cancel
Showing results for 
Show  only  | Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

Do I need a lens filter for protection?

kitkat
Apprentice
I recently bought a Canon T5 bundle without really knowing the first thing about cameras. I'd like to learn, though, which is why I bought it.

My mother tells me I absolutely, definitely, 100% must get a lens filter to protect the lens, but I've read conflicting theories on whether or not it's a good idea, so I've come here to ask. I have heard people say that lens hoods give better protection, but I'm still unsure.

I got the camera on clearance for very cheap, and I'm on an extremely limited budget, so I'm unable to spend a lot on accessories, but I also don't want to fail to protect what I've got.
37 REPLIES 37


@jrhoffman75 wrote:

Just to reiterate - cleaning "supplies" should be limited to a Rocket blower or similar device. Squeeze to blow dust of the lens surface.

 

Never use canned air or other such product.

 

Until you gain experience and understand what is going on don't try cleaning anything inside the mirror chamber. Too many horror stories posted on the orum of folks who did that and damaged parts. When you chnage lenses keep the camera opening facing down and don't do it when dust/breeze is blowing.


I'll second John's point. Not wanting to change lenses outdoors is one of the two reasons that many of us often carry two cameras, (The other is that with certain kinds of photography things happen so rapidly that you don't have time for lens changes. And when you're rushed, you're not as careful.)

 

And to John's other point: Having your camera professionally cleaned and inspected every couple of years can pay dividends. It isn't exactly cheap, but neither is remediation of a botched DIY project.

Bob
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania USA

"Having your camera professionally cleaned and inspected every couple of years ..."

 

Good advise. Remember, never put anything smaller than a football in the mirror box of your Rebel.  Even the Rocket Blower, which I think is a good tool, has limited use.

EB
EOS 1DX and 1D Mk IV and less lenses then before!

B from B wrote:

 

"I don't see any reason to prefer a "clear" filter over a UV filter; I'd buy whichever one is cheaper. And it wouldn't surprise me if the clear filter turned out to be more expensive than a UV filter of equivalent quality."

 

Here is my reason to prefer a clear filter.  Ironically enough, it was one of your posts that made me realize this.

 

Because while I need a protective filter indoors, I don't need a UV filter when I am indoors using a flash.  A UV filter pretty much throws all of the White Balance presets built into the camera, and software, out the window, IMHO.   

 

Seeing how a digital camera has a UV filter built into the sensor assembly, I really do not need a protective filter with UV filtering properties.  Besides, the camera software "knows" about the UV filtering in the image sensor assembly, so any white balance complications should not be an issue.

 

If I were using a UV protective filter, I should probably remove it when shooting indoors with a flash.  Once I remove the UV filter, either I use a clear filter in its' place, or shoot with no protective filter at all.  The most useful protective filter would be a clear filter, because I can use it in nearly any shooting scenario.

--------------------------------------------------------
"The right mouse button is your friend."

Like many aspects of photography, the response that one will give to this topic will depend on one's situation, by which I mean to include the type of photography one undertakes and the conditions under which one does so.

 

So PERSONALLY I have always used a good quality glass UV(0) multi-coated filter and a lens hood on all of my lenses.  This is for a couple of reasons:

1. For purely mechanical protection.  I had the experience of having an airport security person drop my camera with an L series lens. It was in a padded holster and fell only about 500mm, and I thought nothing of it at the time.  When I went to use the camera I found the front element had taken the brunt of the impact (lenses tend to be heavier and so they hit first) and the filter was totally destroyed.  Had I not had the filter on (and I had the lens hood attached but in reverse for convenience in transit), I expect the front element would have been destroyed at considerable cost and invconvenience. I keep a spare UV filter of each size with me.

 

2. I am fairly fastidious about dirt in my lenses and bodies, and some lenses are more prone to breathing in dust than others.  In particular I try to avoid dust getting into the camera body (and hence onto the sensor) and I do this by preferring weathersealed bodies and by not changing lenses in the field (so I am prepared to carry around multiple bodies) and I use a filter to reduce the airflow through the lens and support the dust and weather resistence properties of my lenses and bodies.

 

3.  I use the UV(0) because my OWN style of photograph does not generally require met to employ flashes - being mostly wildlife and scenic using available light, but I do prefer the added reduction of UV.   I note the comment about using a clear filter when one uses flashes on a significant basis and cannot comment on that.

 

As I said before, everyone will have a preferred solution but I would recommend that in answering the quesion one should establish the conditions (purpose, economy and physical) under which the gear will be used.


cheers, TREVOR

"All the variety, all the charm, all the beauty of life is made up of light and shadow", Leo Tolstoy;
"Skill in photography is acquired by practice and not by purchase" Percy W. Harris


@Waddizzle wrote:

... 

Because while I need a protective filter indoors, I don't need a UV filter when I am indoors using a flash.  A UV filter pretty much throws all of the White Balance presets built into the camera, and software, out the window, IMHO.   


That I just don't get. Since there's a UV filter in front of the sensor, how does the camera know, when establishing the white balance, whether there's a UV filter on the lens? The only mechanism that could conceivably be affected is the metering system, and I'd be very surprised if that were allowed to be sensitive to UV light.

 

That said, I agree with your assertion that a clear glass filter (i.e., one that passes UV) is just as good as a UV filter. I was merely guessing that it might be more expensive, to no practical benefit.

Bob
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania USA

B from B,

"A UV filter pretty much throws all of the White Balance presets built into the camera, and software, out the window, IMHO."

 

It was just his 'opinion' and as such was just that.  If it were a fact and I seriously doubt it, if we are all using RAW it makes no difference.

 

 

 

At the time we met each other I was the Office Supply delivery boy and she was the office supply ordering girl for the Customer Service dept.  If it had been a little lather after I transfered to the Tooling dept in the Graphic Arts division, we would have never met.

EB
EOS 1DX and 1D Mk IV and less lenses then before!


@ebiggs1 wrote:

 

At the time we met each other I was the Office Supply delivery boy and she was the office supply ordering girl for the Customer Service dept.  If it had been a little lather after I transfered to the Tooling dept in the Graphic Arts division, we would have never met.


Reminds me of my son and his wife. They worked at two different locations for a chain of automobile dealerships, he as a service technician and she in the personnel department. They eyed each other on the rare occasions when one was at the other's site. But he almost didn't ask her out, because he saw a baby seat in her car and assumed she was married. Turned out the baby seat belonged to her married sister.

Bob
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania USA


@RobertTheFat wrote:

@Waddizzle wrote:

... 

Because while I need a protective filter indoors, I don't need a UV filter when I am indoors using a flash.  A UV filter pretty much throws all of the White Balance presets built into the camera, and software, out the window, IMHO.   


That I just don't get. Since there's a UV filter in front of the sensor, how does the camera know, when establishing the white balance, whether there's a UV filter on the lens? The only mechanism that could conceivably be affected is the metering system, and I'd be very surprised if that were allowed to be sensitive to UV light.

 

That said, I agree with your assertion that a clear glass filter (i.e., one that passes UV) is just as good as a UV filter. I was merely guessing that it might be more expensive, to no practical benefit.


I'm not saying if using a UV filter will affect white balance of not, but, it is the main image sensor that has the built-in UV filter in front of it, not in front of the metering sensor which is what determines the white balance. 

I believe it is the main sensor that is used to determine white balance. If it wasn't I don't see how spot metering or Live View mode would be able to determine WB. 

 

John Hoffman
Conway, NH

1D X Mark III, Many lenses, Pixma PRO-100, Pixma TR8620a, LR Classic


@RobertTheFat wrote:

@Waddizzle wrote:

... 

Because while I need a protective filter indoors, I don't need a UV filter when I am indoors using a flash.  A UV filter pretty much throws all of the White Balance presets built into the camera, and software, out the window, IMHO.   


That I just don't get. Since there's a UV filter in front of the sensor, how does the camera know, when establishing the white balance, whether there's a UV filter on the lens? The only mechanism that could conceivably be affected is the metering system, and I'd be very surprised if that were allowed to be sensitive to UV light.

 

That said, I agree with your assertion that a clear glass filter (i.e., one that passes UV) is just as good as a UV filter. I was merely guessing that it might be more expensive, to no practical benefit.


How does a camera know whether or not there is a UV filter, or any filter for that matter, on the lens?  That's just it.  The camera doesn't know, and there is no way it can figure it out, either.  The last time I checked, filter data is not included in EXIF data.  The WB presets in the camera, and your software, have to assume that there isn't any filter on the lens.  Even if you use a RAW file, the RAW data will be "colored" by any filter that you use.

 

If you want accurate WB, then I don't see how you can get accuracy without a custom WB setting when you use a filter that is not Clear.  If you use a filter, the WB presets will get you close.  Of course, if you need truly accurate WB, then you should take a measurement, anyway, filter or no filter.

 

 

I have been experiencing WB issues in some photos lately.  I have been searching for reasons why this has been happening, so switching to all Clear filters eliminates one potential source of problems.  I have a couple of other suspects, too.  Using a Clear filter seems to have improved my indoor shots.  Better outdoor weather will determine if it helps my outdoor shots.

 

[EDIT]. Don't forget.  I'm the guy who thinks about it too much.  It's the scientist in me that causes it.

--------------------------------------------------------
"The right mouse button is your friend."
Announcements