lense filter

[newuser54]

i am new to this type of camera, and was told to get a lense protector (filter?)

if i use this do i need an adapter of some kind in order to leave attached and put the cap on

or do i remove it everytime?

[Tiffany]

Hi Newuser54!

So that the Community can help you better, we will need to know exactly what equipment you're using.   Any other details you'd like to give will only help the Community better understand your issue.

Thanks!

[amfoto1]

I am going to assume you have a new camera and are asking about putting a "protection" filter on the lens.

You will get strong opinions both ways....

Personally I think it's usually a waste of money.

I'd much rather see you spend your money on the correct lens hood for your lens and use that. A hood will actually usually give better protection to the lens and can only enhance your images. When not shooting, use the lens cap. It'll protect the lens far better than any thin piece of glass ever could.

In fact, if you put a "protection" filter on your lens, sort of ironically it's even more important to use a lens hood to shade both the lens and filter from oblique light, and the lens cap to protect the filter from scratches and accidental breakage.  

I've seen more than a few lenses damaged by broken filters.

But in spite of that and the above, I have "protection" filters for most of my lenses. They are neatly stored in my camera bag until actually needed (such as out shooting in a sand storm, photographing paint ball or motorcycle races close up on the sidelines, or shooting in salt spray at the ocean). My lenses go naked (filterless) most of the time, but I  virtually always use the correct lens hood on them.

If you want to use a protection filter.... just be sure it's a good one. A quality, multi-coated filter ain't cheap. But anything less is more likely to cause flare in your images or have an effect on image sharpness, might even mess with auto focus. Mostly I use B+W MRC or Nano MRC filters, or Hoya HMC or HD. I've heard really good things about Marumi filters, too. And I know Heliopan are good, too. There are some other good ones... I'm sure. In fact most manufacturers (including B+W and Hoya) also sell cheaper, lower quality, single coated filters... which I generally try to avoid.

***********
Alan Myers

San Jose, Calif., USA
"Walk softly and carry a big lens."
GEAR: 5DII, 7D(x2), 50D(x3), some other cameras, various lenses & accessories
FLICKR & PRINTROOM 

[ebiggs1]

I mostly disagree with what Mr. Myers said,...to a point.

What lens have you decided needs a protection filter?  If it is a multi-thousand dollar L lens a $100 UV filter is a small investment in an insurance policy. I also recommend that you buy the filter from the company that made your lens.

I.E., I have Canon filters on all my Canon lenses.

A lens hood offers little to no protection to the front glass and as Mr. Myers states when the going get rough, he adds a filter.

But on that topic you should also use a lens hood.

And I have lived through and read and examined photos with and without UV filters, there is little to no discernible degradation.

Let the pixel peepers eat cake.

Now you have two view points, go out and do as you see fit.  

[TCampbell]

A hood offers protection in that it usually extends far enough from the end of the lens that if you bump anything with the lens end of the camera... it's probably going to hit the hood and not the glass.  

Commonly a UV filter is used for "protection" because they are inexpensive.  It turns out the camera has it's own UV filter (inside the camera body just in front of the sensor -- it is behind the shutter so you generally don't see it... but your camera has a sandwhich composed of the shutter, two filters, and the sensor.)  It is possible to get "clear" filters which are only for protection -- but surprisingly these are somtimes more expensive than a UV filter.

ebiggs1 makes a point about the quality argument -- and there are valid points both ways on this.

It is true that "cheap" filters can cause "dispersion" -- scattering of light such that they diminish the resolution and contrast of the lens.  Basically they degrade the quality of the image.  But to be fair... this degradation is usually slight.  So while it's technically occuring, it wont usually be noticeable.  If you stacked numerous low-quality filters together then it would be noticeable -- but the degradation from just a single filter... probably not.  I do know people who, after years of using the filter, decided to get rid of the filter and claim they can notice the difference.  

There is one area where the degradation is obvious -- flare and ghosting.   These effects usually only happen because a bright light source was aimed right at the camera lens (such as shooting into or near the sun -- but it could happen for any bright light shining on the camera).  You can get obnoxious ghosting or flare with the filter attached, then take it off and all the problems magically go away.  A lens hood would probably resolve this problem most of the time.

Some Canon L series lenses will tell you that they are not completely weather sealed and require a filter to "complete" the weather seal.  You don't always need a weather seal, but if you own an L series lens and you realize there's a good possibility you might get caught in the rain and you happen to own one of the lenses where Canon says it's only weather sealed IF you add the filter... then you probably want to add the filter.

I do actually own filters suitable for each of my lenses -- but don't often use them.

Lastly... the end of your lens is probably more durable than you might guess.  I am not afraid to clean my lenses -- but then I am careful to first check my lens before cleaning to make sure I'm not about to drag a piece of sand all around my glass.  Also I always use a clean microfiber cleaning cloth.

[amfoto1]

"And I have lived through and read and examined photos with and without UV filters, there is little to no discernible degradation."

See, I told you that you were about to get two opposing points of view!

Actually, I've tested lenses with and without filters....

A cheap, uncoated filter can really ruin an image. A quality, multi-coated filter will have minimal effect on image quality much of the time. But even the best will have some effect, and it can be quite a lot in trickier lighting situations.

I bought my lenses to take photos.... not to "protect" them from some unknown hazard. Shooting for going on 40 years now, about 50,000 images a year on average now, I have yet to damage a lens even though they are rarely fitted with a "protection" filter.

In fact, I've seen just about as many lenses damaged by being gouged by a broken filter, as I've seen "saved" by a filter. And even that's is a claim that is impossible to prove... you'd have to do drop tests on hundreds of lenses with and without filters to get some idea of the odds the filter will help in certain situations. I don't know anyone who has done or is going to go to the huge expensive of doing that. Maybe we should challenge "Mythbusters"?

Previous response regarding UV filters is correct, too.... Digital cameras have UV filtration built in, so it's not really necessary for any other reason. In fact UV filters date back to the days of film, when many films were overly sensitive to UV, so the filters were often needed outdoors and made a real difference. A lot of pros who were shooting film used them for that reason, which probably was misinterpreted and copied by other folks who thought that they were somehow "protecting" their valuable lenses. Most pros today that I know don't use them. When I hire a 2nd shooter, if they are using protection filters I ask them remove the filters while they are working for me. Too often I've had to fix flare problems in images, that were caused by filters.... extra work for no good reason. My most valuable lenses don't even have a means of attaching a filter, and somehow they survive (they have very deep lens hoods that I virtually always use).

Basically, if it makes you feel better, gives you more confidence to go out and shoot with your gear, what the heck.... Go ahead and put a good quality, multi-coated filter on your lens.  It will have little effect most of the time. But some of your images will be less sharp or have lower contrast or more flare, due to the filter. Again, it's even more important to use the lens hood when using a filter, to keep oblique light off the filter as best possible, and to protect the fragile glass of the filter from breakage and possibly being driven into the front of your lens.

***********
Alan Myers

San Jose, Calif., USA
"Walk softly and carry a big lens."
GEAR: 5DII, 7D(x2), 50D(x3), some other cameras, various lenses & accessories
FLICKR & PRINTROOM 

[TCampbell]

And just for fun... you can checkout the LensRentals blog "Good Times with Bad Filters"

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

[ebiggs1]

I don't think any body would call Canon brand filters "cheap".

And in my 40+ years of photography, even while working for Hallmark, no one ever came up and said, "Darn it Erine I wish you hadn't shot that photo with a Uv filter one the lens."

To each his own.