Protection filter

[nlrela]

As most lenses are quite expensive I was wondering wether protection filter are worth to use.....

Actually I am more interested if the orginal Canon protection filters do decrease the picture quality
or will they have no influence ?
As mentioned lenses are quite expensive, but the Canon protection filters are quite cheap...

 

[Mikehit]

You can argue from the point of physics that the 'filter' will always reduce image quality so the question is whether it is noticeable. And this really comes down to 'do I want to take the risk' - some don't like the idea of possibly maybe reducing quality, others say 'I don't notice and I would rather damage a filter than damage a lens'.

I have become fairly agnostic but I will put a filter on in drifting rain (a flat filter is easier to wipe dry than a curved lens surface), in windy and dusty conditions where wiping the surface risks grinding the surface with grit, and on the beach where you learn very quickly that salt spray is very sticky and picks up crap like a magnet and is very difficult to wipe quickly.

One area where filters can be problematic is night photography where having an additional surface can cause internal reflections.

As for brands, I buy the Hoya Pro series whose prices have dropped significantly over the years. The Canon ones have a reputation to consider so although expensive you will know they meet a certain quality. Some people are happy with 5-dollar cheapies from China bought off ebay and don't notice an effect on image quality.You pays your money and takes your choice.
Interestingly, for some L lenses (like the 17-40L) Canon say they are only weather-sealed when you put a filter on the front and I am sure they would not do that if filters were demonstrably detrimental.

 

[Hillsilly]

A good filter should have minimal impact on image quality. I tend to us them in sandy/dusty situations as they're easier to clean.

 

[AcutancePhotography]

To filter or not to filter is one of the more contentious issues among photographers. It ranks up there with "which brand of camera is the bestest?".

There are two separate considerations that need to be understood before one can make the decision about protection filters

1. Is your specific type of photography prone to result in damage to the front element of your lens? Most photographers don't operate in such environments. A good test is to use a protective filter on your lens and then after 6 months of using your camera normally, remove the filter and examine it. If there is damage to your filter, then using a protective filter may be advantageous. If, however, after 6 months your filter is still clean and undamaged, then using a protective filter may not be advantageous.

2. The effect on the image quality. Image quality is a complicated concept. By definition, any filter will result in some image degradation. Whether this degradation can be seen or whether it adversely affects the final product is up to the individual. Unless you are working in a lab, the degradation of a filter may not be even noticeable or if it is noticeable, it does not significantly affect the final product. A good way to test this is to buy/borrow/rent a good quality protective filter and take some pictures with and without the filter in the environment you normally shoot and compare the images. Compare them in the way they will be displayed/printed. Pixel peeping is not necessary nor desired.

These two, and perhaps other, considerations factor into your "cost/benefit" decision. Only you, as the photographer, can determine the cost/benefit. It is about risk mitigation. If someone else is paying for the lens and will agree to replace the lens if damaged, then the decision gets a lot easier. If, however, you are paying for the lens and you can't/don't want to pay to replace/repair the lens, the decision gets a lot harder.

My personal opinion and decision?

I use protective filters when I am shooting outside. If I am in my "studio", and I am doing specialized photography, I will remove the protective filter. For my type of photography, and more importantly, my skill at photography, the image degradation of a protective filter is not significant.

If the only thing wrong with my photograph is the slight degradation of a protective filter, I would be overjoyed!!

That being written, if you are going to use a protective filter, use a high quality one. I personally like Marumi filters, but like most things in photography, other people have different opinions about brands.

Good luck with it. But at the same time, don't overthink this. It is unlikely that a good quality protective filter will adversely affect your photography to the extent that the final product is significantly degraded.

 

[neuroanatomist]

I'd pass on the Canon filter – not sure if it is still the case, but they used to be made by Tiffen and rebranded for Canon, so not the highest quality. Personally, I use B+W filters (UV or clear, whichever is cheaper at the time since there is no difference for a dSLR). I have them on most of my lenses (a few don't take front filters, and I don't use them on the 40/2.8 or M22/2 pancake lenses). They are easier to clean than a front element (And if they get splashed, I don't worry about wiping them off with a T-shirt). If they get scratched, it is much faster and easier to replace the filter than having Canon replace a front element.

 

[Mikehit]

If they get scratched, it is much faster and easier to replace the filter than having Canon replace a front element.

These articles provide some amusement:

http://kurtmunger.com/dirty_lens_articleid35.html

https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2013/10/bad-times-with-bad-filters/

 

[TeT]

I use the B+W 007 NEUTRAL MRC Of all that I have tried it seems to have the least impact on images/affordable price...

There is also a cheap Rokinon (Rokinon MC Super UV)out there that has thin no glare glass in it as well, but the construction is a little on the cheesy side... Just now trying it out on my 100 f/2 and have not caught any image disruption yet...

 

[nlrela]

Thank you all for the great feedback!

 

[snowleo]

I have just bought two of the brand new Sigma WR-Ceramic Protector filters (77 and 82 mm) to protect the lenses I use most (20-700 / 100-400 / 24-70 mm). They cost around 80 - 100 US$ and the quality is fabulous, coating is excellent. I did not state any difference in quality. I decided to do so because there's a scratch in the center of the front element on my new 100-400 II... Even though the scratch does not seem to harm the pictures, I did not want to risk any more of them. And when it's dirty, unwind and clean - and no risk to damage the lens either.

 

[rfdesigner]

As most lenses are quite expensive I was wondering wether protection filter are worth to use.....

Actually I am more interested if the orginal Canon protection filters do decrease the picture quality
or will they have no influence ?
As mentioned lenses are quite expensive, but the Canon protection filters are quite cheap...

I once dropped a lens front first onto concrete from waist height. The filter completly smashed and took careful prising out of the lens filter threads as the metal was badly mangled. The lens however lived on to take many more images, including some of my first forays into astrophotography which is one of the least forgiving genres for duff optics.

rarely can you tell the difference.. and if you can it will be becasue of the effectiveness of the anti-reflection coatings, giving inverted ghost images superimposed on the frame, shows up at night, or with sunsets.

 

[YuengLinger]

B+W or good Hoya.

 

[MrFotoFool]

In the last few weeks I bought four 77mm UV protection filters for my four main lenses after going perhaps fifteen years or more with no filter. I initially gave up on them because a cheap (and thick) filter caused internal reflections in a night shot. I finally realized it is stupid to risk my expensive (to me) lenses and knew I could get high quality thin mount filters that will not cause problems.

I settled on the new company Breakthrough Photography which seems to be very good and have their act together. I was debating between the cheaper X1 and pricier X2 (not wanting the very pricey X3). This review confirmed my hunch that X2 is indeed better and X3 is unnecessary.
http://the-gadgeteer.com/2014/11/19/breakthrough-photography-x1-x2-and-x3-uv-filters-review/

Incidentally I ordered all four from Adorama but they only sent two with the other two on backorder. After a couple weeks I cancelled the backorder and ordered directly from the company website, receiving them promptly and at the same price. The packaging is as nice as the filters themselves, with a classy white box and a free lens cloth.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

As most lenses are quite expensive I was wondering wether protection filter are worth to use.....

Actually I am more interested if the orginal Canon protection filters do decrease the picture quality
or will they have no influence ?
As mentioned lenses are quite expensive, but the Canon protection filters are quite cheap...

What you think you are protecting is the front element of the lens. Depending on the lens, replacing that element may cost less than a good filter if you do it yourself. Front elements are not horribly expensive, its the IS and autofocus elements that cost a lot.

There have been some tests run that involved dropping a weight onto a filter from a height, and then doing the same on a lens. In most cases, the filter was destroyed, but the same test did not hurt the lens, and adding more weight did not either. This makes one wonder if you are actually getting any protection. The lenses were usually damaged internally before the front element broke.

http://www.backcountrygallery.com/photography_tips/all-about-uv-filters/

Summary:

Filter drop test results:

Filter Test 1 – No weight added


Initial test at half height (24 inches), all filters tested failed. As I mention in the video, I thought SOMETHING would survive. I should have started lower, I just didn’t think anything would break this easily.

Promaster HGX 62mm
Promaster DHD 62mm
Promaster Standard 62mm
Nikon 62mm
B+W 52mm
Nikon 52mm
Tiffen 52mm

Filter Test 2 – No weight added

For this test, I started out MUCH lower:

Promaster 62mm – Broke at a 5″ drop
Tiffen 52mm- Broke at a 5″ drop
Hoya 52mm – Broke at a 8″ drop
B+W 52mm – Broke at a 8″ drop
Canon 58mm – Broke at a 8″ drop
Nikon 52mm – Broke at a 13″ drop
Hoya 67mm – Broke at a 18″ drop

Lens Test Results:

No lens broke or was damaged in any way with the unweighted shuttle at any height. In order to get any lenses to break, we had to drop from the top with weight added. No filter tested could have survived even a 24 inch drop with no weight added.

Canon 35-70 Zoom – 48.5″ + 3/4lb combined weight
Sigma 75-300 AF Zoom (note this was after the drop test since the front element was still intact) 48.5″ + 3/4lb combined weight
Nikon 35-80 AF – 48.5″ + 1 full lb combined weight
Canon 50mm 1.8 – 48.5″ + 1 full lb combined weight
Vivitar 28-90 Series 1 – 48.5″ + 1 1/4 full lb combined weight
JCPenny 70-200 – (note this was after the drop test since the front element was still intact) 48.5″ + 1 1/4 full lb combined weight
Osawa 135 48.5″ + 3 full lb combined weight
Canon 70-200 Zoom 48.5″ + 4 full lb combined weight

Also, note that once we got over 1 Lb combined weight, the force of the blow did cause internal damage on both bare lenses and those protected by filters. Lenses simply do not like being hit hard.


Sigma claims to have a strong filter. http://www.dpreview.com/news/5587130142/sigma-demos-wr-ceramic-lens-filter-strength-with-impact-test

 

[brad-man]

While I use B&W filters for weather sealing, scratch protection and ease of cleaning, I think it's pretty silly to expect any filter to offer impact resistance.

 

[neuroanatomist]

While I use B&W filters for weather sealing, scratch protection and ease of cleaning, I think it's pretty silly to expect any filter to offer impact resistance.

+1

 

[Maximilian]

While I use B&W filters for weather sealing, scratch protection and ease of cleaning, I think it's pretty silly to expect any filter to offer impact resistance.

I once dropped a lens with attached filter from about 1 m. It fell on the edge of the filter.
The filter was broken the filter thread on the filter (for stacking filters) was heavily dented.
The lens filter thread was still well and I could replace the now useless brass ring with a new filter.
If I hadn't had any filter on the lens I'd expect the lens filter thread now looking like the one of the filter and I wouldn't be able to use any filter anymore.

Conclusion:
So I wouldn't expect additional good or reliable but at least some impact resistance*.
*of course without any guarantee.

 

[Hector1970]

For weather sealing on at least some of the lens it's recommended to use them.

I'm undecided. I have a 70-200mm which I dropped about 4 feets and the filter is still intact but jammed solid.
It can't be moved by any means known to man except to cut it and pull it out (looks a very difficult and tricky task - you have to get the glass out first, then cut the filter ring and twist inwards and pull off without scratching the lens).

I have had a few scratched filters so they may have protected the lens from same.

I don't think they degrade the image too much (at least the better quality ones).

Some people recommend to use a hood instead to protect the front element rather than a filter. This may be good advice

 

[neuroanatomist]

Some people recommend to use a hood instead to protect the front element rather than a filter. This may be good advice

Absolutely – the hood is the best thing for impact protection. However, with most wide angle and standard zoom lenses, the hood is shallow and offers relatively little physical protection in terms of scratches, spray, etc.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

I have a whole drawer full of B+H and other filters, I can't remember the last time I used one. I seldom go out in dusty or rainy weather, so I'm just not using them. I discovered that I liked my images a lot more without filters and never went back.

Still, if I had to go out in wet or dusty weather, I'd pull one out and put it on.

 

[sunnyVan]

I didn't read all the comments so forgive me if I'm repeating what others have said.

Putting on a high quality filter is a basic form of protection against abrasion. People talk about protecting the front element, but it also protects the rim around the front element. Theoretically a filter reduces light transmission to some tiny extent but it's a price worth paying. The only annoying thing about filter is that when you shoot towards the sun with a wideangle you need to take the filter off to reduce flare. High quality wideangle lenses are relatively flare resistant but you still get some flare. A filter usually accentuates the flare. Manufacturers claim that multiple layers of coatings help reduce flare but in my experience you're better off taking it off in bright situations. Better yet, notice the flare and block the ray of light with your hand.

Hoods offer better protection but I personally feel that they take up too much room in the already limited spaced camera bag.

There is no right or wrong in regards to protection filters. All a matter of personal preference. I don't use hoods. I don't use front caps. I put on filters and rear caps. I don't carry camera around my neck because I don't like it banging around. I clip my camera on my shoulder strap with capture pro.

As most lenses are quite expensive I was wondering wether protection filter are worth to use.....

Actually I am more interested if the orginal Canon protection filters do decrease the picture quality
or will they have no influence ?
As mentioned lenses are quite expensive, but the Canon protection filters are quite cheap...