Do you use a UV filter to protect your lens or Not :-\
When I first started I got a Nikon 24-120 f3.5 and a UV filter at the same time, There was an older guy in the shop who said that he was a pro and that I wouldn't get any good picks with that in front :-\
My reply was "You may be a pro and can afford to buy a new lens when you feel like it" I can't he left in a huff ;D ;D
Ian
invariably i use a CP as my bolt on filter.
Easy to isolate and does as good a job as a UV.
Had one on my 100 macro which got dropped. Lost the filter but still got the lens.
I'm of the camp that a uv filter just takes away iq, unless its a really expensive high quality filter. In the old days lenses were not coated, didnt use toughened glass, so filters became a way of protecting the lens front element, nowadays thats all changed, the coatings are tough, the glass is tough. A filter only protects the front element anyway, wont stop internal damage if the lens is dropped etc. I prefer to allways use a lens hood for peace of mind and many think the same way from posts I had read over the years.
If you search, you will find it quite hard to find the very small number of people who have actually saved a lens because they had a filter fitted, so imho its a bit of an old wives tale. Of course thats not to say it wouldnt help protect a front element and even though I dont believe in them I do actually know a person who smashed a filter, they thought it was the lens front element (bought camera and lens second hand from me) they were really happy when I pointed out it was only the filter, however, it broke becasue they dropped it and it landed on the edge of the filter, twisted enough to crack the glass, again, imho, a lens hood would have been just as good, perhaps better as they are flexible and even if on the lens reversed provide some shock resistance.
Also, a front element for a canon lens isnt that expensive of a repair with canon and if you break the front element dropping it, chances are its going to need to be serviced and have the internals realigned..
Put a spike in the middle of a steering wheel instead of fitting seatbelts and I bet there would be a lot less accidents :) :legit:
I used to have a UV on my 24-105 - and it was not a cheapy either - but took it off, probably 2 years ago as I felt it was affecting the IQ.
I do always (Well 98% of the time) use a hood on every lens I own, except my 60mm macro.
Oh, and my 24-105 rolled out the back of my landrover onto the carpark at work about a year ago - about 2' 6". No obvious damage and no affect on the IQ. :-[
Don't use any filters to protect my lenses, and in the case of my 400mm F2.8 AIS lens wouldn't get one for it as it's 7" diameter. Also, my Nikon 14-24mm F2.8 can't take a filter due to the bulge of the front glass. I know Jessops always try to push a UV filter on buyers to protect the glass but it's more a case of generating extra profits. Lens glass is pretty strong so you would be very unlucky to damage it. ;D
Only time I would use a filter would be in windy conditions in somewhere like a desert.
As others have said, I keep the lens hood on most of the tome and have dropped a lens with no damage being suffered.
Lens hood and no filter for me too.
Same here, Lens hood and no filter.
I wonder - do these replies hint at the type of photography you do? Would a permanent uv make some sense, doing its primary job of cutting down haze, if your main interest is landscapes?
I seem to be in somewhat of a minority here because I permanently have UV filters on all my lenses (B+W from Schneider Optics) other than when CPL's (also from B+W) are in use of course and with no apparent loss in IQ. Not so much for reasons of physical protection but more in the way of keeping dust and other atmospheric rubbish away from my front elements. I feel more comfortable in attacking a filter to remove dirt and film/haze deposits than I would a front element. Lens hoods are always used also - whether inside or outside. As an aside, I was in discussion with a wedding photographer a while back now who permanently has a CPL fitted when taking outdoor shots.
Belt and braces for me.
P.S. What's I.Q.. Not having been blessed with too much of the natural kind, I'm wondering what it is photographically?
I.Q. = image quality when referring to photography. MENSA use a slightly different definition ;)
Maybe we should put all of these up on a table because i have no doubt they can be daunting for the newcomer or unsuspecting! Not all are as obvious as DOF (denial of facts :D )
Protection for me too...!!!
Once you have had the misfortune of damaging your goods then the phraise " horse, gate and blotted" springs to mind!!!
Permanently have UV filters on all my lenses, even though I always use their lens hoods. Just makes sense to have total protection from any unforeseen accidents.
Quote from: SimonW on February 03, 2010, 08:52:04 AM
I wonder - do these replies hint at the type of photography you do? Would a permanent uv make some sense, doing its primary job of cutting down haze, if your main interest is landscapes?
Definitely not for me. I prefer to see some haze in a landscape, making it look more natural. It also enhances depth perspective in the picture (aerial perspective). So I think you are right it depends on the sort of photography you do. Also the IQ loss with cheaper filters is far more obvious on the more expensive lenses.
Quote from: picsfor on February 03, 2010, 09:09:00 AM
I.Q. = image quality when referring to photography. MENSA use a slightly different definition ;)
Maybe we should put all of these up on a table because i have no doubt they can be daunting for the newcomer or unsuspecting! Not all are as obvious as DOF (denial of facts :D )
Thanks for that Andrew. I get quite confused when shortcuts are used instead of using the correct terminology.
I could think of many such examples where I get lost. I think I'll have to make up a few of my own.
People who use such methods Terminology With A Twist for starters! ::) :legit:
I always use UV filters and have scratched one which led me to believe I had stopped the lense being scratched...
Thanks for all your replies, and very interesting.. I thought it might stir up a few things ;)
For me being registered dissabled and visually handicapped as I only have 1 eye and my left has no peripheral vision the doctors have written me off >:( >:( So I came back to photography and bought the best kit that I could afford 8) And with having damaged a lens many years ago ( It got a lot of salt spray on it as I was try to shoot Waves at Morecambe I thought protection this time ) ;)...
I can't afford f2.8 lens and because I cant drive I need things that I can carry easily so I use f3.5 apart from the 50mm f1.4.
And please guys don't start giving me offers of second hand kit or anything as I just wouldn't be able to handle it.
If you look at my flickr link you will see the type of things I like to shoot. http://www.flickr.com/photos/8749230@N08/ (http://www.flickr.com/photos/8749230@N08/)
Ian
With regards to the seaside, then it would be wise to use a filter to protect from sea spray and sand, but as a general rule it's not needed. ;D
Picsfor - One of my favourite three letter abreviations is TLA...
Quote from: SimonW on February 03, 2010, 12:11:00 PM
Picsfor - One of my favourite three letter abreviations is TLA...
Ah, a better one is ETLA!
And back on topic, fitting a filter on my 17-40mm lens completes it weather sealing. Having said that, I spent a weekend in Barcellona a couple of years ago when it rained for most of it and just kept the camera (350D) and 17-40 lens covered/wiped dry occasionally and both still work as good as new!
I always use a UV filter and lens hood, to safe guard my lenses
Sandy
Quote from: Sandy on February 05, 2010, 07:13:21 PM
I always use a UV filter and lens hood, to safe guard my lenses
I never use a UV filter to safe guard my quality :)
A decent filter costs about 10 - 20% of the cost of the lens. (As the lens gets more expensive your definition of "decent" will rise). Insurance costs about 1 - 2% of the value of the kit.
Not forgetting that the bigger lenses (Like say the Canon 300mm f2.8) have a built in protection in so far as the first element is replaceable if it gets damaged. I assume Nikon et al are similar!
Quote from: Jonathan on February 07, 2010, 08:10:06 AM
I never use a UV filter to safe guard my quality.
What would REALLY REALLY be useful is if one of the proponents who claim that having a UV filter fitted (a good quality filter of course) could post at least one side by side example of the same image (under the same conditions needless to say) illustrating where the quality has been lost as a result of having the filter fitted. I've never tried this for myself, and have always been a bit sceptical of this claim based of course upon the IQ of my own images which I agree is entirely objective. I have always used B+W filters and when I think back how many times these filters have been cleaned (and the sometimes dubious methods used) I'm glad that my front elements have never been subjected to this treatment. :)