Protection filters : do you use them ?

[yinyangbt]

When I started to come deeper in photography , I began to buy and use UV filters for protecting the lenses . I noticed sometimes unwanted reflections even with good ones (Tieffen ) under artificial lighting .I didn't compared for shrpness .When I came back to the manual lenses I started to shoot without filter and I don't have any for my mfls .I wonder wich is your experience . And why ?

[visualopsins]

I use hoods instead of filters for lens protection.

Filters produce reflections in my experience, including a very expensive (US$125) B+W Pro-UV.

[peterqd]

Filters are for creating special effects - if you don't want FX, don't use filters.

[SonicScot]

I have a couple of ND filters for one particular AF lens, all my other lenses are naked.
I think any filter will have an adverse effect on IQ.

For lens protection I use a mixture of common sense and paranoia.

[Nesster]

If I have one on the lens, I leave it on, if not, I don't put one on. In the past I'd keep em on all the time, now I'm more likely to take them off, except in weather or environment where I think better of it.

[Lloydy]

I've saved a few lenses from damage with a filter, so I tend to use them a lot when I'm out in the woods and the ground is slippery. But I'll take them off in bright sun. I'll use them in the rain as well to keep the front element dry, and I just have a bit of clean paper towel in my pocket to keep wiping the filter.

[Attila]

To proper storage very useful, in practical usage even cheap Chinese one non visible on images in normal light I did test once, shoot parallel with filter and without filter. I have a few top filter B+W etc , but I not use them , silly mistake I think. Once I found really crap one, so I thought better to shoot without filter , I think it was a wrong conclusion. Filters are important great help to save front lens in un-touched condition.

[mo]

If I have a filter on my lens it's because I have forgotten to take it off... I only use filters when I need them or I am experimenting with how to use them.

[Farside]

I usually leave a Skylight 1A on permanently, but in bright light will take it off. I always find a hood for each lens when possible, so the lack of filter is less of an issue.
I've found that unwanted filter reflection drops away to nothing when a good deep hood is fitted anyway.

[Orio]

I used to have a B+W UV filter on my Biogon 2/35, it flared awfully, on a lens that never flares without.
Yet B+W is supposed to be a great filter brand. I removed it immediately.
After a while, I bought a Zeiss T* UV filter. It was very expensive, but it did never flare, it
was exactly as if the lens was naked.
My conclusion is that UV filters can and do harm the image, unless they're really top top quality.
So from now on, I'll either buy T* UV filters only, or just don't buy any.

In general, I'm like PeterQD and never use UV filters, but I have a couple of exceptions.
First exception is when I do street photography, sometimes I find myself shooting under the rain
or amongst a mass of people, for example during carnival a lot of jokey stuff is thrown to people,
so in those cases, I use UV filters.
The second exception is when I photograph in places with a lot of shining (snowscapes, seashores) or
with diffused humidity (coastal areas, hazy landscapes). In those cases UV filters really help to keep
a good colour balance, they are mandatory with film, but useful also with digital.

Reg. UV versus Skylight, I never use Skylight, because I don't like warmed up images. Under most
circumstances, I prefer neutral colours. That's why I use UV on the beaches in fact, because otherwise
beach and sea images would always alter the tonality of blues towards a too cool colour.

[iangreenhalgh1]

I have a UV filter on almost every lens, in my experience they don't cause reflections or any other issues and I'd much rather scratch a filter than the front of a lens. The only ones I don't have filters on are my widest - Konica 21mm, Tokina 17mm, Lomo 18mm.

I've recently been trying three different UV filters on my uncoated 1938 Sonnar 1.5/50, a Japanese one, a cheap Chinese one and a beautiful 1950s Voigtlander one. None of them make any difference in flare or reflections, they just protect the lens. I chose to keep the Voigtlander one on it because it looks so nice and it feels more appropriate to put a silver Voigtlander on a Zeiss lens than a black modern Chinese one.

Other filters I use are ND, ND grad and yellow. The ND I use for blurring water, I have lots of them, from cheap Chinese ones to the top of the line Chromateks that fit in a large holder with bellows hood attached. They all work but the Chinese ones can give a magenta cast on skies as they will allow some IR to pass, don't get this with the Chromateks or Hoya and Cokin ones. ND grads are Chromateks and I just use those occassionally for landscape work. Yellow I use when shooting BW film to give more contrast to skies, works better with some BW films than others, I've also tried red and orange with varied success.

[ForenSeil]

I've seen about 100 protection filters.
Even expensive filters by Contax, B+W and co were all crap.
I had only once an filter which totally convinced me, it was an very expensive highly multi-coated filter by Hoya (around ~50€ if I remember correctly)
The glas was extremly thin and the whole filter glas was almost invisible - extremly low reflections and no visible refraction.

My tip is to buy an expensive one or simply don't use them under normal conditions.

Of course I also use crappy ones for dirty conditions or when water is splashing etc.

[hoanpham]

I keep the filter or use a glass less one to protect the thread. but in critical shoting cases, it's off - don't want to add flare.

hood always.

[mo]

Teo,I know you use film a lot these days is that why you are asking about filters....I think for film filters can be very handy especially B&W film...some of the other more experienced here may give you a better insight when it comes to filters and film use.

[martinsmith99]

I always use filters, caps and hoods.

Filters can have some negative effects though http://forum.mflenses.com/viewtopic.php?t=19804

[yinyangbt]

[jjphoto]

I think it's silly to have 'rules' which are inflexible, ie never/always use filters etc. I use filters when I'm in a situation where they are warranted and avoid using them the rest of the time. Lenses that don't have a hood benefit from a filter, otherwise a decent hood will do the job of protecting the lens.

[Olivier]

At my rebirth to photography with dslrs, I bought a pair of UV filters to protect my lenses.

Now, after few years of practice, I don't use them anymore.
To protect my lenses, I keep their caps on.

[yinyangbt]

[poilu]

sometimes caps get out the lens and travel in my bag
I prefer filters because I can screw them

[peterqd]

Orio is quite right that I never use UV filters, but I do use other filters sometimes for effects, not for protection. I have a yellow filter for skies in B&W, and a circular polarised to cut down reflections.

[Olivier]

[BurstMox]

I also use UV filter (from china) for protection, to prevent them from any finger marks or dust. I don't see any difference with or without them, exepted under certain lights. Problem with caps is that you have to remove it quite often (at least, I do), which become anoying after some times. Also sometimes, they get out of the lens, filters don't.

[ZoneV]

I would probably use protection filters in case of special conditions - photographing somone who grinds metall for example.
Probably I would you filters on lenses with very soft glass or coating.

Normal filters one could buy for photography may have a very good transmission. But up to now no one cares about filter flatness.
Never read a magazine filter test with flatness measuring.

I measured an old cheap filter and there are thickness differences ~20µm. Thats about 40 times the wavelength of light.
Filters for example in Edmund Optics stock have 1 or 1/4 wavelength flatness.
Better filters for astronomy have 1/20 wavelength flatness!

With shorter lenses these not very flat filters are no bigger problem. But for example the AF Canon 100-400mm lens is well known for its sensitivity for bad filters. There the effect of not flat filters could be very obvious. Sometimes one could see effects on 200mm focal length too. Sometimes "only" the bokeh is distorted.

BTW: Filter specifications are a part of my professional work.

[Olivier]

Thank you Zonev (Markus ?) for these explanations.
I'll be careful of the filters when using 200 or 300mm.

Congrats for your site. It's very interesting.