09-03-2010, 07:44 PM
IMO there always is a cause to use protection filters. A friend of mine actually is a camera equipment retailer, and gets on average at least once a week a camera in with lens damage either from a fall, or a knock, or something else. The ones without a filter invariably have to go back to the manufacturer for repair, the ones with filters in 99 % of the cases only need the old filter removed, and a new one screwed in. Oh, the lenses still work fine too, in those 99% of the cases, no decentering, nothing, AF fine, etc.
The reason for this, he argues, is that the metal filter ring, being round, actually is a very strong reinforcement for the lens barrel; it can't really deform easily. And the filter itself, especially the ones with scratch resistant coating, really absorb a first knock very well, even if they break because of a knock.
I generally have given up on discussions for using or not using a filter, but personally I have been glad in more than one instance that I actually did have a filter mounted.
However, one thing to consider is that due to the high reflectiveness of the sensor, generally in the order of 40 to 60 % reflected light, you do need a good, multi-coated filter for protection, basically to prevent flare and veiling, and occasionally ghosting as well. This is generally not something apparent in most shots, but the moment light conditions start getting slightly more difficult, it is likely to hit you hardest. And in the golden hour, light conditions tend to be tricky if you don't shoot with the sun behind you. I speak from experience here. I used to have Canon filters, which, apart from the polarizers, are rebadged mono-coated Tiffen filters - I actually thought they were good because they carried the Canon name. Until I got an amount of flaring and veiling that made the photographs essentially unusable.
I proved to myself, after a fair amount of research to try and find what this could be caused by, that it actually was caused by the filter, and upon tests with my old Canon filters, vs a good, multi-coated filter and the lens without filter, I came to the conclusion that the latter don't generate any problems where the mono-coated did, so I changed over to these multi-coated ones. And I use them on all of my lenses, even on the 100-400L, which supposedly is no good with a filter attached. In short: internet baloney.
Now, if there are specific instances that it is better not to use a filter, well, in that case, take it off. After all, it is an extra glass element in front of the sensor, which will cause some loss of light transmitted, possibly causing a little loss of contrast as well (well less than 1 % in the case for a good filter, make that about 0.2 %). However, I never ever hear any landscape shooter complaining about filter effects when using sometimes up to 3 or 4 filters to get the shot they want. And often, those shots look absolutely fabulous, even with the sun right at the edge of the frame, etc.
As regards the quality of different brands of filters, if you get a Heliopan, Hoya or B+W multi-coated filter, you should be fine. The B+W MRC filters are scratch resistant and very easy to clean, the latest Hoya filters are too (I think those are the HDs). I don't know about the Heliopans, and I'd not want to use an older model Hoya, simply because they are extremely hard to clean. Other than than, the Hoyas have a very slight yellow tinge, the B+Ws are really clear, and again I don't know about Heliopan, as I have no experience with those.
In short, my preference is for B+W MRC filters, whether they are protection (UV) or polarizing filters <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' />. Easy to clean, hardened coating and no tinge.
Kind regards, Wim
The reason for this, he argues, is that the metal filter ring, being round, actually is a very strong reinforcement for the lens barrel; it can't really deform easily. And the filter itself, especially the ones with scratch resistant coating, really absorb a first knock very well, even if they break because of a knock.
I generally have given up on discussions for using or not using a filter, but personally I have been glad in more than one instance that I actually did have a filter mounted.
However, one thing to consider is that due to the high reflectiveness of the sensor, generally in the order of 40 to 60 % reflected light, you do need a good, multi-coated filter for protection, basically to prevent flare and veiling, and occasionally ghosting as well. This is generally not something apparent in most shots, but the moment light conditions start getting slightly more difficult, it is likely to hit you hardest. And in the golden hour, light conditions tend to be tricky if you don't shoot with the sun behind you. I speak from experience here. I used to have Canon filters, which, apart from the polarizers, are rebadged mono-coated Tiffen filters - I actually thought they were good because they carried the Canon name. Until I got an amount of flaring and veiling that made the photographs essentially unusable.
I proved to myself, after a fair amount of research to try and find what this could be caused by, that it actually was caused by the filter, and upon tests with my old Canon filters, vs a good, multi-coated filter and the lens without filter, I came to the conclusion that the latter don't generate any problems where the mono-coated did, so I changed over to these multi-coated ones. And I use them on all of my lenses, even on the 100-400L, which supposedly is no good with a filter attached. In short: internet baloney.
Now, if there are specific instances that it is better not to use a filter, well, in that case, take it off. After all, it is an extra glass element in front of the sensor, which will cause some loss of light transmitted, possibly causing a little loss of contrast as well (well less than 1 % in the case for a good filter, make that about 0.2 %). However, I never ever hear any landscape shooter complaining about filter effects when using sometimes up to 3 or 4 filters to get the shot they want. And often, those shots look absolutely fabulous, even with the sun right at the edge of the frame, etc.
As regards the quality of different brands of filters, if you get a Heliopan, Hoya or B+W multi-coated filter, you should be fine. The B+W MRC filters are scratch resistant and very easy to clean, the latest Hoya filters are too (I think those are the HDs). I don't know about the Heliopans, and I'd not want to use an older model Hoya, simply because they are extremely hard to clean. Other than than, the Hoyas have a very slight yellow tinge, the B+Ws are really clear, and again I don't know about Heliopan, as I have no experience with those.
In short, my preference is for B+W MRC filters, whether they are protection (UV) or polarizing filters <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' />. Easy to clean, hardened coating and no tinge.Kind regards, Wim
Gear: Canon EOS R with 3 primes and 2 zooms, 4 EF-R adapters, Canon EOS 5 (analog), 9 Canon EF primes, a lone Canon EF zoom, 2 extenders, 2 converters, tubes; Olympus OM-D 1 Mk II & Pen F with 12 primes, 6 zooms, and 3 Metabones EF-MFT adapters ....
