A very dumb view

[heron88]

I've read and heard many people say, "there's no way I'd ever put a $35 UV/Protection filter on the front of my $1800 L-series lens." I'd assume the reason for them saying this is that they don't want an optically inferior piece of glass ruining the quality they bought such an expensive lens for in the first place.

What seems to be overlooked however, is the fact that a flat, single element, optically neutral piece of glass is not going to cost that much to produce. Would you run a UV/Protection filter if they charged you $2000 for it? Would that be fair for a simple and straightforward piece of glass?

[comsense]

Who says it costs even $35. Its just economics. Accessories always have higher profit margin not linked to production cost. To answer your question scientifically - Its not about what a piece of glass can do, its what it can do in addition.
1) Of course there are really cheap glasses that block UV. You don't want it to reduce transmittance of visible light and induce aberrations which is hard.
2) Adding one piece of glass in optics is not as simple as it sounds. Think, reflection dispersion, scattering etc etc. That bring coatings into picture, which means additional technology, problems (uniformity, stickiness, durability) and cost.
In the end its still just economics which results in good filters being too expensive.....

[peederj]

Is there a site that scientifically tests and ranks filters? I would enjoy such a site. Certainly the anecdotal reviews we get from people trying to justify their spending are unlikely to be reliable.

[dave]

Is there a site that scientifically tests and ranks filters? I would enjoy such a site. Certainly the anecdotal reviews we get from people trying to justify their spending are unlikely to be reliable.

filterrumors.com, anyone? 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

Is there a site that scientifically tests and ranks filters? I would enjoy such a site. Certainly the anecdotal reviews we get from people trying to justify their spending are unlikely to be reliable.

Yes, its been linked to in one of the many "filter" topics going this week.
 
http://www.lenstip.com/113.1-article-UV_filters_test.html
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Filter-Reviews.aspx
 

[sandymandy]

I would never put a filter just for protection no matter the price.  If it effects image quality in a negative way no matter how small i wont use it.

[papa-razzi]

A couple of fun posts from Roger's Blog at LensRentals.

http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2010/12/the-glass-in-front-of-your-glass-all-about-filters

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

I use filters to protect my front element and keep dust out.  I don't get the cheap ones, especially on my L glass.  Some people are anti-filter, which is cool.  There are tradeoffs both ways.

[Zv]

No one would pay $2000 for a filter, you could get a new lens for that! I think when buyinga filter you have to consider a few things -

a) how much will it cost to replace a broken lens?
b) how do you use the lens? What environmental conditions etc?
c) are youa clutz?

For example I am paranoid about my L lenses, not so much my nifty fifty, so I use a decent filter on them. If I need optimum IQ I just remove it. Better to have one just incase.

Surely even $100 is worth it to protect a $2000 lens? If you can afford the lens why not the filter?

[Policar]

Very surprised (and glad) to see the Hoya HMC filter do so well.

I don't use UV filters, but for video I use Hoya HMC NDs and they're just swell.

[sandymandy]

If you can buy an L lens u sure can pay for the repair aswell. Cmon dont tell me ur poor with ur fullframe cameras and L lenses...thats why i dont understand this "filter for protection" stuff.

[DB]

I use Hoya HD Protector clear glass for protective purposes only on my L glass - does not affect IQ.

HOYA HD FILTER 2	Small | Large

[preppyak]

If you can buy an L lens u sure can pay for the repair aswell.

True, but, would you rather replace a $75 UV filter, or pay Canon $500+ to replace your front element. Sometimes its about the cost-benefit, which matters if you use your full-frame camera and L lenses for your profession.

Likewise, my 70-200 f/4L IS is only weather-sealed with a UV filter, so, it would be silly not to use one there. For my wide-angle, I tend to find I use a CPL most of the time, so I don't bother with UV filter since the lens is usually protected. Lens hoods are equally as useful for protection

[sandymandy]

I think if i would have L lenses i would get a lens insurance so i wouldnt have to worry. Im very careful anyway with my equipment cuz i always save like 1 year to buy a lens. And thats hardcore saving for me. No new clothes, no snacks in the city, no cinema etc. Total abstinence from everything or i would still have a p&s

[Nishi Drew]

The front element of a lens can get dirtied and even cracked with little effect on IQ, while there are L lenses that aren't weather sealed all the way without a filter. Though if you're considering selling your gear then a squeaky clean piece of glass + filter always makes it a better purchase

As for the quality of filters/relevant price, I had a Tiffen filter on my 50 1.4 that would reflect back bright lights to the center, unusable.

[sandymandy]

So...take off the filter whenever u shoot and then put it back on the lens if its just for protection Then u can also go along fine with crap filters Except u really need weather sealing...thats another thing.