# Lens filters or not?



## JPlendPhoto (Jan 31, 2014)

Lens filters

Sometime soon I am going to be buying the Tamron 24-70 f/2.8, with that I was going to by a UV Filter for it, just like I have on my 2 L lenses. Do UV filters have an impact on the sharpness of pictures; if so is it better to avoid filters?

Thanks


----------



## procentje20 (Jan 31, 2014)

Technically, all extra glass effects the image quality. However, most of the times the benefit of a filter for protection out ways the better IQ.

I usually carry a box for my filters to I can remove them in special situations like low light, high detail landscape, that sort of stuff. Around children the filter stays on, as I like to get close to children, and they always end up touching my precious glass.


----------



## JPlendPhoto (Jan 31, 2014)

procentje20 said:


> Technically, all extra glass effects the image quality. However, most of the times the benefit of a filter for protection out ways the better IQ.
> 
> I usually carry a box for my filters to I can remove them in special situations like low light, high detail landscape, that sort of stuff. Around children the filter stays on, as I like to get close to children, and they always end up touching my precious glass.



Thats what I have been thinking, protection is important when you spend a lot of money on a lens.


----------



## bholliman (Jan 31, 2014)

procentje20 said:


> Technically, all extra glass effects the image quality. However, most of the times the benefit of a filter for protection out ways the better IQ.
> 
> I usually carry a box for my filters to I can remove them in special situations like low light, high detail landscape, that sort of stuff. Around children the filter stays on, as I like to get close to children, and they always end up touching my precious glass.



+1. I have clear or UV filters for all my lenses and leave them on as a default. But, I often remove them before shooting when I want maximum IQ and am in a safe and kid free environment. I currently have good quality Hoya UV filters, but plan to upgrade to better quality B+W soon and I may leave them on more when I shoot. I've done some comparison shots with filters on and off and there is a tiny difference in some situations with no filter being better of course.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 31, 2014)

I don't find that good quality UV filters (B+W MRC) reduce sharpness. They can cause increased flare in backlit shots, and thus loss of contrast.


----------



## J.R. (Jan 31, 2014)

This is pretty well elaborately covered in numerous threads on CR - should be useful 

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=18512.0
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=17292.0
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=18010.0
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=17292.0


----------



## Sella174 (Jan 31, 2014)

A good filter is as much an investment as the lens itself ... I always sell a lens without the filter and keep it for continued use on another lens.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 31, 2014)

Sella174 said:


> A good filter is as much an investment as the lens itself ... I always sell a lens without the filter and keep it for continued use on another lens.



Ditto. Even when I didn't think I'd need it, as was the case for the 58mm filter I had on the 85/1.8…then I bought an MP-E 65mm. OTOH, I do have a couple of 77mm UV filters currently unused, since Canon seems to be releasing new versions of lenses with 82mm filter threads instead of the smaller ones of their predecessors.


----------



## Zv (Jan 31, 2014)

And here we go again with another round of filter debate.

Use them. Don't use them. The difference is negligible. I think the general rule is to always use a high quality one if you can.


----------



## mackguyver (Jan 31, 2014)

Zv said:


> And here we go again with another round of filter debate.
> 
> Use them. Don't use them. The difference is negligible. I think the general rule is to always use a high quality one if you can.


It's too bad they don't use stickies on this forum...and I invested in some good filters and my old ones have a good deal of scratches - I'd be quite unhappy if my front elements looked like my filters!


----------



## Halfrack (Jan 31, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> It's too bad they don't use stickies on this forum...and I invested in some good filters and my old ones have a good deal of scratches - I'd be quite unhappy if my front elements looked like my filters!


Stickies would be really helpful, as would more definitive documents as to the options for specific topics - as in wireless speedlites and such.


----------



## surapon (Jan 31, 2014)

JPlendPhoto said:


> Lens filters
> 
> Sometime soon I am going to be buying the Tamron 24-70 f/2.8, with that I was going to by a UV Filter for it, just like I have on my 2 L lenses. Do UV filters have an impact on the sharpness of pictures; if so is it better to avoid filters?
> 
> Thanks



Dear Friend JPlend.
Just my Idea, As Profession Architect and I go to the construction site all the Times, and I must wear the hard hat, Eyes protection Goggle and Steel Toe shoes= yes , To protect my body as best as I can. 
Yes, Lens too, All my Lenses Except 600 mm.and my 8 mm. Fish eye Lens, I use the Most Expensive Multi-Coats UV Filters to protect all of my lenses----Yes, Some of the filters ( Cheap filters ) might create the Bad or SoSO effect to our photos---But, That why I trust my High End Multi-Coats UV. Filters to protect High cost Lenses from the Moisture, Dirt/ Dust---And Easy to clean the Filter than try to clean the High cost Lenses Surface..
Good Luck.
Surapon.


----------



## Sella174 (Feb 1, 2014)

Off-topic, but what the hey ...



surapon said:


> and Steel Toe shoes= yes



I work in an agricultural environment and steel-capped boots are a big, huge NO-NO.


----------



## iaind (Feb 1, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Sella174 said:
> 
> 
> > A good filter is as much an investment as the lens itself ... I always sell a lens without the filter and keep it for continued use on another lens.
> ...



A good filter will probably save the front element in an accident if no hood fitted


----------



## gigabellone (Feb 1, 2014)

Damn, reading this thread made me paranoid! 

What brand/model would you recommend? I found this purposedly built filters from Hoya, the HD Protector series. Has anyone tried them?


----------



## mackguyver (Feb 1, 2014)

gigabellone said:


> Damn, reading this thread made me paranoid!
> 
> What brand/model would you recommend? I found this purposedly built filters from Hoya, the HD Protector series. Has anyone tried them?


Hoya's better filters, like the Pro1 and HD line, and B+W filters are generally the best bet - just make sure they are the multi-coated (on both sides) filters. Cheaper filters (like most of Tiffen's line) compromise the image and add too much flare, and more expensive filters (like Heliopan) don't offer much above B+W. Hoya filters work just as well as B+W, but are harder to clean. The trick is to use your breath and a dry microfiber cloth to do a final wipe after cleaning them - otherwise a film remains. 

Also, this advice applies to UV/Protector filters only - polarizers and ND filters can vary a lot between companies. Also, UV or Protector are fine - camera sensors filter UV already, so UV filters don't filter anything extra, like they did in the film days.

Also, a lot of people leave the filters off unless they're going out into rough(er) conditions. Personally, I take mine off when I shoot in the studio and when I shoot into the sun.


----------



## m (Feb 1, 2014)

gigabellone said:


> Damn, reading this thread made me paranoid!



Your lens can take a few "scratches":
http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2008/10/front-element-scratches


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 1, 2014)

gigabellone said:


> Damn, reading this thread made me paranoid!
> 
> What brand/model would you recommend?



B+W MRC (or Nano), in the XS-Pro mount so you don't have to worry about vignetting.


----------



## JustMeOregon (Feb 1, 2014)

I consider uv/clear filters to be pretty much shoot-through lens caps... I have high quality B+W XS-Pro MRC-Nano filters on _all_ my lenses. While I'm actively using the lens, I'll keep the protective filter on and not fiddle-around with a lens cap at all -- it may not seem like much, but it really makes "getting the shot" a lot quicker... I take primarily landscapes (& shoot in a very messy world) so if the filter gets dirty I'm not paranoid about quickly wiping it off with whatever I have at the moment. Of course if I'm setting up for the "hero-shot of the day" or shooting into a heavily backlit situation (where flare might be an issue) I just pop the filter off and slip it into my pocket.


----------



## sagittariansrock (Feb 1, 2014)

Cheaper filters might cause more damage than just a little IQ degradation: 
http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2013/10/bad-times-with-bad-filters


----------



## FTb-n (Feb 1, 2014)

I strongly recommend the Hoya HD over the Hoya Pro1 or Hoya HMC. It's very tough, I found no noticeable difference in IQ with or without the filter, and it's very easy to clean.

Based on other reviews and not personal experience, B+W is the only other filter I would consider.


----------



## mwh1964 (Feb 2, 2014)

B&W F pro for sure if you got the $. Otherwise Hoya is more or less half price and honestly I don't see the diffence in IQ except with the CPL. But build quality the BW is way ahead from anything else I tried.


----------



## gshocked (Feb 2, 2014)

Hi,

Have a read of this:

http://www.lenstip.com/113.4-article-UV_filters_test_Description_of_the_results_and_summary.html


----------



## surapon (Feb 2, 2014)

gshocked said:


> Hi,
> 
> Have a read of this:
> 
> http://www.lenstip.com/113.4-article-UV_filters_test_Description_of_the_results_and_summary.html



Thousand Thanks, Dear gshocked.
Thanks for great like like this---So many time in real life, Cheap might better value than the high cost one.
Have a great weekend.
Surapon


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 2, 2014)

gshocked said:


> Have a read of this:
> http://www.lenstip.com/113.4-article-UV_filters_test_Description_of_the_results_and_summary.html



Just be aware of how their scoring is derived. One factor (25% of the scoring) is how effective the filter is at blocking UV light, and that is irrelevant for dSLR users. In fact, in one sense better UV blocking is worse, because some of the deep blue light is also lost. 

Hoya, Zeiss, and B+W all publish their transmission curves. No filter has a perfectly vertical cutoff on a transmission curve - most good commercial multicoated filters that 'block' wavelengths ramp from ~0% transmission to their max of >99% over a 25-125 nm range (although some of the longpass and bandpass filters I use in microscopy are close to vertical, with a slope covering <5 nm - and they come with a price tag commensurate with that performance). 

The Zeiss has the steepest slope of the three, ramping up over the 410-435 nm range (it's cutting out some blue light, which is considered to start at 400 nm). The Hoya has the least steep slope, running from 350-460 nm or so, meaning its passing some UV in the 350-399 nm range, and blocking a bit of blue light as well. The B+W is intermediate, ramping up from 360-430 nm, but at 400nm (the start of the visible range) the B+W UV transmission is >90%, and the sensitivity of the CFA blue channel on the sensor is very low below 420nm anyway. 

Of course, while that might be good to know if you're shooting film, none of that matters if you've got a dSLR. The dSLR's sensor is insensitive to UV light, so there's no difference between a UV filter (be it the 410 nm Zeiss or the 360 nm B+W) and a clear filter that fully passes the long end of the UV spectrum. I have empirically tested my 7D and 5DII for UV sensitivity with calibrated UV/Vis light sources and some of those precise bandpass filters mentioned above (running a lab that has such equipment comes in handy sometimes) - there's no need for a UV filter. I do use UV filters for protection (B+W MRC or Nano), instead of clear - but that's only because every time I've needed to buy one, the UV version was cheaper than the clear one (although that's not the case with all brands or in all geographies). 

For the Lenstip tests, I recommend looking at the test results, not the summary table. For example, compare the top scoring Hoya with the 3rd place B+W - the Hoya scored 90% (36/40), the B+W scored 83% (33/40). But, when you look at the subscores which they provide that sum to a possible 40 pts, you see that B+W loses 1 pt for visible transmission, 1 pt for flare, and 5 pts for UV transmission. The Hoya loses 2 pts for visible transmission, 2 pts for flare, and gets 10/10 for UV transmission. But for a dSLR user, UV transmission is irrelevant...meaning that *for a dSLR user, the B+W is the better filter according to Lenstip's testing*, since it's better on both visible light transmission and flare.


----------



## JustMeOregon (Feb 2, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> gshocked said:
> 
> 
> > Have a read of this:
> ...



+1 Throwing out the test results for UV-transmission, it looks to me like all the more highly regarded brands have pretty much the same visible-light transmission. The way that I abuse use a UV filter, as a "shoot-through lens cap," the most important comparative test would be "ease of cleaning." And the B+W Nano filters are the easiest cleaning filters I've ever used...


----------



## surapon (Feb 2, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> gshocked said:
> 
> 
> > Have a read of this:
> ...



Thanks you, Sir , Dear Mr. neuroanatomist, my Teacher.
As the great Scientist like you, You are right to the point of research, Testing and evaluation again. As Most of CR. Members and Me, We just Average people and trust some final report of company like this, with out look in to the base research that good points for the user like us---and we always miss some things that we can use.
BUT, We have the great member like you, who guide us to the right Point.
Thanks again, Sir.
Have a great night.
Surapon


----------



## flowers (Feb 2, 2014)

I use cheap filters for protection, either UV or sometimes macro filters (I have 72mm ones lying around, have to use them for something.) I always have a hood on the lens I have on the camera, the right side up if there's room in the bag and of course when shooting. I take the protective filter off when shooting. I don't worry with normal lenses, but with wide angles I make sure I use slim filters that have no risk of scratching the front element. I put them on so that the largest clearance is on the inside (usually that's right side up). With ultrawides there's no chance to use a filter but I have a hood on the lens *always*. I rarely use filters when shooting other than ND, GND and CPL. I have all kind of filters lying around but truthfully I should probably just get rid of them. Who needs FD filters on digital? I'm not even shooting film anymore.

I echo Khun Surapon's words, thank you neuroanatomist for all that information.


----------



## mpphoto (Feb 2, 2014)

I started out with Hoya's HMC UV filters, then I heard B+W's filters were easier to clean and switched to those despite the greater cost. I do find B+W filters easier to clean.

One thing I have read about the thinner B+W XS-Pro line is the lens cap is harder to put on. Can anyone shed some light on that? I have only used B+W's F-Pro line.

Besides being thinner, the XS-Pro has the nano coating that is supposed to be easier to clean. 

The only lens I have experienced vignetting on is my EF-S 10-22mm with a Hoya circular polarizer on it, and only at the wide end. I'm not sure if the extra cost of the XS-Pro is worthwhile for every photographer.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 2, 2014)

mpphoto said:


> One thing I have read about the thinner B+W XS-Pro line is the lens cap is harder to put on. Can anyone shed some light on that? I have only used B+W's F-Pro line.



The XS-Pro thread has a lower profile, so there's a gap - but it's not big, I'd say about 0.75mm. The F-Pro has a gap, too, though its slightly smaller:







There's no difference in terms of putting a lens cap on, and I've never had issues with caps popping off either filter, and I take lenses in and out of various bags a lot.


----------



## scottburgess (Feb 2, 2014)

I don't use UV filters much--but I certainly do around any kind of water spray, especially salt water.

This thread has renewed my wondering about servicing costs for recoating or replacing the front element on a lens... Anyone have need of CPS for such a service? If so, what was the turnaround and cost?


----------



## flowers (Feb 2, 2014)

scottburgess said:


> I don't use UV filters much--but I certainly do around any kind of water spray, especially salt water.
> 
> This thread has renewed my wondering about servicing costs for recoating or replacing the front element on a lens... Anyone have need of CPS for such a service? If so, what was the turnaround and cost?



Good question, I don't expect to damage the front element of my lenses, but just in case: how much would this cost for Sigma lenses under warranty and without warranty? Does anyone know?


----------



## gshocked (Feb 2, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> gshocked said:
> 
> 
> > Have a read of this:
> ...



+1

I'm not 100% on their testing methods...


----------



## adhocphotographer (Feb 4, 2014)

I use them on almost all of my lenses and i am glad i do (do not have enough for all my lenses at the same time).

I was once shooting and a stone got kicked up by a passing car and hit my lens head on, cracking my filter but leaving my lens untouched. I don't know what would have happened if i had not had the filter on, but since then, i have one on! If i want to mount a CPL filter on, i just switch them (or stack them if not too wide). Also, some L lenses need them to complete their weather sealing.

I have some HOYA HDs and B+W MRCs. I have tested with and without and see no difference in the image quality from my eyes, which is what i use and is therefore fine for me! 

All my L lenses are 77mm thread. When i need an 82, i will buy a filter accordingly. People who say they see a difference in sharpness (flair is a different matter and can be resolved by removing the filter temporally if so desired) are either using poor quality filters (stupid) or pixel peep to an unhealthy extent (just my opinion).

At the least, i have 1 filter with me at all times that i can put on my lens if conditions warrant it.


----------



## Ivan Muller (Feb 5, 2014)

gigabellone said:


> Damn, reading this thread made me paranoid!
> 
> What brand/model would you recommend? I found this purposedly built filters from Hoya, the HD Protector series. Has anyone tried them?



go to 'lenstip' they have actually tested a whole bunch of filters. My personal preference based on their reviews are the Marumi filters made in Japan. But for what its worth, I sometimes shoot with the filters on sometimes off and have never been able to see a difference, therefore I keep em on.... mostly!


----------



## Mr_Canuck (Feb 6, 2014)

scottburgess said:


> I don't use UV filters much--but I certainly do around any kind of water spray, especially salt water.
> 
> This thread has renewed my wondering about servicing costs for recoating or replacing the front element on a lens... Anyone have need of CPS for such a service? If so, what was the turnaround and cost?



I had to replace the front element on a Pentax DA35 limited... for $270, on a $550 lens. Bit of an ouch.

The only lens I don't keep a filter on is my 50 macro. The lens element is deeply recessed into the lens. As an aside, I had a Pentax 50/1.4 that created some crazy flare... and I LOVED it. Some of my best, fluke shots came from the interesting cast of the flare. Very artistic. Something to think about. Flare isn't always a bad thing. It could be considered a 'photography' way of looking at the world. I digress...

Get good UV filters (like Hoya or B+W). If you feel better about the super high end, go for it. I've had some single coated and multi coated, and couldn't care too much if there's a difference. Much of it simply has to do with how easy they are to clean. So the Hoya HD might be a good bet for easy to clean, or doesn't get as dirty in the first place.

What I hate... lens caps. So having UV filters allows me to ditch the lens caps in the field and cut my fiddling between lenses by 50%.

Get some UV filters. If you have a super amazing shot where you think it's causing flare, take it off. That's pretty easy to do. Otherwise... wear a seatbelt.


----------



## Sella174 (Feb 6, 2014)

Mr_Canuck said:


> What I hate... lens caps. So having UV filters allows me to ditch the lens caps in the field and cut my fiddling between lenses by 50%.



Yip.


----------



## JPlendPhoto (Feb 12, 2014)

Thanks for your replies. I think I will stick with getting a filter for what ever my new lens will be.


----------



## justaCanonuser (Feb 16, 2014)

JPlendPhoto said:


> Lens filters
> 
> Sometime soon I am going to be buying the Tamron 24-70 f/2.8, with that I was going to by a UV Filter for it, just like I have on my 2 L lenses. Do UV filters have an impact on the sharpness of pictures; if so is it better to avoid filters?
> 
> Thanks



This discussion frequently pops up. I asked that myself when I went digital, because digital sensors do not need anymore UV filters, they have their own filter glass (including strong infrared filtering on the other end of the spectrum relevant for photography). I've checked many reviews on the web over the years, and none could prove that high quality filter glass really degrades IQ. In fact, Canon's and Nikon's superteles do have such a protection filter glass built-in as a fixed front element, and the industry wouldn't do that with its top products if such glass would produce real losses. 

So I personally decided to use filters as protectors in particular on those lenses I carry on wildlife trips with me. It is always relaxing to know that a sand, seawater salt and bird's s(beep ) smudge crust is only on the filter, not the lenses front element.


----------



## privatebydesign (Feb 16, 2014)

justaCanonuser said:


> In fact, Canon's and Nikon's superteles do have such a protection filter glass built-in as a fixed front element, and the industry wouldn't do that with its top products if such glass would produce real losses.



Not actually true anymore, the Canon MkII supersedes do not have the protective meniscus lens that the previous ones have had. Mostly, apparently, to save weight, but the newest nano coatings are very durable.


----------



## tron (Feb 16, 2014)

First and foremost a filter is the best protection for the lens not only from scratches but from dirt as well.

As a secondary bonus it is easier to sell a lens that has a filter from day 1.


----------



## Chaitanya (Feb 16, 2014)

I only use circular polariser, ND and grads with my lenses. All of these from B+W and Lee. I used to own UV filters in past but only for protection of front element when there was no lens cap on the lens while trekking.


----------



## flowers (Feb 16, 2014)

Chaitanya said:


> I only use circular polariser, ND and grads with my lenses. All of these from B+W and Lee. I used to own UV filters in past but only for protection of front element when there was no lens cap on the lens while trekking.


I actually found out that CPL and ND400 and UV multicoated pro filters work well for me. Mostly bc from the brand I use I can get them bundled together like that so I use the multicoated UV as lens protection and the CPL and ND400 when I need those filters. ND400 is the most useful ND filter for me, but I've also considered getting the VND (ND2-ND1000) of the same brand. I have been happy with the ND400 so far, but if I feel I need the flexibility I'll get the VND.


----------



## Dylan777 (Feb 16, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Sella174 said:
> 
> 
> > A good filter is as much an investment as the lens itself ... I always sell a lens without the filter and keep it for continued use on another lens.
> ...



+1...I like BW XS-Pro Clear MRC-Nano 007 Filter. It's pricey, but I think it well worth it. People usually offer buying high-end filter @ fraction of original cost. They usually say, "I can get $20 filter for same quality" ??? ???


----------



## Surfwooder (Feb 17, 2014)

I was on Cocoa Beach two years ago with a shooting buddy, (shoots Nikon) We were taking some shots of seagulls taking to flight. I was using my 7D paired to my 70-200 lens. The friend was using his new $2100 Nikcor lens. We were set to shoot the flock, as the took to air, they lightened their load and crapped on us. My Canon lens got hit, but the friends lens was covered on the outer element. I removed my filter and cleaned it and went back to shooting. The friend had a real problem, seems the high acid in the gull crap ate away the outer coating on the lens. But, only in spots. After got it back to the motel, and took some photos it was plain to see the effect of the coating on the outer element. Buy either a UV filter, or clear glass in filter ring, and cover your outer element. You can remove it when shooting with a CP filter to prevent possible vignetting. I did get tree sap on my EF 100mm f2.8L IS USM Macro it was on the outer element, but came off quickly, and cleanly. I was shooting a bug in a orange tree in the backyard. Thank goodness for Zeiss wipes.


----------

