7 replies to this topic

[Johnb]

Is it advisable to keep a filter screwed permanently to the lens for protection and if yes, would you recommend a UV or something else.

 

Also, can you use a UV and CPL filters together.  

[ScottinPollock]

Age ol' question... lots of arguments.

 

If you're using quality glass, putting cheap glass in front of it will degrade image quality. Putting quality glass in front of it still may cause issues in tricky light (i.e. more flare into the sun).

 

With that said, I keep a UV on pretty much as a lens cap... it prevents me from having to clean the front element all the time, and is fine for snapshots. If I'm trying to take serious images (RAW vs jpeg) it usually comes off.

 

Stacking filters is sometimes necessary, although not ideal. Vignetting and general degradation of contrast and color can occur.

 

Depending on the quality of your lens and camera, the filters, and the scene/light, said degradation can be anywhere from almost imperceptible, to that of ruining the shot. YMMV

[Jerry_]

... as Scott already mentioned


+

If it is to protect only, then limit the number of filters; i.e. combining UV (basically useless, as the sensor on modern DSLRs filters UV anyway) with CPL increases the negative impact of the filters, with no extra protection.

As protection I use the lens hood that fits to the lens, but no filter.
Unless you have a choc coming straight from the front I feel that this gives an even better protection.

[Wayben]

Like Scott I keep a filter on at almost all times to minimize having to clean the front element of the lens.  I'd rather get grit and munge on a filter than the front element.  On paper adding another glass element will degrade the image, but in practice it seldom makes any discernible difference.  Where it can is a flair situation and then it is easy to remove the filter to take the shot.

Wayne

[Johnb]

Thanks guys. I will keep the UV on then I think and see how it goes, and no stacking. Cheers

[TBonz]

I know some folks who leave a filter (usually UV or Haze) on their lenses and some who do not.  I have seen a filter save a lens from damage.  If I were doing studio work or shooting at a particular location I would probably not have a filter on my lens.  When shooting sports with all the potential impacts from weather - rain, snow, wind and dust, mud, etc. - I keep a filter on each lens for protection.  Nikon actually shipped my 200-400 (which has a filter drawer) with an external filter to protect the front element.  I doubt you will see any issues with image quality if you purchase a decent filter.  

[Merco_61]

There are two situations when a filter can become a problem.

The first is when shooting against the light, where you can get veiling flare just as Scott warned.

The other is when shooting something well lit or a light source at night when the dark background turns the filter into a mirror and the light parts that have been reflected from the sensor bounces back into the lens again from the filter producing ghost images.

 

There are even better protective filters today when the UV protection is omitted. https://www.bhphotov...ar.html?sts=pi

The UV protection made for better photos in the film days, but there is an UV cut filter in front of the sensor already.

[fallout666]

i only keep my filter on to protect the lens when at home or out taking action shots or wildlife or portraits when elements will effect the lens. if in place where no elements around take filter off. since do not need. since i mostly do surfing, soccer paintball baseball and softball i have to leave filter on since action sports. if doing wildlife depends on place if in woods no but out in open yes. you find out when it best to have filter and when not need filter.