What are your thoughts or practises as it pertains to using filters on your lenses

[March411]

The topic continues to show up and we always get a couple of responses. I'm hoping this thread will build a consensus from the members that frequent the community to assist guests that come to the site looking for assistance.

I do use a high quality clear filter (B+W) when I am shooting in areas where dirt, sand or water may be thrown onto the front element of the lens.

For the most part I don't use any filters unless I'm looking to achieve a special effect. Three I always have with me are  infrared (IR), Graduated Neutral Density (GND) or Circular Polarizer (CPL). These normally get mounted in the field. I always use a hood, mostly to protect the front element against damage. 

[shadowsports]

Marc,

Good morning.  I have (keep) a clear lens filter on every lens I own.  Just for protection.  I use hoods also, except at night.  I don't use IR, CPL or GND filters, but those are beneficial too.  I'm lazy in this regard.  I've learned the value of using ND filters on a cinema camera that doesn't have built-in ND's, but It's not something I generally mess with.  However, if cinema is your thing, a variable ND can be an invaluable tool for exposure.  I look forward to reading others comments and I think this thread will be very helpful for visitors 👍

[ebiggs1]

"I do use a high quality clear filter (B+W) ..."

Same here. Otherwise I don't use filters since I am fairly competent using Photoshop. I generally consider filters to be obsolete.  I can see a case for the ND. I have several even though I rarely use them. In fact, I have a rather extensive assortment of filters ( a couple dozen or so) mostly left over from my film days. A circular polarizer has perhaps some limited uses but Photoshop makes even it pretty obsolete.

One thing that seems to escape people is, filters screw off as easily as they screw on.

[justadude]

Hey Marc,

I keep high quality UV filters on every one of my film lenses just because the coatings on those older lenses are not that great.  Doesn't matter if I am shooting film, or if I slap one of those old lenses on my digital cameras, those filters stay on.

Digital lenses are a different story.  While I have good UV filters to fit each lens, they are rarely on the lenses... unless like you, I am shooting where the dirt and sand is blowing around (I don't worry about water spray).  I'll also put one on if I am hiking in an area where there is a lot of growth (brush) where there is a chance of a stray branch on a narrow path poking the front element (Yes, I learned this one the hard way about 20 years ago, and it was my best lens at the time).  

In general they are off though.  I don't like the added reflections when I am shooting at night (pretty often), and I know I am likely to forget to take it off if there was one on there - so I leave them off.  I'm also concerned about not having the extra piece of glass in front of the lens.  I know that image quality doesn't suffer much at all with a good filter, but if a client wants very large prints, such as some 84" ones last year, every little bit that I can do to improve IQ helps.  I feel the lens hood alone offers plenty of protection under general conditions.  

What filters I do use frequently...
* Various ND or graduated ND filters (the 6" x 4" variety)
* CPL - but only under very hazy conditions by large bodies of water
* Infrared (850nm, 720nm, 665nm, 590nm & IR Chrome... all five for digital, the first two only for film)

So I didn't know you were into infrared photography.  I've been heavily into it since the mid-1980's.  Now I have to ask out of curiosity, since by what you said it sounds like just one IR filter, which filter do you use?  And do you have a converted camera, or non-converted?  I still shoot both ways - I like the crispness of fast exposures with a converted camera, and the soft dreaminess of a long exposure on a non-converted camera.  Well, I guess that I shoot all three ways if you count infrared film.

[March411]

Right now I am using the  B+W 092 (695nm) and 093 (830nm) filters and the Hoya R72 (720nm) on my RF15-35mm F2.8 and RF24-70mm F2.8.

It's fairly new to me, I'm in the learning stages and mostly landscapes. I love the different visual perspective it offers and deep contrast.  

I haven't converted a body yet but when the R7 MkII is released I was considering converting my R50.

[Waddizzle]

Good morning, Marc. 

same here.  I use B+W Nano Clear filters on all my lenses.  I just want to keep the front element clean.  I often find myself in outdoor environments with lots of airborne particles. Dust. Pollen. Smoke. Dust. Ocean Spray.  Smoke is the worst because it’s hot and tends to coat things. Smoke from BBQ festivals.

I think UV filters are totally obsolete for digital cameras.  I rarely use a CPL filter, even though landscape photography is my favorite hobby. If I do, then I am using a tripod. I focus without it, and then take the shot with it. 

[SignifDigits]

Mostly mid-range Hoya UV lenses stay on for dust protection until I'm doing serious shooting.  This group convinced me to stop shooting with them on.  When I think I might use them on I am shooting either B+W nano MC clear, or (new and trying out as their specs are quite good) a couple Exus Mark II clear MC protectors.  I haven't used CPLs, but thinking of trying them to see if can get reduction that pesky haze on some of the Appalachian and Allegheny mountain shots I hope to capture over the next few years.

Thanks for the tip of focus without the CPL, shoot with Waddizzle.  I'm curious what situations you would use the CPL and whether my use case of haze is one of them.

[Waddizzle]

“ Thanks for the tip of focus without the CPL, shoot with Waddizzle.  I'm curious what situations you would use the CPL and whether my use case of haze is one of them. “

I don’t often have reason to use a CPL filter. I used use them whenever I was capturing images with a lot of water in the scene. I had a belief that I needed to see below the surface of the water, even though the water wasn’t the subject of the photo.  

So, I pretty much stopped using them.  The only times I used one in the last few years has been at a zoo with a pond containing exotic fish.

[TomRamsey]

I pretty much do not use filters.  No matter how good a filter is, it is an extra piece of glass that light is going through. I have some CPL and ND filters, but haven't used any for a least a couple of years and rarely if at all.  I don't often shoot in conditions where they would possibly be useful.  I always use hoods, which do offer some protection without any possible side effects.  I know some people with monochrome sensor cameras that do use some color filters for effects, that's a different thing.  

[justadude]

Marc,

How is the 695nm working out?  That's right on the edge of what works with non-converted cameras.

You are working with two lenses that don't score well on the Lens Hotspot Database.  Are you getting much of a hotspot on either?  While the list is fairly accurate, they sometimes miss.  

It's nice giving life back to an older camera by converting it.  I think the R50 would be great.  I did that with my old 60D, and kept using it until I bought the R8 and converted it.  I think you'll like some of the colors you can get with the lower bandwidth filters.

Not saying you need it, but if you have any questions since you said it is fairly new to you, just drop me a message.  I've helped many people who were learning this type of photography, and it's one of those subjects that I could talk about for hours.  

Quick shot below taken a couple days ago while walking through the woods near the lakeshore.  This was with the 590nm filter and the RF 35mm f/1.8 lens.  It was completely overcast that day, which makes it difficult, but I did a custom WB against the snow, and it worked quite well.