Are protective front filters necessary?

If you would like to post, you'll need to register. Note that if you have a BCG store account, you'll need a new, separate account here (we keep the two sites separate for security purposes).

Member's gallery
JoelKlein said:
I started asking in the 400/4.5 thread. But I really want to dive in in this again.

I’m referring to the expensive quality ones.

Pro’s
1. It protects the lens should the lens fall.

2. It protects from UV & Haze.

Con’s
1. Its might interfere with the lens design and front element coating.

2. May rob some equity.

What’s your opinion?
Click to expand...
I agree with ReplyToken (reply 1). This usually ends up in a debate with no real correct answer. In other forums this question has ended in name calling, bullying and moderators locking the threads. Fortunately folks around here seem a little more gentile in their responses

With that said, I do use front filters on most of my lenses. I only use B+W. I've found them to have minimal to no impact on image quality. If I'm going to be shooting directly into the sun I can always remove the thing. The front filter probably saved me an expensive repair on a 200-500 Nikon lens. The camera/lens swung badly when I lost my footing hitting a piece of pipe rebar sticking out of a wall that I grabbed for balance. The steel hit the front of the lens shattering the filter but my lens front element was unharmed.

Freak accident? Sure. I kind of view them in the same light as I do insurance policies. I hate the expense, they can be a hassle at times, and it doesn't always work as planned, but I'm sure glad I have it when I need it.
Jeff
 
Krümelkraft said:
I don't use them anymore since I had a strange experience with a protective filter.
It created weird lines in the near bokeh, meaning the slightly defocused regions showed parallel lines as if you shot through a fence or something.
It drove me crazy because I thought it was the lens until it turned out to be the filter.

Instead, I always have the lens hood on.

Ok, you said you are referring to the pro ones and that one was certainly not a pro grade filter.
However, I am almost sure it was written something like "pro" on the package (of course...).

For UV protection, filters are meaningless, since any lens absorbs more than enough UV itself.

I find them to be useful when it comes to cleaning: It is much easier and safer to clean a filter than a front element.
Click to expand...

That sounds a little like moire, but I haven't heard of it being caused by a protective filter.

photographylife.com

What is Moiré and How it Can Ruin Your Photos

Moiré can ruin your photos by adding wavy patterns to them. It occurs when an image is captured with a high-resolution camera that has no low-pass filter.
photographylife.com photographylife.com
 
Member's gallery
bleirer said:
That sounds a little like moire, but I haven't heard of it being caused by a protective filter.

photographylife.com

What is Moiré and How it Can Ruin Your Photos

Moiré can ruin your photos by adding wavy patterns to them. It occurs when an image is captured with a high-resolution camera that has no low-pass filter.
photographylife.com photographylife.com
Click to expand...
No, it was not moiré.
It looked like this:
1677160333537.png
 
Member's gallery
I'd hold on to them for times when you're ready to get dirty! It just makes front element cleanup easier.

There is no image advantage whatsoever to a UV filter, both from all the reading I've done on the subject and my own experience. I ditched my always-on filter policy last spring and haven't looked back.
 
Member's gallery
I travel a lot, and much of it is at sea. As such I DO use a filter - an ND filter in fact, which protects the front lens from sea salt (spray) . With mirrorless, then you don't need a UV filter. However, I do tend to leave it on most of the time anyway, so I always buy the best quality. B&H, Nikon's own and those magnetic one's from Kase --> and these are brilliant as popping on or off is literally that , magnetic. I've never scratched a lens putting them into my bag as 99% of the time I have the lens cap on.

edit: somebody picked up my typo. I meant NC Filter, not ND. Sorry
 
Last edited:
Member's gallery
I dont/cant run one on my 600 f4 so why would I worry about it on my smaller lenses. The truth is a front element can actually have significant "damage" and still render just fine. The only time I would put one on is if Im expecting something to hit my lens which is almost never.
 
Member's gallery
Wes Peterson said:
The only time I would put one on is if Im expecting something to hit my lens which is almost never.
Click to expand...
Wes, that's interesting.

If I were 'expecting something to hit my lens', I'd prefer it to happen without a likely-to-shatter filter up front. Put differently: no 'protective' filter when scrambling across scree, but perhaps an anti-muck filter attached to keep off salt spray or the like.
 
Member's gallery
These filters may not with stand as much impact as a front lens element with respect to shattering, but they certainly withstand an impact hard enough to cause a scratch or scuff. The previous filter that was on my 300mm PF had a bad scuff for quite a while. I believe the camera swung forward and hit a snapped off tree branch. Without the filter, I'd be either facing an expensive replacement, or I'd have to accept a loss on resale value. So to me, it's a complete no-brainer given there's no loss in IQ.
 
Member's gallery
Mark Garfinkel said:
What about the use of polarizer lenses or other specialty filters?
Click to expand...
I use them as needed. A polarizer is one of those rare filters you can't really simulate with post processing. An ND is another, since if you need it it's likely because you want slower shutter speeds in the field. However, those two are about it.
 
Member's gallery
jeffnles1 said:
I agree with ReplyToken (reply 1). This usually ends up in a debate with no real correct answer. In other forums this question has ended in name calling, bullying and moderators locking the threads. Fortunately folks around here seem a little more gentile in their responses

With that said, I do use front filters on most of my lenses. I only use B+W. I've found them to have minimal to no impact on image quality. If I'm going to be shooting directly into the sun I can always remove the thing. The front filter probably saved me an expensive repair on a 200-500 Nikon lens. The camera/lens swung badly when I lost my footing hitting a piece of pipe rebar sticking out of a wall that I grabbed for balance. The steel hit the front of the lens shattering the filter but my lens front element was unharmed.

Freak accident? Sure. I kind of view them in the same light as I do insurance policies. I hate the expense, they can be a hassle at times, and it doesn't always work as planned, but I'm sure glad I have it when I need it.
Jeff
Click to expand...

Steve's tests suggest that other parts of the lens will likely break before the front element does, even when the UV filter is shattered.
 
Member's gallery
I never use them,

UV filters unneeded with digital sensors as they're not sensitive to the UV in sunlight. UV filters a holdover from film days but touted by camera dealers to increase profits.

Steve's video pretty much lays it out - unless shooting in blowing dust/sand or laying down in same protective filters not really needed. Tony Northrup also published a YouTube video that came to same conclusion.
 
Patrick M said:
I travel a lot, and much of it is at sea. As such I DO use a filter - an ND filter in fact, which protects the front lens from sea salt (spray) . With mirrorless, then you don't need a UV filter. However, I do tend to leave it on most of the time anyway, so I always buy the best quality. B&H, Nikon's own and those magnetic one's from Kase --> and these are brilliant as popping on or off is literally that , magnetic. I've never scratched a lens putting them into my bag as 99% of the time I have the lens cap on.
Click to expand...

What strength of ND filter do you use? You don't worry over the loss of light?
 
Member's gallery
Doug Herr said:
Steve's tests suggest that other parts of the lens will likely break before the front element does, even when the UV filter is shattered.
Click to expand...
I know and I've watched his video. I can only relay my personal experience when the filter took the brunt of the hit and kept the front element from either getting broken or severely scratched. As always, your mileage may vary. I'm not disputing Steve's findings in any way just saying what happened to me.
Jeff
 
Member's gallery
bleirer said:
What strength of ND filter do you use? You don't worry over the loss of light?
Click to expand...
For video it's pretty much the only way to get the correct exposure outdoors since you're shooting at 800 iso and 1/60 shutter speed and probably f8 or wider. I carry 2 VNDs covering 1 to 9 stops.
 
Member's gallery
jeffnles1 said:
I know and I've watched his video. I can only relay my personal experience when the filter took the brunt of the hit and kept the front element from either getting broken or severely scratched. As always, your mileage may vary. I'm not disputing Steve's findings in any way just saying what happened to me.
Jeff
Click to expand...
I find controlled tests more convincing than anecdotes.
 
Nimi said:
For video it's pretty much the only way to get the correct exposure outdoors since you're shooting at 800 iso and 1/60 shutter speed and probably f8 or wider. I carry 2 VNDs covering 1 to 9 stops.
Click to expand...

I didn't think Patrick was talking about video.
 
Member's gallery
It sounds like the majority here don't use protective filters outside of occasional use for a specific reason. That's where I am as well. I own a protective filter for each of my commonly used sizes. They are all quality, multicoated filters. None are UV filters. I also own a CP for each size - 52mm, 62mm, 67mm, 72mm, 77mm, and 82mm. I own ND filter sets for 77mm and 82mm - the sizes that go with the lenses I am most likely to use. I typically have a 5 stop and a 10 stop ND set. I almost always use a lens hood unless temporarily I remove it due to wind or flash. I also use a lens cap when I am in a place where I want to protect my lens.

I've had one lens out of about 30 that was damaged with a scratch. It came on a job when I had to wipe off a splash of mud in a hurry and had no alternative. The scratch was just in the coating, and did not affect image quality. When I sold the lens it was disclosed and the price reduced by about $125. Front elements are quite durable - much more so than any filter. I feel it's a matter of playing the odds. At this point I have saved $1000 or more by not buying protective filters for every lens.
 
Member's gallery
I a fan of the protective filters. I always use it on every lens without noticing a degradation in the image quality.
Obviously, I always buy the best on the market. For example, I also have a neutral filter in front of my 500 PF lens that is pretty big and expensive.

I use them to be safer in cleaning the front lens in case of dirt, raindrops or involuntary fingerprints.

Once, some time ago, I had slammed the front of the lens against a wall. A good blow because I was falling to the ground.
The glass broke, and the metal part was dented, but nothing happened to the lens. Perhaps nothing would have happened anyway, but it is more probable that, on that occasion, the filter made the difference.

Not to mention that replacing a filter is certainly faster and cheaper than replacing the front lens in case of scratches.
 
Member's gallery
Doug Herr said:
I find controlled tests more convincing than anecdotes.
Click to expand...
And I find my own personal experience just as convincing as controlled tests.

As I said, I was not disputing Steve's results and I was not saying anyone here was wrong or right in their personal choices. Just relaying something that happened to me. Folks are free to take away from it as much or as little as they wish. I was not trying to start an argument or phishing for snarky comments.
Jeff
 
Member's gallery
I have gone both ways. My latest lens - which I just dropped off for sale on consignment - was a Sony 200-600 which I never put a filter on. I just ordered a Nikon 80-400 to replace it and decided not to get a filter for it. I do have filters on my Nikon 24-70 and 70-200 but on the rare times I need a polarizer it is a bit of a pain to remove the clear filter first. After this thread I may just take them off unless I am in a dust storm or rain.

My Tamron 15-30 has a bulbous front element that does not take filters and is ironically the only one with front element damage (one small speck that is a gouge in the coating and possibly the glass, though it does not appear to affect quality). That is the one where a protective filter would protect it. Why? Because I sometimes use it with a remote release and set it up where the javelinas graze near my condo. They get curious and sniff and lick the lens, which creates hilarious images. Unfortunately it looks like I got a small gouge from a javelina tusk!

One note (for all filters, not just clear): if you have a wide angle lens you need to make sure to order a thin mount so it won't vignette. If you do, you also need to order a quality metal (not cheap plastic) filter wrench or you may find it difficult/impossible to swap out filters.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top