are as thin as the slims but contrary to those so you can put the lens cap of a filter holder.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 16, 2013)

fegari said:


> ...polarizers for each of your lenses.
> 
> Coupled to a 5dIII or the like, you won´t even need to remove them in low light situations if you do not want to.



Sure...because who needs that extra ~1.75 stops of light when there's not enough to begin with... :


----------



## fegari (Aug 16, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> fegari said:
> 
> 
> > ...polarizers for each of your lenses.
> ...



Those with very good low light capability cameras, >1.75 stops better than the previous generation ;=)


----------



## serendipidy (Aug 16, 2013)

why just one? get extra protection like this guy


----------



## torger (Aug 16, 2013)

fegari said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > fegari said:
> ...



You could use Kenko Zeto Ex polarizer wihch loses a bit less light than the typical polarizer. But is easier to break too. I would not recommend to use polarizers. I have a clear filter on my 70-200, but all other lenses are naked. On my medium format system I go bare. The reason I have it on my 70-200 is that I tend to use that in "rough" conditions, rainy, splashing etc and I rather frequently wipe the clear filter than the front element. I prefer clear filter rather than UV as I don't want any change to the image whatsoever, it's only there as a splash-cover for the front element. I don't have it for general impact protection, my impact protection is called insurance .

I once used polarizers quite often for my landscape photography, but nowadays I use them very rarely. My photographic style generally don't gain from them.


----------



## sulla (Aug 16, 2013)

You definitely need a clear filter:
I once had to clean my clear filter of my 24-105L in order to remove specks on it. They couldn't be removed by wiping, dusting and not using propanol. So, I figured it must be dust under the filter. Removed the filter. Still no luck with de-dusting, the specks were on the front side. So I tried to clean in an ultrasound bath using alcohol.
No luck, the specks were a damage of the coating or the glass of the filter by something agressive, perhaps salty water?? Never used the lens close to the sea, however. I lightheartedly threw the filter away the same day! No damage done to the lens! 

Bottom line: I always tried to be careful with my lens, but still I somehow destroyed the front filter... Had I destroyed the front element of my lens, I would have, I don't know what, but surely not simply replaced a comparatively cheap filter.

So, yes, one needs a front filter. Absolutely.


----------



## Marsu42 (Aug 16, 2013)

fegari said:


> My advice to you is to better spend that money in the highest quality possible polarizers for each of your lenses. You get the extra protection AND the advantages of a polarizer



Are you serious? Really? If so - a (c)pl has no advantages per se but is an effect filter for haze/reflection removal and sky postcard colors, though the latter doesn't work on (u)wa lenses. It's a "should have" filter, but hardly an "always on" - why would I want to stick something that modifies the colors vs. wysiwyg in front of L glass?

Personally, I've got clear b+w xs pro nano mrc filters in front of my lenses for the reasons given above, esp. easy cleaning since I'm shooting outside a lot.


----------



## Heavyweight67 (Aug 16, 2013)

Definitely a can of worms topic, maybe like the super thin condom vs the standard....Anyway, I use Hoya HD on all of my lenses; except for my Sigma 85 1.4, this is the only lens I keep for portraits indoors, all the others find there way outdoors, where I live, it's humid and dusty and polluted all year, wiping a filter numerous times a day is (to me) safer then wiping a front element..


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 16, 2013)

torger said:


> I prefer clear filter rather than UV as I don't want any change to the image whatsoever



Do you shoot film? A dSLR sensor is insensitive to UV, so there's no difference between clear and UV filters.


----------

