# Are you using a filter on your 40mm



## J.R. (Feb 15, 2013)

Hi,

I got the 40mm pancake today. I was wondering whether I should get a filter for this thing. It's only 52mm thread so the filter cost is not much, but still was wondering whether it is really necessary for _this_ lens.

What are you guys doing???


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 15, 2013)

No filter on mine (although I use a B+W MRC UV on all my other lenses except the one without front threads). For me, the whole point of the 40/2.8 is it's small size, I don't want to make it any thicker with a filter.


----------



## funkboy (Feb 16, 2013)

Nope, haven't bothered.


like Neuro said, wanna keep it small
the front element is very small and seems to be well protected by the rest of the lens. I might get the hood for it if I find one cheap somewhere (or like someone suggested, a 52mm step up ring). So far I've gotten one fingerprint on it... 
Unlike, say, my 135L, it's cheap so I won't be heartbroken if I scratch it, I'll just go buy another one & put the scratched one on eBay.


----------



## funkboy (Feb 16, 2013)

funkboy said:


> (or like someone suggested, a 52mm step up ring)



Just got back from the shop around the corner. A 52mm-62mm step-up ring fits flush with the front of the focus ring & really looks very natural on it. It would cost you $4 if you got one from B&H. I might have a decent 62mm UV filter in my photo junk box too, just in case I need one at some point.

I think I've got some matte black aerosol grill paint or stove paint in the garage. That stuff is & designed to withstand abuse & should make it a lot less shiny. I should probably tape up the threads to keep them from getting gunked up with paint if I go that route...


----------



## wickidwombat (Feb 17, 2013)

J.R. said:


> Hi,
> 
> I got the 40mm pancake today. I was wondering whether I should get a filter for this thing. It's only 52mm thread so the filter cost is not much, but still was wondering whether it is really necessary for _this_ lens.
> 
> What are you guys doing???



i didnt bother with a uv

I did get a CPL a 10 stop ND and a IR filter for it though and the best part is the filters can all be shared with my 20mm voigtlander pancake

I got a nice little tiffen case that holds up to 58mm filters so it hold all three is small and compact and there is room for it to hold a couple of spare AAA eneloops for the EX90 flash 
all up its a reall nice compact little kit if I wanna go light


----------



## FunPhotons (Feb 17, 2013)

I've got a UV on it. Cheap, and I don't have to worry about the front element, cheap insurance.


----------



## distant.star (Feb 17, 2013)

.
Nope.

Didn't seem worth the bother.


----------



## Ryan_W (Feb 17, 2013)

I mean, 200 bucks is 200 bucks. I use a sliding strap with my camera to keep it low and discreet (not bouncing off my belly with the kit strap).

Because it hangs lower, it's more prone to get splashed or splattered. I put a filter on every lens that's not a rental. Doesn't seem worth the risk not to spend $5, plus I can roughly clean it in a pinch or just take it off if it gets trashed.

The cost of repairing a damaged front element in that lens would probably be higher than the lens itself.

I for one don't consider $200 disposable.


----------



## wickidwombat (Feb 17, 2013)

Ryan_W said:


> I mean, 200 bucks is 200 bucks. I use a sliding strap with my camera to keep it low and discreet (not bouncing off my belly with the kit strap).
> 
> Because it hangs lower, it's more prone to get splashed or splattered. I put a filter on every lens that's not a rental. Doesn't seem worth the risk not to spend $5, plus I can roughly clean it in a pinch or just take it off if it gets trashed.
> 
> ...



have you seen the IQ hit a cheap $5 gives?
i have one around here somewhwere that i got with a second hand lens I'll have to find it and compare it to a high end hoya or B&W and those even in 52mm are still 20 bucks or so I think the B&W ND10 was about $50


----------



## aroo (Feb 17, 2013)

I just got a 40mm two weeks ago and left any UV filter off it. There were a couple threads in this forum at the time discussing image quality loss from UV filters. I did some simple tests and discovered that even my B+W filters were noticeably darker and less resolved than naked lenses. So the best of the best filter, which still degrades IQ, would cost close to half what I paid for the lens on sale. Seems like a good decision so far. Lens is great for stitching.


----------



## Zlatko (Feb 17, 2013)

J.R. said:


> What are you guys doing???


B+W MRC UV on mine.


----------



## FTb-n (Feb 17, 2013)

I had an old rubber hood that was peeling of the metal thread ring. I peeled it completely off and use just the thread ring on the lens (same concept as using a 52mm step up ring). It isn't much, but I think it will help deflect the front element from most things that the camera might bump into.

I'm leery of a filter on this lens. I had a good filter on my 35 f2.0 until I discovered strange flares from candles and Christmas lights. It would seem that these light sources were reflecting off the front element onto the back of the filter causing the flare. I think this is more likely to happen on lenses with smaller, more deeply recessed front elements like the 35 f2.0 and maybe the 40.


----------



## Dylan777 (Feb 17, 2013)

I have B&W Clear filter on all my lenses, no exception for shorty


----------



## Zv (Feb 17, 2013)

Dylan777 said:


> I have B&W Clear filter on all my lenses, no exception for shorty



Sorry, I have to ask. Why? The cost of a decent filter is about half that of the lens. And the front end doesn't seem too vulnerable. I know the hood is ridiculous for the shorty but does it need protection?


----------



## Mr Bean (Feb 17, 2013)

Zlatko said:


> J.R. said:
> 
> 
> > What are you guys doing???
> ...


Same here. And, call me crazy, I also bought a CPL for it


----------



## melbournite (Feb 17, 2013)

I use filters on all my lenses bar this one.


----------



## infared (Feb 17, 2013)

Zv said:


> Dylan777 said:
> 
> 
> > I have B&W Clear filter on all my lenses, no exception for shorty
> ...



I have a B&W MRC clear filter on all of my L-Glass, Zeiss and even my Sigma 50mm...
I _may_ take them off in certain shooting conditions (especially the super-wide lenses))...but generally they are pretty much permanently on my lenses.
I know this is a personal thing and most shooters have their own take on it...
...But for the $149-Shorty-McForty I think I would get the hood and forget the filter. I would be able to feel the pure EXHILARATION, as though I was running thru a cold, mountain stream naked....aaaaaahhhhhhh FREEDOM! Who cares if it gets scratched!!!! (Wow, that felt good) .


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Feb 17, 2013)

Zv said:


> Dylan777 said:
> 
> 
> > I have B&W Clear filter on all my lenses, no exception for shorty
> ...


I have a B+W filter on every single lens ... why? I shoot a lot in the desert and where I live dust is flying around everywhere ... all lenses need protection, the question is not about money but about not being able to make an image because of broken and/or scratched up lens front element ... BTW a decent filter does *NOT* "cost half that of the lens" ... one of the best filters out there is B+W XS Pro costs only $33 ... B+W UV filter costs only $20 ... Tiffin UV Protector filter costs only $5. So I am not sure what decent filter you are talking about that costs half of the lens.


----------



## Zv (Feb 17, 2013)

Rienzphotoz said:


> Zv said:
> 
> 
> > Dylan777 said:
> ...



Ok fair enough, you use a filter to keep out the dirt. But my point is why does a person who is not running around the desert and is just out doing basic street photography need a filter on their shorty?


----------



## funkboy (Feb 17, 2013)

Lens Rentals proved it (once again):

http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2011/06/good-times-with-bad-filters

Nice UV filter = close enough IQ to no filter that it's worth it if you need the protection

Cheap UV filter = don't bother


----------



## jp121 (Feb 17, 2013)

It's such a small lens that I (irrationally) felt I had to add some protection to it. So I added a rubber lens hood.


----------



## TrumpetPower! (Feb 17, 2013)

A filter? On the Shorty McForty? For protection? Seriously?

The front element isn't merely recessed, it's smaller than my thumbprint. And I have small hands.

If this lens needs protection, then so does the viewfinder. How many of all y'all have viewfinder covers?

Cheers,

b&


----------



## distant.star (Feb 17, 2013)

infared said:


> ...But for the $149-Shorty-McForty I think I would get the hood and forget the filter. I would be able to feel the pure EXHILARATION, as though I was running thru a cold, mountain stream naked....aaaaaahhhhhhh FREEDOM! Who cares if it gets scratched!!!! (Wow, that felt good) .



Yeah, that's what I meant to say!!!!


----------



## tcmatthews (Feb 17, 2013)

Yes I was yesterday. But to be fair I was on a beach with blowing sand so all my lens had filters. I did not put a filter on it at first but I found it easier to clean with one. I take pictures in dusty environments so often I tend to by a filter for every lens. If not in a dusty environment however it would be unfiltered.


----------



## Zlatko (Feb 17, 2013)

TrumpetPower! said:


> A filter? On the Shorty McForty? For protection? Seriously?



When photographing events, sometimes time is of the essence. The filter lets me wipe off fingerprints and other smudges with almost any cloth, and be able to continue shooting with an un-smudged lens. Without a filter, proper cleaning is a more involved process, perhaps necessitating a lens change to avoid shooting with the smudged lens. The B+W filters have a coating (MRC) that wipes off especially easily.

In addition, a filter removes the problem of bumps and scratches from other photo gear (camera, lens, flash) either on me or in the camera bag. It effectively replaces a lens cap for this purpose. It also minimizes damage from bumps and scrapes against fences, doorways, door handles, railings, zippers, metal parts on camera bags, etc.

The only image quality problem I've encountered with filters is added reflections from candlelight.

"Who cares if it gets scratched?" I do. Without filters, scratches are almost inevitable. Just look at older lenses that have been used without filters. Who doesn't mind scratches on their lenses?


----------



## Dylan777 (Feb 17, 2013)

Zv said:


> Rienzphotoz said:
> 
> 
> > Zv said:
> ...



For me, it's not about the cost. I don't like to wipe off water, dust etc directly from the lens. PERIOD.

I like to keep my toys in shiny condition


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Feb 17, 2013)

Zv said:


> Rienzphotoz said:
> 
> 
> > Zv said:
> ...


As I said earlier, "all lenses need protection" ... even if you are "not running around the desert" ... OK lets imagine the following scenarios:
You are carrying only 1 lens (or the only lens that covers 40mm) and you have a small accident, could be dirt, oil, grease whatever on the lens ... OR you come out of a nice warm car into a cold outdoor environment or vice versa (this happened to me on quite a few occasions), you see a fantastic photo opportunity, but your darned lens is foggy due to the temperature change, which one of the following would you feel is *safer*, *faster * and/or *comfortable* to do:
a. Search, pull out and clean the lens with micro fiber cloth that is good enough not to scratch the front element?
b. wipe the filter with your shirt or even a tissue?


----------



## rpt (Feb 18, 2013)

No filter for this one. In fact I have 52mm filters from my AE-1 days but I have not put one on this lens.


----------



## dr croubie (Feb 18, 2013)

I've had a Hoya Yellow-Green filter on it for the last few weeks, because it was the only 'yellowish' filter that I had lying around in 52mm, but I just put in an order at B+H so I picked up a B+W Yellow-Orange (much better for skin-tones) and a Dark Red (for that really dark 'black sky' look). I've also got an old B+W CPL that I got off ebay for $10 that I put on it sometimes, it's not often that i shoot colour film with the McForty but it does help stacking a CPL on top of the yellow filter on black'n'white film to darken the sky a bit.


----------



## Zv (Feb 18, 2013)

Rienzphotoz said:


> Zv said:
> 
> 
> > Rienzphotoz said:
> ...



I once smudged my 50mm f/1.8, wiped it with my scarf and went on with my day. All lenses do not need protection. Does my P&S need a filter too? That is much easier to smudge. My point is where do you draw the line between protecting an investment and overprotecting something that is almost disposable? Surely a small rubber hood would do that? Why pay $33 for a UV filter for my 50mm lens that cost about $80? By your theory it must be protected right? 

Now, a $1000 L lens is a different story. I have no issues with protecting that.


----------



## brad-man (Feb 18, 2013)

I shoot at or near the beach frequently. The XS-Pro is _very_ low profile and easy to clean. For $33, it's is a no-brainer for me....


http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/756154-REG/B_W_1066117_52mm_Ultraviolet_UV_MC.html


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Feb 18, 2013)

Zv said:


> Rienzphotoz said:
> 
> 
> > Zv said:
> ...


If you say so ... its your equipment, your rules.


Zv said:


> Does my P&S need a filter too?


That's a question you have to ask yourself. But none of my P&S can take filters ... if they could, I would.


Zv said:


> My point is where do you draw the line between protecting an investment and overprotecting something that is almost disposable?


If the lens can take a filter, I'll have one on it, that's where I draw the line. 
None of my lenses and/or cameras are disposable or "almost" disposable ... they are all valuable tools which I want to protect so I am not caught offgaurd by not being able to make a picture. It's not about money, its about not being able to make a picture at a given situation.


Zv said:


> Surely a small rubber hood would do that?


Not for me.


Zv said:


> Why pay $33 for a UV filter for my 50mm lens that cost about $80?


I've already answered this question earlier. 
BTW, I had a $19 B+W filter on my 50 f/1.8 lens that cost me $99


Zv said:


> By your theory it must be protected right?


As far as my lenses are concerned, that's a resounding YES! ... but that's just me ... as I said, your equipment your rules, my equipment my rules.


----------



## pwp (Feb 18, 2013)

There's a clear filter & hood on mine. It's the habit of a lifetime. Why stop now?

As it turns out the lens is incredibly well protected, clear filter or otherwise. It spends just about all it's time on my studio shelf, safe from scratches, dust, rain and even accidental usage. 

The 40 was an impulsive, inexpensive novelty purchase which actually surprised me with the quality of the image files it delivers. But I'd probably give it to someone who asked me nicely enough...it just doesn't get used.

-PW


----------



## drmikeinpdx (Feb 18, 2013)

This is definitely a YMMV situation. I never use filters and never get scratches. Hardly ever have to even clean the front elements. Guess I'm just a careful guy. Oh, and I rarely use lens hoods, since I don't shoot into the sun. 

Today I met up with a fellow from Craigslist and bought a 200 2.8 L lens from him. I used my pancake lens as a body cap for my 5D3.


----------



## J.R. (Feb 18, 2013)

pwp said:


> As it turns out the lens is incredibly well protected, clear filter or otherwise. It spends just about all it's time on my studio shelf, safe from scratches, dust, rain and even accidental usage.
> 
> The 40 was an impulsive, inexpensive novelty purchase which actually surprised me with the quality of the image files it delivers. But I'd probably give it to someone who asked me nicely enough...it just doesn't get used.
> 
> -PW



+1 ... Same here ... but I've given my 40mm to my 9 yr old daughter for her 1100D within a couple of days of purchasing it. I've relegated her 18-55 kit lens to the shelf with the hope that she'll learn better composition with the prime. 

BTW, I have put on the Hoya UV filter on the lens.


----------



## mb66energy (Feb 18, 2013)

I always use filters on my lenses but do not use front lens caps.

(1) I don't have to be supercareful if dust, dirt, water hits the front of the lens which happens always.
(2) A planar optical element is easily cleaned - here with cotton clothing or sth. other which is available.
(3) If the front gets a hit by a hard object there is a chance that the filter is smashed but the front element of the lens survices.
(4) In winter or during rain I like to put the camera under my coat. I had one incident when a plastic part of the coat has destroyed the consistency of the multi coating of a filter.

My experience with the 10-22: See point (4) above. The filter is now on my 5.6/400 where it doesn't matter but on the 10-22 the damaged coating was visible in contralight so I replaced the filter and now I use front lens caps on that lens. Replacing the filter was ~50€, a replacement of the front element of the 10-22 would have been sth. around 300 € (estimated) - it is an aspherical lens.

Filters used: B&W MRC 010


----------



## Hillsilly (Feb 18, 2013)

I typically don't use UV filters, but often use IR filters, ND filters, B&W filters and polarizers. But then, I'm not a pro photographer who is constantly using their camera gear. I can be a bit more relaxed and careful. Using a filter affects the image quality. Sometimes in a good way. Often in a bad way. If you know what you are trying to achieve (eg a particular look or protection) and understand any trade-offs, then the choice of whether to use a filter is pretty easy. I just wish the lens was designed with more thought for use with bigger filters. 52mm filters just don't look right.


----------



## Vossie (Feb 18, 2013)

Just got my shorty forty last week and do not intend to use a filter on it. I do use HQ B+W filters on most of my lenses, but I got this one for its very low price and size; adding a filter will compromise both features.


----------

