ScubaChuck
Member
Are lens protective filters necessary and if so, what is the best kind to get?
I live in Florida where there is lots of sand and and sea air.
I live in Florida where there is lots of sand and and sea air.
Last edited:
Removing the question, answers are getting redundant.
- Thread starter ScubaChuck
- Start date
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).
rgbiv
Member
I think most people don't use them, instead relying on the lens hood to protect the front element. The primary exception is when there is lots of dust, dirt or sand blowing around.
Doug A.
Well-known member
Necessary is a matter of opinion. If you do get one, get an actually clear protective filter, not a UV filter.
On this forum, it appears that most do not use them. But I do. I have one on my 500 PF and my 700-300 p zoom. I would rather clean the filter than The actual lens. And in your situation, sand and sea salt would result in cleaning very often. I use a Nikon clear filter. I have not seen any degradation in image quality.
Archibald
Well-known member
I've been to Florida many times and never noticed sand in the air. I'm sure it happens in strong wind, though. There are traces of salt in the air from the ocean especially near the shore and that can corrode metals after years of exposure.
I would put a filter on the lens if you perceive a risk to the front element. Otherwise I would just use a lens hood.
I would put a filter on the lens if you perceive a risk to the front element. Otherwise I would just use a lens hood.
I have Nikon lens and buy a Nikon Neutral Clear Filter (and Nikon Circular Polarizer Filter) for every lens. I do it for protection. I definitely want it with sand and dust flying around such as at the beach or the car races in Austin with constant winds.
My first recommendation would be to buy one branded by your camera manufacturer. After that, Hoya, B+W , Singh, and Nisi are popular and decent. Very high level filter info at https://www.bhphotovideo.com/explora/photography/buying-guide/a-guide-to-filters-for-lenses
Lots of photographers do not want an extra piece of glass in front of their lens when shooting - do some internet searches and you will find many "serious" discussions on the subject.
My first recommendation would be to buy one branded by your camera manufacturer. After that, Hoya, B+W , Singh, and Nisi are popular and decent. Very high level filter info at https://www.bhphotovideo.com/explora/photography/buying-guide/a-guide-to-filters-for-lenses
Lots of photographers do not want an extra piece of glass in front of their lens when shooting - do some internet searches and you will find many "serious" discussions on the subject.
Are protective front filters necessary?
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...
bcgforums.com
Vincent_VdB
Well-known member
I have them on my lenses, more specific the filter from Hoya, the HD nano mk II.
The reason for me using them is easy cleaning and protection of the front element during my South African safaris where a lens 3has to endure a bit of rougher handling.
Loss on IQ? Don't think so
. Plenty of pictures but here is one of them from last week (shot with the Nikkor 100-400mm)
The reason for me using them is easy cleaning and protection of the front element during my South African safaris where a lens 3has to endure a bit of rougher handling.
Loss on IQ? Don't think so
. Plenty of pictures but here is one of them from last week (shot with the Nikkor 100-400mm)IainD
Well-known member
I have had mixed experiences with Hoya filters. I had one where the metal spring clip came out of its spot and the end of the metal was resting on the front element of my 24-70 f2.8. I am not sure what the spring clip is called, but it is intended to keep the glass part of the filter in its mount.
No damage was done but I don;t have filters of that design any more, and I only use protective filters in sand and salt. My NiSi filters have all performed well.
No damage was done but I don;t have filters of that design any more, and I only use protective filters in sand and salt. My NiSi filters have all performed well.
Vincent_VdB
Well-known member
Funny you say that. I literally had the very same issue with a NiSi protection filter for mu 600PF as Hoya did not make them in this diameter.
I heard rattling when taking out my lens of the backpack and found the glass loose as a spring ring got detached.
Guess it was just bad luck. Got a replacement under warranty.
I use Nikon NC on the Z180-600
And Hoya Fusion Protect on all my other lenses.
It’s a very personal choice. Many don’t use protective filters. If my glass costs a lot, then I’d rather get sea spray, sand etc on a filter.
Here’s an interesting article.
If the filter gets dirty or appears to affect the IQ it’s pretty easy to remove.
For in the field ND or CPL I like to use the Kase Magnetics which are again, so easy to pop on and off, and are great quality.
And Hoya Fusion Protect on all my other lenses.
It’s a very personal choice. Many don’t use protective filters. If my glass costs a lot, then I’d rather get sea spray, sand etc on a filter.
Here’s an interesting article.
If the filter gets dirty or appears to affect the IQ it’s pretty easy to remove.
For in the field ND or CPL I like to use the Kase Magnetics which are again, so easy to pop on and off, and are great quality.
fcotterill
Well-known member
I use Marumi Protect filters on all my shorter focal length lenses, primarily as the first layer of impact in event of accidents. In one case, this saved the 70-200 2.8E entirely intact on a trip after an impact shattered the filter.
The testing by Roger Cicala revealed there're little practical differences between the top brands, possibly because the actual glass is likely either made by Hoya or Nikon in any case.
Otherwise the deep hood provides adequate protection for telephotos - IME over many years. Cleaning off salt / grit involves blowing with compressed air, and then rinsing with distilled water in the first steps, before touching the coated glass with lens wipes.
bcgforums.com
The testing by Roger Cicala revealed there're little practical differences between the top brands, possibly because the actual glass is likely either made by Hoya or Nikon in any case.
Otherwise the deep hood provides adequate protection for telephotos - IME over many years. Cleaning off salt / grit involves blowing with compressed air, and then rinsing with distilled water in the first steps, before touching the coated glass with lens wipes.
How do you protect your glass?
What do most people do to keep the front element of their lens from getting damaged? Do you rely on the lens hood and keep the lens clear for your best shots? or always have a filter (eg UV) on the front - assuming your filters go on the front?
bcgforums.com
Despite a "few" standing up for using filters I expect a poll would clarify relatively few actually use them often as distinct from never.
Vincent_VdB
Well-known member
As stated by a "few" here above is the use of protection filters a personal choice. I use protection filters as a simple grain of sand can give scratches on the front glass.
I also find that the filters I use are more easy to clean due to the coating but that might be a biased thing, I admit.
Anyway, I see no loss in image quality and it gives me a more secure feeling. Everybody as his or her reasons to (not) use them , whatever a poll brings to light.
I agree a personal choice.
What I was interested in was the percentage sitting on either side of the fence.
My own experience is
1/ in 61 years of photography I have never had a front element scratched - although I have seen some "rough" examples on sale second hand.
2/ when I was in charge of an insurance claims department there were more lens damage claims for damage caused by a broken filter than other lens damage/theft combined.
Once upon a time, long ago in a faraway land, I fell while holding my Nikon Ftn. The skylight filter on the 50mm f1.4 lens cracked; the lens itself was undamaged. Partly based on that experience, I usually put clear filters (high quality) on my lenses.
I’ve noticed this topic pops up again from time to time. As has been said, use of protective filters is a matter of personal choice. From costly personal experience of long ago I use NC filters on my long lenses, however I know I probably don’t need to use them.
@Steve has a blog post and video on the topic for those who are interested.
![backcountrygallery.com](https://backcountrygallery.com/all-about-uv-filters/\"/apple-touch-icon.png\")
backcountrygallery.com
@Steve has a blog post and video on the topic for those who are interested.
All About UV Filters - Backcountry Gallery
UV filters – do you need them or not? It’s a question that comes up all the time in photography circles with usually about half the people thinking they need UV filters and the other half thinking the fist half is crazy! So, what’s the truth? To find out, I put everything to the test […]
backcountrygallery.com
Last edited:
ScubaChuck
Member
I think Steve said it all. Thanks, everyone.
joe43
Well-known member
I use filters 99% of the time to protect the front lens element. And I use lens hoods too. My lenses are all Nikon, but I do not use filters from Nikon as past experience with them was not acceptable. I have found that filters from B + W, Singh Ray and Heliopan are much better made. For my long lenses, I like the SinghRay Hi Lux UV Protective filter or the B+W MRC Clear filter.
Don’t use protective filters on the lens, but I do upgrade my lens hoods as my approach to providing better lens protection. I acknowledge that this is not protection like a filter. But is a more practical approach for me. For my Z 100-400 and Z 600 PF I am using the Zemlin ‘long‘ hood version which provides better protection from rain and the elements. Of course, if I face blowing sand, dirt from car/bike races or the like I am not protected. But that’s not something I would be attending anyhow. My biggest issue is dealing with rain. Especially the Z 100-400; the OEM Nikon lens hood is useless for any kind of protection which is why I replaced that lens hood.
Doug Herr
Well-known member
YMMV.
I haven't used them for the last 40 years. Besides, my insanely expensive supertelephoto lenses don't have filter threads so I'd be up a certain foul-smelling creek without a paddle if I insisted on using them. Did I already say YMMV?
I haven't used them for the last 40 years. Besides, my insanely expensive supertelephoto lenses don't have filter threads so I'd be up a certain foul-smelling creek without a paddle if I insisted on using them. Did I already say YMMV?
I agree…this is one of those religious arguments. Steve did it video some years back and TLDR a filter is no use in protecting against serious impacts. It is of some use in blowing sand or salt spray situations which is the only time I use one.
One reply said to get clear glass and not UV if you get one…why is that? I know that you don’t really need the IV with digital sensors…but since it only blocks UV I wouldn’t think it would have any effect on the visible light image…so it seems the suggestion for clear is well meaning but purposeless…unless there’s something I’m missing.
True…a slight contrast loss but that’s easily fixable in post and might be true with clear as well…and there’s the possibility of reflections of lights in night shots but again that’s likely with clear as well.
One reply said to get clear glass and not UV if you get one…why is that? I know that you don’t really need the IV with digital sensors…but since it only blocks UV I wouldn’t think it would have any effect on the visible light image…so it seems the suggestion for clear is well meaning but purposeless…unless there’s something I’m missing.
True…a slight contrast loss but that’s easily fixable in post and might be true with clear as well…and there’s the possibility of reflections of lights in night shots but again that’s likely with clear as well.
Most UV do have an effect on visible light - by reducing some lilac, blue and purple shades. How much depends on the UV cut-off point.
Clear filters retain the full colour gamut.
Yeah…that’s true…but in my admittedly limited testing (only tried it once)…the difference was only noticeable if you looked at histograms or compared at 1:1 but mostly slight to none at viewing size…or even at 1:1 but even there it was more different than better/worse…and varying white balance or other PP had a much bigger effect. I use one so rarely that it isn’t worth tossing and replacing them…at least for me. If I ever need new ones I will get clear.
Steve on the subject...........
backcountrygallery.com
All About UV Filters - Backcountry Gallery
UV filters – do you need them or not? It’s a question that comes up all the time in photography circles with usually about half the people thinking they need UV filters and the other half thinking the fist half is crazy! So, what’s the truth? To find out, I put everything to the test […]
backcountrygallery.com