# Same ole, same ole' Filters vs no filters...



## Richard8971 (Nov 10, 2013)

I know this horse has been beaten over and over but I can't seem to remember ever seeing a side by side comparison of using cheaper filters vs not using them.

I believe in using them (cheaper filters) if you are NOT a professional and want a little extra protection for your glass. Kind of like the discussion I have with people who ask me what kind of paint gun (I paint cars for a living professionally) they should buy when they want to do paint work at home. My SATA NR 4000 is a $700.00 paint gun that I use daily and my paycheck depends on it. 

Do I recommend to the average person that they spend $700 on a gun they will only use only once or twice? No. I recommend the Harbor Freight SATA-copy HVLP gun they have for $60.00.

Will the $60.00 paint gun work? Yes and it will produce a fantastic finish. Will it hold up professionally? Probably not as well as the real SATA. Does that make it junk? Not at all, it has a place and will do it's job just fine.

This also is not a discussion on putting a $20 filter on a $1700 L-class lens. If you are going to put a filter on it, buy a good one, not a cheap one. But for the average to really good lens, the average filter will do just fine.

The cheap filters have a place in photography as do the expensive ones. I put an inexpensive Hoya filter on my EF 70-300L IS USM and did 6 shots of 3 different objects, 1 with the filter and 1 without. Random, handheld, so it could be equivalent to normal shooting as it can be.

I was surprised by the results. The crops are close to 100% and are very tight to show fine detail. Can you tell a difference? Yup. Will it kill a photo? Nope. I doubt in an average print you would really be able to tell them apart.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Nov 10, 2013)

If you use a good filter, you may not be able to detect a difference, cheap filters may or may not cause issues like distortion or loss of sharpness. But, you probably did not put a filter on to use it in a studio under good lighting.

In bright sunlight, filters can cause flare from reflections and the cheapies really stand out there due to poor coatings or none at all.

I have B&W filters for most of my lenses, but they just sit in their little cases, haven't used one in years. I'm not against using them, I just don't go into rough weather or places where they make sense to add protection.

A while back, Roger at lens rentals had a little fin and took some shots with many cheap filters stacked, and compared them with expensive filters. His lens rentals have a habit of going out with B&W filters and coming back with cheap ones.

Here is a link to a comparison.
http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2011/06/good-times-with-bad-filters

On a more serious note, he also recently traced a issue with damaged glass on the front of a lens to bad filters.
http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2013/10/bad-times-with-bad-filters


----------



## Richard8971 (Nov 10, 2013)

I had seen that comparison. My crops above prove that even one cheap filter can affect the image quality. BUT....

Try this test. I will upload these two pics. One was taken with a cheap filter and one without. See if you can pick which is which without cheating. (IE don't save it to your PC and zoom in) Just look at them here on the website. I will reveal which is which after a few people take a guess.

I am just trying to show that in a 100% zoom, you CAN tell them apart. But can you viewing it normally? I bet most can't. Unfortunately I had to size them down a little bit to post here but the quality is still there. The full size look identical to what you see here.

Canon 7D, 1/320s, f8, ISO 200, on board flash. EF 70-300L IS USM.

Good luck!

D


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Nov 10, 2013)

What a coincidence! ... just yesterday, my 5D MKIII with EF 16-35 f/2.8 L II mounted on Manfrotto 055CXPRO4 got flung out about 10 feet from a height of 6 feet ... when I saw it fall, I was pretty certain everything must've died ... but to my great relief, the 5D MK III had two tiny scratches, one bottom leg of my Manfrotto broke (http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=18004.msg333840#msg333840), and the EF 16-35 L II lens had a dent on the filer thread. But what protected the front element of the lens was the 82mm B+W XS-Pro filter, which cracked after hitting a metal hook on the shipyard floor. I borrowed a Plier from one of the electricians at the shipyard and gently broke the glass of the B+W filter (as I could not remove it from the lens due to it being stuck real bad) and continued on with my shooting.
While I understand and agree with Richard's point of view about cheaper filters, I think it is important to have the best filters you can afford on your better lenses ... had I not to have a filter on (or even with a cheap filter) I am pretty certain I would have damaged a lens, that would have cost me almost $2000 to replace, instead I'm only looking at $150 to $175 to replace the filter ... but most importantly I would not have been able to complete the shooting.
My view on having filters on all the time (on all my lenses) is that it is one less thing for me to worry about when I take the lens out ... if I keep removing filters and putting them on (for normal / not so safe places), I most likely will forget to put the filter on one day and that could be the day, like yesterday, when the lens fells down ... its like my insurance, better to have it and not need it than to not have and need it.


----------



## Arctic Photo (Nov 10, 2013)

I keep cheap filters on most of the time, but when I do a portrait session or just in general want to make sure nothing is in the way I take them off. When finished, I make sure to put them back on for protection. I am certain that they decrease IQ but I can't motivate getting expensive ones. For CPL and ND I did spend the little extra to get good ones.


----------



## HyperFocus Photography (Nov 10, 2013)

Top one doesn't have the filter. At least, that's my deduction. I use filters when walking around just shooting random images/ scouting locations. When doing actual work, I prefer to not, if conditions allow




Richard8971 said:


> I had seen that comparison. My crops above prove that even one cheap filter can affect the image quality. BUT....
> 
> Try this test. I will upload these two pics. One was taken with a cheap filter and one without. See if you can pick which is which without cheating. (IE don't save it to your PC and zoom in) Just look at them here on the website. I will reveal which is which after a few people take a guess.
> 
> ...


----------



## pwp (Nov 10, 2013)

I have always left high quality filters on my glass. Filters & energy absorbing hoods have done more than their designed purpose for me over the years. Together they have saved me plenty of money absorbing the bumps and biffs that are all part of a day's work. A filter makes me feel OK about cleaning down a lens with my shirt when under pressure. They eventually pick up a myriad of barely visible scratches and are routinely changed every few years. Better the filter than the front element!

I don't want to feel like I'm walking on eggshells every time I pull a camera out of the bag. The path to unhindered creativity is not always easy on the gear, so in my view, a pragmatic approach to the use of filter and hood is an everyday must.

-pw


----------



## Kernuak (Nov 10, 2013)

Richard8971 said:


> I had seen that comparison. My crops above prove that even one cheap filter can affect the image quality. BUT....
> 
> Try this test. I will upload these two pics. One was taken with a cheap filter and one without. See if you can pick which is which without cheating. (IE don't save it to your PC and zoom in) Just look at them here on the website. I will reveal which is which after a few people take a guess.
> 
> ...


The top one looks to have a little more contrast, unless lighting changed slightly.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 10, 2013)

How about another pair of pictures, this time with a light source (desk lamp, ceiling lamp, etc.) in the frame...


----------



## Danielle (Nov 10, 2013)

pwp said:


> I have always left high quality filters on my glass. Filters & energy absorbing hoods have done more than their designed purpose for me over the years. Together they have saved me plenty of money absorbing the bumps and biffs that are all part of a day's work. A filter makes me feel OK about cleaning down a lens with my shirt when under pressure. They eventually pick up a myriad of barely visible scratches and are routinely changed every few years. Better the filter than the front element!
> 
> I don't want to feel like I'm walking on eggshells every time I pull a camera out of the bag. The path to unhindered creativity is not always easy on the gear, so in my view, a pragmatic approach to the use of filter and hood is an everyday must.
> 
> -pw



+1 on that, possibly +1000.


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Nov 10, 2013)

I think lenses below $500 should not use filters because the cheap will degrade the image, and the best filters cost almost the price of the lens, and not worth it. Moreover, use lens hood in all my lens and the protection they provide is really necessary. As I have no lens above $1000, then did not buy expensive filters. I did a test that you can play to test your filters. Photographed with filter "HOYA UV" cheap that has single coating, and another picture with a filter very cheap like "VIVITAR UV MULTI COATED". To cause reflections used a LED illuminator appointed to the lens, on the edge of the image frame. The result is that the super cheap "MULTI COATED" had soft reflections, and "HOYA" with single coating was distracting reflections. If you have expensive lenses, invest in filters of good brands, but always *multi coated* filters.


----------



## surapon (Nov 10, 2013)

Yes, Sir-----I think my Filter might save ( ??) my Lens, When I drop the Camera with Lens hit the hard ground first.
Have a great day.
Surapon


----------



## JimKarczewski (Nov 10, 2013)

I've spent more money repairing (pretty damn sure) my 2 most dropped lenses. 70-200/2.8I and 16-35/2.8II. In both cases I DO NOT use filters on them. The only filter that will ever see use on either is my 8 stop ND. Beyond that I've never had a drop where it's had an problem damaging the front element and trust me, I've had some damn good drops. Filter ring, especially on the 16-35 always seems to take the brunt of the damage. Where as having the lens hood on the 70-200 is it's saving grace.


----------



## ugly_bokeh (Nov 10, 2013)

It looks like an 82mm B+W XS-PRO filter runs just shy of $120. With the original filter in pieces, a replacement would be needed, so I'm wondering...

How would the cost of replacing a front element compare to buying two of these 82mm filters? (Anyone know what a front element would cost?) Is it a wash?

Considering it a bit further...if the lens needs service for bent filter threads and/or misaligned groups (to put it back in perfect working order), what would that cost, and how would (case A) the cost of two filters plus service compare to (case B) service that included the replacement of the front element?

To date, I am happy to say I have no experience with such things. (Dropped filters, hoods, and caps are another story altogether....)


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Nov 11, 2013)

ugly_bokeh said:


> It looks like an 82mm B+W XS-PRO filter runs just shy of $120. With the original filter in pieces, a replacement would be needed, so I'm wondering...
> 
> How would the cost of replacing a front element compare to buying two of these 82mm filters? (Anyone know what a front element would cost?) Is it a wash?
> 
> ...


Each model lens has a different cost. But I imagine that replacing the front element (depends on Lens) should cost more than 40% of the lens, which can mean almost $ 1000 in a 24-70 F2.8 II. The big question is: Use the filter would prevent further internal damage, or the front thread of the lens? And if repairing internal damage and the front thread costing 30% of the lens, the 10% difference is worth the use of expensive filter? I still think that using the lens hood protects better than a filter.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Nov 11, 2013)

surapon said:


> Yes, Sir-----I think my Filter might save ( ??) my Lens, When I drop the Camera with Lens hit the hard ground first.
> Have a great day.
> Surapon


That Heliopan Filter likely cost more than a new front element for the lens. I'd bet dollars to donuts that the lens had internal damage.


----------



## privatebydesign (Nov 11, 2013)

I have been against filter use for many years, though I did use UV filters with film cameras when UV was an issue, the strength of peoples feelings on the matter often surprises me. I do occasionally use UV filters as protection (to complete weather sealing) on my 16-35. I use hoods over 90% of the time.

There are, of course, pros and cons that most of us know about but here is my take. Good quality filters are not cheap, new front elements that are much more durable than most people think, are surprisingly affordable. I would say both Rienzphotoz and Surapon were very lucky their broken filter glass did not damage the front element, nobody would claim a UV filter offers any kind of impact protection and a broken filter has the potential to further damage the element it is supposed to be protecting.

I was recently hanging out with a long time Nikon shooter and he was impressed with the clarity of my files, I pointed out that he used UV filters and not hoods and even though they were multicoated filters they still reduced contrast. So I showed him, this gif is two unprocessed RAW images converted to jpegs with the same settings in LR out of his D3 and 24-120 f4 (the Nikon equivalent to the Canon 24-105 f4), one with his filter, one without. The light is behind us and whilst his filter could have used a clean it was a decent (I forget what make) multicoated filter.


----------



## privatebydesign (Nov 11, 2013)

Richard8971 said:


> I had seen that comparison. My crops above prove that even one cheap filter can affect the image quality. BUT....
> 
> Try this test. I will upload these two pics. One was taken with a cheap filter and one without. See if you can pick which is which without cheating. (IE don't save it to your PC and zoom in) Just look at them here on the website. I will reveal which is which after a few people take a guess.
> 
> ...



First, a1.jpg, has UV filter, second, b1.jpg, does not. IMHO


----------



## dtaylor (Nov 11, 2013)

Hoya S-HMC and HD filters do not degrade IQ or cause flare. Most other filters do. (B+W has a reputation for not degrading IQ, but I've never used or tested them to know for sure.) How much degradation depends on the filter.

Filters complete weather sealing on some lenses and offer some scratch/impact protection. Any impact strong enough to shatter the filter and shove the glass into the front element, thereby damaging the front element, would have shattered the front element any way without the filter. Unless we're talking about one of the handful of lenses with really deep, recessed front elements (i.e. some macros come to mind).

Some hoods are deep and offer good impact resistance. Others are useless for this.

I leave filters on everything except my EF-M 22mm (cost/benefit is low plus the front element is tiny). I generally use hoods except on my M lenses (they don't seem to offer much protection or shading).

I would be in the camp that says only use filters when necessary if all filters degraded IQ. But I can't make my Hoya S-HMC and HD filters degrade IQ. Every time I've thought one of those filters was contributing to an IQ issue such as flare and removed it, I've realized that I only wasted my time taking it off. It has never made a bit of difference in IQ.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Nov 11, 2013)

ugly_bokeh said:


> It looks like an 82mm B+W XS-PRO filter runs just shy of $120. With the original filter in pieces, a replacement would be needed, so I'm wondering...
> 
> How would the cost of replacing a front element compare to buying two of these 82mm filters? (Anyone know what a front element would cost?) Is it a wash?
> 
> ...


Where I live any repair to a lens takes minimum 14 days (and up to 2 months), also the service center chaps are not very competent ... but if I do give it to the service center (and pray that they fix the front element in 2 weeks) the minimum labor charge is US$ 124 ... from what I'm told by the service center guy here, the cost of replacing the front element would be *at least* $850 (excluding labor charges and any other charges) ... also I don't always trust service centers - what guarantee do I have that they don't use one of my lens parts to fix someone else's and then tell me that my lens is not repairable? 

I'd rather spend another $120 + US$ 53 shipping charges to replace the B+W filter.


----------



## Richard8971 (Nov 12, 2013)

HyperFocus Photography said:


> Top one doesn't have the filter. At least, that's my deduction. I use filters when walking around just shooting random images/ scouting locations. When doing actual work, I prefer to not, if conditions allow



This, in a way, proves my point. The bottom photo is the one without a filter. This thread wasn't about using them/not using them, cheap filters vs expensive ones... This was to prove a point. 

My first set of pics proves that, 1) YES, you can tell (under very close examination) the loss of image quality using a cheap filter on an high quality lens. (or any lens for that matter)

and 2) When you are viewing the photograph under normal circumstances, you CANNOT really (it was about 50/50) tell if a filter (expensive or cheap) was used or not.

If you don't like using them, then don't. If you like using them and the ones you use are from Best Buy, then more power to you. I doubt anyone, anywhere will be able to tell the difference.  

D


----------



## scottkinfw (Nov 12, 2013)

It runs abour $360 usd plus shipping, and waiting.

sek


ugly_bokeh said:


> It looks like an 82mm B+W XS-PRO filter runs just shy of $120. With the original filter in pieces, a replacement would be needed, so I'm wondering...
> 
> How would the cost of replacing a front element compare to buying two of these 82mm filters? (Anyone know what a front element would cost?) Is it a wash?
> 
> ...


----------



## privatebydesign (Nov 12, 2013)

Richard8971 said:


> HyperFocus Photography said:
> 
> 
> > Top one doesn't have the filter. At least, that's my deduction. I use filters when walking around just shooting random images/ scouting locations. When doing actual work, I prefer to not, if conditions allow
> ...





Er, but under normal viewing I did tell............



privatebydesign said:


> First, a1.jpg, has UV filter, second, b1.jpg, does not. IMHO


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 12, 2013)

privatebydesign said:


> Richard8971 said:
> 
> 
> > This, in a way, proves my point. The bottom photo is the one without a filter.
> ...



Well, given an n of 2 with opposite results, it only makes sense to let the one that supports your hypothesis determine your conclusion, right? 



Richard8971 said:


> If you like using them and the ones you use are from Best Buy, then more power to you. I doubt anyone, anywhere will be able to tell the difference.



I guess you didn't try my suggested test. I shoot indoors a lot, there are usually strong light sources (ceiling light fixtures, floor lamps, etc.) in the frame. In that situation, a cheap filter is a bad idea (I did try a cheap Tiffen once, since it came on a used lens I bought - if you'll pardon the New Englandism, wicked bad flare; no issues with my B+W MRC filters).


----------



## RunAndGun (Nov 12, 2013)

As some others have said, one of the biggest differences in "expensive" and "cheap" filters is the AR coatings. The more expensive filters with the better coatings reduce flair much better than their counterparts with lesser or no coatings. 

On my broadcast lenses(that I make my money with) I have filters on all of them. The Schneider super-duper-double-quadruple-secret-sauce coated clear filter that I have on my W/A is $330(127mm filters are not cheap anyway). I had just replaced the filter on my W/A that was a few years old with the Schneider the morning I was doing a corporate shoot for a tool manufacturer. We were shooting in a junkyard demonstrating the effectiveness of some of the equipment and one of the scenes involved some metal cutting. I thought I was a "safe distance" away. The next scene I noticed that there were some spots on the lens when the sunlight hit it. I cleaned the lens(actually the front filter), but to no avail. The filter had been pitted by flying sparks. I was a little mad because I had literally just put the brand new $300+ filter on only about an hour before. BUT pitting a $330 filter that I could replace in a minute or two was MUCH better than pitting the front element of a $25,000 lens. That would have been a triple whammy: trying to work around the damage for the rest of the shoot, the cost to have the element replaced and pulling the lens(my bread & butter lens, if you will) out of service for the repair. 

We stopped down for a few minutes, I removed the "new" filter and put the old one back on, then emailed my sales rep and ordered ANOTHER $330 filter. That cut into the profit a little that day, but it could have been a lot worse.

The funny thing is, I don't have a single protective filter on any of my still lenses, though.


----------



## adhocphotographer (Nov 12, 2013)

My 2p worth....

I generally have a filter on my lenses, especially my wide angle where i get nice and close to action. I was once shooting near a road and a small stone flicked up from a passing car and hit my lens square on the front... It made a rather horrid noise, and cracked my filter! Would it have cracked my lens as easily? Probably not, but i was damn relieved i had it on and didn't have to find out!

So now i use them when I am not in ideal conditions (which living in india is pretty much 100% of the time)... I don't have one on my 70-200 though as i generally use the monster of the lens hood for protection... 

If you want to use one, buy a good one....  Also remember some lenses (eg 24-105) need the filter to complete the weather sealing... 

I have also had times of animals licking my lenses (a cow in particular surprised me once)... instead of having to take the time right there and then to clean the lens to continue shooting, i could just take the filter off and carry on (taking an extra step back mind)!


----------



## chromophore (Nov 12, 2013)

I don't use filters for protective purposes. Impact protection is better with lens hoods. Also, there's no substitute for being smart, careful, deliberate, and prepared in advance. A filter is not extra insurance against impact damage.

What I *do* use filters for, however, is for convenience. If the design of a lens makes it hard to get the front element clean (e.g., recessed front element, delicate coating, or large diameter), I am more likely to keep a filter on it just so that I don't have to waste so much time being careful to keep it dust free. This lets me go out and shoot in salty or dusty conditions without a lot of downtime. If I'm shooting at the beach, I definitely use a filter because once the atmospheric salt hits the front element, you can lose a lot of contrast, and I don't want to be slowed down trying to carefully wipe my lens clean. I can just wipe the salt off the filter.

I keep a filter on my 85/1.2L II all the time, but my 35/1.4L doesn't usually need one.


----------



## Invertalon (Nov 12, 2013)

I have done many side-by-side sharpness tests with my Hoya HD filters and have yet to see any difference... From telephotos to UWA lenses, even at 200% magnification I can not see a difference. 

Using cheap filters? Sure you will see some IQ loss. But using high end filters should eliminate that problem. I use them for ease of cleaning only, and while I have gone through periods of taking them all off and all that, I never saw any difference.

My testing when I did side-by-side images included a tripod, remote shutter, mirror-lockup, etc... Target was usually something with high levels of detail such as minty dollar bills, distant subjects and a variety of conditions such as back-lit trees.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Nov 12, 2013)

chromophore said:


> Impact protection is better with lens hoods.


True, however lens hood protection is good only if the fall is on a relatively flat surface ... if the lens fall on an object that is smaller than the circumference of the lens hood, a filter will take the hit instead of the lens front element ... this is exactly what happened to my lens (see the pic below). A lens hood *and* a filter provide much better protection. 


chromophore said:


> A filter is not extra insurance against impact damage.


I disagree with your statement. 
A filter is indeed an *extra* insurance against impact damage to the lens front element. If it wasn't for the extra insurance of the filter on my EF 16-35 f/2.8 L II lens, I would have had to spend almost US$2000 to get a new lens or wait for about a month and spend at least US$1000 to get the front element replaced.


----------



## Ruined (Nov 12, 2013)

If you use a camera outside I think a HIGH QUALITY filter is a good idea, I like to go with the B+W XS-PRO 007m CLEAR.

Reasons are plentiful:
-Minimal impact on images, at worst you might a bit more flare, otherwise not noticeable.
-Don't have to be as concerned for bumping/scraping front of camera accidentally
-Easier to clean
-A scratched/scuffed lens is much harder to sell and has much lower resale value than a pristine one.

And the big ones most people miss:
-Even if you are the most careful person in the world, and you use a lens hood, if you use your camera outside the front lens element *will still get damaged*. Outside there is wind, wind carries dust, sand, dirt, water, and other particles. Like the windshield of a car, over time the front lens element will get worn down/pitted from its original state due to being out in the elements. If you had used a filter, you can simply replace the filter and bingo back to new.
-Though the actual front lens element may not be the most expensive part, unless you service lenses yourself there will still be costly service feeds in replacing it.

Now it IS true that most of the time damage to the back element is MUCH more visible than damage to the front element. But, damage can still have an impact both in your photos and for resale value.


----------



## chromophore (Nov 12, 2013)

Rienzphotoz said:


> I disagree with your statement.
> A filter is indeed an *extra* insurance against impact damage to the lens front element. If it wasn't for the extra insurance of the filter on my EF 16-35 f/2.8 L II lens, I would have had to spend almost US$2000 to get a new lens or wait for about a month and spend at least US$1000 to get the front element replaced.



And I disagree with yours. Your experience does not prove that it was the filter that saved your lens. Your lens may not have been damaged by that same impact. Furthermore, there are cases where the broken glass from the filter actually contributes to scratching and pitting of the front element. Your single anecdote does not account for the variety of failure modes.

My point is that a filter was never designed to be a form of impact protection. A filter is an optical flat that is thinner and structurally weaker than the curved front element of a lens. It would be unwise to rely on it or count on it in any fashion to save your lens in a fall.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 12, 2013)

chromophore said:


> What I *do* use filters for, however, is for convenience. If the design of a lens makes it hard to get the front element clean (e.g., recessed front element, delicate coating, or large diameter), I am more likely to keep a filter on it just so that I don't have to waste so much time being careful to keep it dust free. This lets me go out and shoot in salty or dusty conditions without a lot of downtime.



+1


----------



## Zv (Nov 12, 2013)

I feel like we have this filter debate about once a month and it goes around in circles with no conclusion. Ever. 

I've seen people with filters on a kit lens with a lens cap on top of that!! 

I've seen bare lenses, no hood (or hood reversed!) no filter, when they prob shoulda used somethin! 

Why do we care what other people do with their stuff? Let's never see this thread again (until next month!)  

Btw - I use hoods for bumps and general protection but filters only when there's sand or water involved. Reason? I paid for L lenses and don't want another piece of glass in front of it. If it breaks it breaks. I'll (cry and) buy another one!


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Nov 13, 2013)

chromophore said:


> Rienzphotoz said:
> 
> 
> > I disagree with your statement.
> ...


1. It is NOT an "anecdote" : ... there are plenty of people whose lens front element was saved due to a filter.

2. I *know* what happened to my lens coz I was there and saw it happen, unless of course you are claiming to be an accomplished prophet or soothsayer who can see things beyond the scope of your eyes. :
I do agree that "a filter was never designed to be a form of impact protection" however it is one of the benefits of using a filter.


----------



## wfmiller (Nov 14, 2013)

Rienzphotoz said:


> What a coincidence! ... just yesterday, my 5D MKIII with EF 16-35 f/2.8 L II mounted on Manfrotto 055CXPRO4 got flung out about 10 feet from a height of 6 feet ... when I saw it fall, I was pretty certain everything must've died ... but to my great relief, the 5D MK III had two tiny scratches, one bottom leg of my Manfrotto broke (http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=18004.msg333840#msg333840), and the EF 16-35 L II lens had a dent on the filer thread. But what protected the front element of the lens was the 82mm B+W XS-Pro filter, which cracked after hitting a metal hook on the shipyard floor. I borrowed a Plier from one of the electricians at the shipyard and gently broke the glass of the B+W filter (as I could not remove it from the lens due to it being stuck real bad) and continued on with my shooting.
> While I understand and agree with Richard's point of view about cheaper filters, I think it is important to have the best filters you can afford on your better lenses ... had I not to have a filter on (or even with a cheap filter) I am pretty certain I would have damaged a lens, that would have cost me almost $2000 to replace, instead I'm only looking at $150 to $175 to replace the filter ... but most importantly I would not have been able to complete the shooting.
> My view on having filters on all the time (on all my lenses) is that it is one less thing for me to worry about when I take the lens out ... if I keep removing filters and putting them on (for normal / not so safe places), I most likely will forget to put the filter on one day and that could be the day, like yesterday, when the lens fells down ... its like my insurance, better to have it and not need it than to not have and need it.




Amen to that, I had a similar experience in that I was doing a shoot in a stream with a waterfall and I slipped on a mossy rock. I thought for sure that I cracked the lens of my 16-35 L II lens when I looked at it. Luckily the only thing that cracked was my ND filter which I had a heck of a time getting off. I did not wince at all while purchasing a replacement filter of the same ilk!! :


----------



## dstppy (Nov 14, 2013)

Zv said:


> I feel like we have this filter debate about once a month and it goes around in circles with no conclusion. Ever.



Not quite monthly, but it seems that way. Hell, at least it's been more civilized and productive than the last three Canon announcement threads.


----------



## Richard8971 (Nov 16, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> I guess you didn't try my suggested test. I shoot indoors a lot, there are usually strong light sources (ceiling light fixtures, floor lamps, etc.) in the frame. In that situation, a cheap filter is a bad idea (I did try a cheap Tiffen once, since it came on a used lens I bought - if you'll pardon the New Englandism, wicked bad flare; no issues with my B+W MRC filters).



No offence but this wasn't about a controlled test using blah, blah and doing blah, blah. I picked up my camera with the filter on, took a shot. Took the filter off and took the same shot. Did the same thing with the other two. Just random shots that anyone of us could take. I DID take these indoors, with normal indoor lighting conditions, using my onboard flash. Nothing special...

Again, if you don't like filters, then don't use them. My test was to show that even though under very close examination you can spot a difference, but just viewing a photo normally, its a lot harder. 

Life is too short. Go out and take some photos!

D


----------



## Richard8971 (Nov 16, 2013)

Zv said:


> I feel like we have this filter debate about once a month and it goes around in circles with no conclusion. Ever.
> 
> I've seen people with filters on a kit lens with a lens cap on top of that!!
> 
> ...



I did this a little differently. I used some photo examples of why its not overall a big deal if you use filters or not. 

I have to wonder, if you are so tired of these threads, why do you open them and read/respond to them? Hmmm.... ???

D


----------



## Zv (Nov 16, 2013)

Richard8971 said:


> Zv said:
> 
> 
> > I feel like we have this filter debate about once a month and it goes around in circles with no conclusion. Ever.
> ...


----------



## RLPhoto (Nov 16, 2013)

All my lenses have b&w filters and I don't see degradation. When I'm slipping lenses in and out of bags the front gets dirty with dust, fingerprints. I have no worry wiping them off with a tshirt or a cloth. They have saved my lenses from liquids before and some impacts. If you baby your gear sure but as a pro I don't have time to be worrying about my front element.


----------



## Don Haines (Nov 16, 2013)

RLPhoto said:


> All my lenses have b&w filters and I don't see degradation. When I'm slipping lenses in and out of bags the front gets dirty with dust, fingerprints. I have no worry wiping them off with a tshirt or a cloth. They have saved my lenses from liquids before and some impacts. If you baby your gear sure but as a pro I don't have time to be worrying about my front element.



I have decent multicoated filters on all of my lenses too... I try to baby my gear, but S___ happens.... I placed an order last week to B+H and it included a 77mm UV filter to replace one with a big scratch down the middle. I have no idea how I scratched it or what I was doing when it happened... but I am a lot happier buying a new filter than sending a lens across international boundaries for a new front element.....

I also have some polarizing filters.... One is a "Henry's special" and the other is a Sigma Multicoated.... there is an immediately visible difference between the two.. If you think cheap filters are bad idea for UV and clear filters, then you are really going to hate a cheap polarizing filter.

HINT: When buying "specialty filters", such as polarizing, ND, infa-red, etc... buy them for your biggest lens size, and then get some step-up rings for the smaller lenses.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 16, 2013)

Richard8971 said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > I guess you didn't try my suggested test. I shoot indoors a lot, there are usually strong light sources (ceiling light fixtures, floor lamps, etc.) in the frame. In that situation, a cheap filter is a bad idea (I did try a cheap Tiffen once, since it came on a used lens I bought - if you'll pardon the New Englandism, wicked bad flare; no issues with my B+W MRC filters).
> ...



It's as if someone handed you a $20 digicam and said it rendered purple/magenta hues as blue...and you compared it to your dSLR and concluded the cheap camera was fine...and showed pictures of a green lawn as 'proof'. 

Your point was that a *cheap* filter is basically just as good as an expensive one, so there's no need to pay more, and you supported that point by showing a pair of images that were taken under conditions that would not reveal the major problem caused by cheap filters - flare. 

Maybe you don't find the flare you get with cheap filters objectionable...but it *is* evident, and easily spotted even in normal viewing of a web-sized image. 

Life is too short. Go out and take some photos...but be sure not to have any strong light sources in the frame!


----------

