Do lenses matter anymore?

[havoc315]

Some discussions on this board got me thinking about the evolution of photography over the last few years.

Now, I am not suggesting that lenses are irrelevant, not suggesting that nobody ever needs more than the kit lens. Certainly, a wide angle lens won't give you telephoto shots. A telephoto lens won't give you wide angle shots. A regular lens isn't going to give you close-up bug macro shots. A 1.4 aperture lens will perform far superior in low light than 5.6......

But for non-professional photographers, is there really a critical difference between a $2,000 lens and a $200 lens?
For example, I shoot Sony.. they have 3 50mm prime lenses:
Zeiss 50/1.4... $1500
Sony 50/1.4.. $450
Sony 50/1.8 -- $168

Will the differences between a $168 versus $450 versus $1500 lenses really make much difference for most people?

So without further ado, my own analysis of whether lenses matter anymore..

Lenses matter more than ever

1. If you pixel peep, looking at images at 100% size, then today's 24-36 megapixel sensors are more demanding than ever. Lenses that may have been fine on film or 6mp dSLRs, may not resolve full detail for a 36 mp image.

2. Technology has added new features to lenses that may be worth paying for. Silent focus motors are great for video. In Canon for example, only some lenses support phase detect video autofocus on their newer cameras.

3. With the increased quality of camera phones and point and shoots, premium lenses can still help interchangeable lens cameras really stand out in quality.

Quality lenses matter less than ever

1. With improvements in sensor technology, a photographer has more ways to capture the shot. 15 years ago, a 2.8 lens may have been the only way around bad lighting. But where cameras today can shoot cleanly at ISO 6400 or higher, that 2.8 lens is less critical than it used to be.

2. Even simple post-processing combined with high resolution, gives the photographer a lot more leeway to get the final shot. A 200mm lens versus a 300mm lens? With a high resolution camera, you can easily crop that 200mm shot to get the same final product as 300mm. (Of course, can't go in the other direction).

3. Many of the differences between that $1,500 lens and the $150 lens will only be apparent if you pixel peep. If you aren't looking at the images under a magnifying glass, you won't really see any difference. If you are printing 8X10 or smaller, or posting pictures on facebook, you won't see any difference.

4. Cameras and software can correct flawed lenses in ways that used to be impossible. For example, some advantages of a great lens compared to a moderate lens may be: Less distortion, less vignetting, less chromatic aberration. But those flaws are generally easily corrected in just a few seconds of post processing these days. Some cameras can automatically make the corrections in jpegs.


My personal conclusion

Certainly, a professional photographer has as much reason for premium lenses as ever. But for many hobbyists and amateurs, I no longer agree with the conventional wisdom that "lenses always matter the most."

Many photographers may see a more dramatic improvement in their photography, at lower expense, with a better camera body, or by investing in a good flash and lighting accessories. (for great portraits, a few hundred dollars on a speedlight and accessories will serve most photographers much better than buying a $2,000 lens).

For example, take someone who has a Canon Rebel Xti, purchased in 2007. They want to shoot some low light sports... dance, gymnastics, karate.. etc. They aren't shooting for magazine covers, but they want to post some nice shots on Facebook for the grandparents to see.

They can purchase a Canon 6d for $1750 (new, cheaper if refurb). They can add the 70-200/f4 L for $700. So total for the lens and camera -- $2450

Or, they can keep the Rebel Xti, and buy the Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM for $2500.

So for the same price, the full frame camera plus good lens... or keep the old camera and add the ultra premium lens?
I dare say most amateur photographers would be far better served with option #1.

Now, that's a rather extreme example. But I think it tends to hold true even on lesser levels. The differences between mid-priced lenses and ultra-expensive lenses are not really necessary for most amateur photographers, most of the time.

For myself, it's a matter of training myself to stop pixel peeping!

 

[Pixel Dust]

Nothing wrong with having options. But, it can be very confusing for someone looking for a "simple" upgrade.

Now, put a 10mm lens (35mm equiv.), a gigapixel sensor that shoots cleanly at 12800 ISO, into a phone, and you would have effectively killed the consumer photography market. Seems like that's where the phone camera technology is headed.

 

[Daisy14'sDH]

Sensors can now out resolve most lenses, pixel peeping is what everyone does now in one form or another. Otherwise 4k TV's, Retina Displays and ultra high resolution monitors would not be around... IMHO

 

[photo_chick]

First... I totally agree with the idea that sensors are outpacing the resolving power of lenses. The Canon 75-300 is an excellent example of this. It was quite adequate with film and still held together decently at 8MP. But once you start getting to 10 or 15 MP with it it totally begins to fall apart in terms of resolving power. And forget 20MP with that hunk of junk.

Does a new photographer need a professional lens? Unless it's specifically for the aperture for technical reasons probably not. Simply because they don't tend to nitpick the details that are what make professional lenses worth the cash to many of us. However, to someone who knows what to look for there is most definitely a difference SOOC between an image shot with a $150 lens and a $1500 lens. Things like color reproduction, contrast, clarity, rendering of the OOF highlights. At smaller sizes sharpness is often less of an issue but it's still noticeable as well. But again, someone who is a novice tends to not notice these things like someone who has been shooting a long time will.

The Zeiss cited.. most people spend the money for that lens for the way it renders. It's got some sought after characteristics that make it worth the cost IF you are looking for those things. But the average novice or intermediate photographer probably wouldn't know what makes that particular lens attractive to others.

On the XTi 70-200 f/2.8 vs. 6D 70-200 f/4 comparison..... I agree here ONLY because the XTi is so outdated. I've got a 6D and an XT in my bag and in my opinion the differences are worth it in that instance. But if we start talking T2i though I think my opinion might change slightly depending on what the person needed.

Of course many have gear acquisition syndrome and think that this lens or that camera will make their images better. But that happens at all levels and many of us who've been doing this a while know that all the gear in the world won't make you a better photographer.

Pixel peeping will drive you insane regardless of the lenses you have.

 

[KAT4DISNEY]

The Zeiss cited.. most people spend the money for that lens for the way it renders. It's got some sought after characteristics that make it worth the cost IF you are looking for those things. But the average novice or intermediate photographer probably wouldn't know what makes that particular lens attractive to others.

This. Resolution and pixel peeping are part of a whole but far from everything.

For most camera owners it may make no difference and probably never did but in essence the differences between lenses still are much the same. I could take pictures with some of my lenses at the same focal length and identify which was used by the asthetics and bokeh. Do I always care? No. But pictures taken using a couple of my lenses almost always put a smile on my face just because of the "look" they give. However I have a couple fairly inexpensive lenses that I also quite like the rendering on.

 

[Daisy14'sDH]

This makes me think of something kinda funny, for the last month or so I put my old Vivtar 100mm macro back on the K5 and have been loving it! I haven't been pixel peeping (too much) but love the sharpness and clarity when this lens is used with strobes and stopping down. I'm sure that in a year or two my upgraded body will put this thing to shame, however, as long as I don't look at the image at anything beyond 100% I'm sure I will never see how it lacks.... mainly because I don't know how a full size image on my 15" monitor could get any better.... until I upgrade my monitor then I'll be screwed lol!

 

[Animagic!]

Interesting stuff. I picked up a used Pentax K30 recently simply to play around with. It was inexpensive and since I am primarily a Sony user I didn't want to invest to heavily in Pentax lenses. Recently I've been looking into old 80's MF lenses from the film days.

I blame havoc315 for this entirely. His love for old Minolta lenses turned me in that direction for something new.

So I went out and bought up old Pentax lenses for the K30. I love them. I am still getting used to manual focusing with a pentaprism viewfinder and setting a manual exposure. But despite this learning curve I have been having a lot of fun with these old, inexpensive lenses. Aside from not having autofocus they are pretty wonderful, especially considering how little they cost. Add on top of that in-body stabilization and modern ISO capabilities and they become pretty handy. A cheap, simple 50mm f/1.7 has great colors and is sharp. It is starting to make me rethink how much I spend for lenses. I like my Rokinon 85mm f/1.4 a lot and I thought it was a great deal when I bought it for $220. Now I'm finding MF primes for a fraction of that.

I picked up a new Tamron 70-300 f/4-5.6 for $350 during the holiday season. It may be about one third the price of the Sony 70-300 /4.5-5.6G but given how well it performs I don't see the need to pay three times more for a very marginal performance increase.

I realize there will always be a market for $1,500+ lenses. I have no problem with that. But as of right now I'm not a part of that market. I'm not a professional. But I'm pretty happy with how my $7.00 Pentax 70-200mm f/4 telezoom performs, especially when I'm macro focusing three inches away from an object.

 

[havoc315]

Good discussion. As I said initially, the higher resolution of today's sensors, IS a reason for better lenses.
BUT -- It's not truly like an old cheap low resolution lens looks WORSE on a high resolution sensor. If viewed at the same size as taken on the low resolution camera, the image won't look any worse.

Take this shot:

Disney world - Everest by Havoc315, on Flickr

Taken with a cheap low resolution kit lens on a 10mp dSLR. Viewing at this size, would this picture look any WORSE if taken with the same lens on a 24mp camera? It might not look any better, but it also wouldn't look any worse.

So in terms of today's demanding sensors --- IF you want to take the most advantage of your high resolution sensor, then you may need more expensive lenses. This primarily goes to people who (1) pixel peep (2) print very large (3) crop extensively in post processing.
If you don't pixel peep, print in medium sizes, and don't crop much, then you are far less likely to see a big difference between a decent mid-priced lens and an ultra expensive lens.

Now certainly, I'm not saying that a professional doesn't need the top tier lenses. A professional race car driver will happily pay $$$$$$ for an extra couple miles per hour. Because it's their profession, every little bit helps. Anything to give them a boost over the competition.
But if you are driving on your local streets, does it matter to you if your car's top speed i 110mph versus 130mph? They are both speeds you will never use.

I'm also not saying that there is no reason to look beyond kit lenses, or that all lenses are the same.
But even the horrible Canon 75-300 cited by photochick..... I don't shoot Canon, but I have read enough horrible things about the lens that I would never buy it. But if you are shooting 4X6s and Facebook shots, the lens should still produce perfectly acceptable shots. Or quite affordably, a Canon shooter could buy the 55-250 for about $299... which is generally a well-regarded lens. And I dare say, that most shooters really wouldn't need to step up from the 55-250 to a much more expensive 70-200 2.8, unless they have a major need for fast-low light-telephoto.

Everything I have said doesn't just apply to lenses, but camera bodies as well.

Comparing a Canon Rebel t5i to the Canon 70D.... The 70D certainly has some very nice selling points. There are lots of features and conveniences that might lead a Canon buyer to pick the 70D over the t5i.
But most photographers would never notice a difference in the image quality between the pictures they take with those 2 cameras.

Or... the Canon 1Dx ($7,000) vs the Canon 6d ($1500).

Certainly, the 1Dx is a far superior camera.... but if you are taking 4X6 snap shots of your kids, a few vacation pictures at Disney World, etc --- Are you really going to find the IQ of the 6D inferior?

I guess what I'm saying is that with all the ways to improve your photographs today -- between lens choices, different camera bodies, improving your use of artificial light, and post-processing options --- Today's photographers have many many paths to producing great hobbyist level pictures. Lenses are certainly one way to improve. But they are just one path, and not always the most cost effective path.

In fact, I've come to my own realization, that in terms of bang for buck --- The best ways to improve your photography..

1-- Books. Reading advice from professional photographers, and learning to be a better photographer. Best bang for the buck in improving.
2 -- Good post processing software and learning how to use it. Fix flaws in your image, correct any flaws in the lens. Truly get the most out of your images.
3 -- A Speedlight AND learning how to use it. And 2a -- Gels for your flash (about $10!)

Lenses and camera bodies are a distant 4th and 5th place, in no particular order between them. Because we've reached a threshold where all modern lenses and all modern dSLR camera bodies can perform well.

 

[wiigirl]

Nothing wrong with having options. But, it can be very confusing for someone looking for a "simple" upgrade.

Now, put a 10mm lens (35mm equiv.), a gigapixel sensor that shoots cleanly at 12800 ISO, into a phone, and you would have effectively killed the consumer photography market. Seems like that's where the phone camera technology is headed.

 

[photo_chick]

Good discussion. As I said initially, the higher resolution of today's sensors, IS a reason for better lenses.
BUT -- It's not truly like an old cheap low resolution lens looks WORSE on a high resolution sensor. If viewed at the same size as taken on the low resolution camera, the image won't look any worse.

Sort of true. There are things to look for, like how the lens renders certain aspects of the image, that will tell you if it's a cheap lens or not. Most people can't tell, but some can. In those cases i think if you're one of those who can tell, buy more expensive lenses. If you can't, save your cash.

Taken with a cheap low resolution kit lens on a 10mp dSLR. Viewing at this size, would this picture look any WORSE if taken with the same lens on a 24mp camera? It might not look any better, but it also wouldn't look any worse.

So in terms of today's demanding sensors --- IF you want to take the most advantage of your high resolution sensor, then you may need more expensive lenses. This primarily goes to people who (1) pixel peep (2) print very large (3) crop extensively in post processing.
If you don't pixel peep, print in medium sizes, and don't crop much, then you are far less likely to see a big difference between a decent mid-priced lens and an ultra expensive lens.

Now certainly, I'm not saying that a professional doesn't need the top tier lenses. A professional race car driver will happily pay $$$$$$ for an extra couple miles per hour. Because it's their profession, every little bit helps. Anything to give them a boost over the competition.
But if you are driving on your local streets, does it matter to you if your car's top speed i 110mph versus 130mph? They are both speeds you will never use.

I'm also not saying that there is no reason to look beyond kit lenses, or that all lenses are the same.
But even the horrible Canon 75-300 cited by photochick..... I don't shoot Canon, but I have read enough horrible things about the lens that I would never buy it. But if you are shooting 4X6s and Facebook shots, the lens should still produce perfectly acceptable shots. Or quite affordably, a Canon shooter could buy the 55-250 for about $299... which is generally a well-regarded lens. And I dare say, that most shooters really wouldn't need to step up from the 55-250 to a much more expensive 70-200 2.8, unless they have a major need for fast-low light-telephoto.

Everything I have said doesn't just apply to lenses, but camera bodies as well.

Comparing a Canon Rebel t5i to the Canon 70D.... The 70D certainly has some very nice selling points. There are lots of features and conveniences that might lead a Canon buyer to pick the 70D over the t5i.
But most photographers would never notice a difference in the image quality between the pictures they take with those 2 cameras.

Or... the Canon 1Dx ($7,000) vs the Canon 6d ($1500).

Certainly, the 1Dx is a far superior camera.... but if you are taking 4X6 snap shots of your kids, a few vacation pictures at Disney World, etc --- Are you really going to find the IQ of the 6D inferior?

This assumes that it's the sensor that makes the 1Dx have the higher price tag when what makes the 1Dx a "superior" camera is not the sensor. It's the auto focus and other features. And even when comparing sensors one can edge the other in an area (like the 6D with noise) and fall short in another (like the 6D with dynamic range). Its not as cut a dried as "the most expensive has the best sensor" and I'd hope that anyone spending $7000 on a camera understood that.

I guess what I'm saying is that with all the ways to improve your photographs today -- between lens choices, different camera bodies, improving your use of artificial light, and post-processing options --- Today's photographers have many many paths to producing great hobbyist level pictures. Lenses are certainly one way to improve. But they are just one path, and not always the most cost effective path.

In fact, I've come to my own realization, that in terms of bang for buck --- The best ways to improve your photography..

1-- Books. Reading advice from professional photographers, and learning to be a better photographer. Best bang for the buck in improving.
2 -- Good post processing software and learning how to use it. Fix flaws in your image, correct any flaws in the lens. Truly get the most out of your images.
3 -- A Speedlight AND learning how to use it. And 2a -- Gels for your flash (about $10!)

Lenses and camera bodies are a distant 4th and 5th place, in no particular order between them. Because we've reached a threshold where all modern lenses and all modern dSLR camera bodies can perform well.

I agree with you that knowledge is the single most effective way to improve your photography. Understanding even just the basics of the technical aspect will drastically improve your images with any camera, from a smartphone to a 1Dx.

Good processing is essential and can help more than new gear as well.

I disagree with the speedlite. That's a style choice and not at all necessary for getting great shots. Also flash is not allowed in all situations so what's a person to do then if they don't have the necessary lenses?

 

[havoc315]

Sort of true. There are things to look for, like how the lens renders certain aspects of the image, that will tell you if it's a cheap lens or not. Most people can't tell, but some can. In those cases i think if you're one of those who can tell, buy more expensive lenses. If you can't, save your cash.

Very true. But those flaws will be equally apparent on the 6mp dSLR camera 4X6 print. As my own skill set has grown, I have gotten pickier about lenses, and notice things I didn't notice before. But in most cases, I need to look pretty closely to see those differences.

This assumes that it's the sensor that makes the 1Dx have the higher price tag when what makes the 1Dx a "superior" camera is not the sensor. It's the auto focus and other features. And even when comparing sensors one can edge the other in an area (like the 6D with noise) and fall short in another (like the 6D with dynamic range). Its not as cut a dried as "the most expensive has the best sensor" and I'd hope that anyone spending $7000 on a camera understood that.

Very true. But the same can often be said of lenses (to a lesser degree). You may be paying more for weather sealing, or for a quiet focus motor, etc.

I disagree with the speedlite. That's a style choice and not at all necessary for getting great shots. Also flash is not allowed in all situations so what's a person to do then if they don't have the necessary lenses?

Except for "knowledge" -- the same applies to everything on the list. I put it third, for "bang for the buck" -- and I wasn't just talking about speedlites, talking about soft boxes, reflectors, etc. All quite cheap compared to a full frame dSLR or a 70-200/2.8 lens.
Yes, it's a style choice. And it is useless for many types of shots (not going to help you take a better landscape shot or a Disney dark ride). But for posed portraits, I'd much rather have a good lighting set-up, than a premium full frame camera or a Zeiss fast lens. So yes, it's primarily for portraits, but it's massive bang for the buck if you choose to shoot portraits with artificial light.

Nothing on the list was necessary for getting great shots.
Knowledge? Very helpful. But even a monkey with a camera on auto.. taking thousands of shots, might capture a few great ones.
Post-processing? Not necessary for every great shots. There are great jpegs that can come out of a camera with no post-processing... There are great photographers who do little or no post-processing But it is a cheap way to make your pictures better
Camera body? There are some types of shots that are actually easier to take with a small sensor camera, especially if you want a huge depth of field.
Lenses..... that's been the whole point of the discussion. Sure, a $2,000 lens is nice to have, but not necessary. Certainly not always necessary.
Flashes/modifiers/etc -- Useless for many types of shots. And may conflict with a photographer's style for other types of shots. But for some types of shots, a couple hundred dollars spent on proper lighting can make all the difference.

 

[havoc315]

Interesting stuff. I picked up a used Pentax K30 recently simply to play around with. It was inexpensive and since I am primarily a Sony user I didn't want to invest to heavily in Pentax lenses. Recently I've been looking into old 80's MF lenses from the film days.

I blame havoc315 for this entirely. His love for old Minolta lenses turned me in that direction for something new.

Don't blame me! It was just a affordable way to explore lots of lenses. Though, I'm always amazed... the truly premium Minolta lenses... even the 20 year old Minolta AF lenses, can still run well over $1,000.
A Minolta 100mm/f2 -- 27 years old, still goes for $750+
The Minolta 35/1.4 -- another "original Minolta AF lens from the 1980s.. still about $1200

So it's not like all the old great Minolta lenses are now dirt cheap. But there are some cheap lenses that can still offer surprisingly good optical performance.

So I went out and bought up old Pentax lenses for the K30. I love them. I am still getting used to manual focusing with a pentaprism viewfinder and setting a manual exposure. But despite this learning curve I have been having a lot of fun with these old, inexpensive lenses. Aside from not having autofocus they are pretty wonderful, especially considering how little they cost. Add on top of that in-body stabilization and modern ISO capabilities and they become pretty handy. A cheap, simple 50mm f/1.7 has great colors and is sharp. It is starting to make me rethink how much I spend for lenses. I like my Rokinon 85mm f/1.4 a lot and I thought it was a great deal when I bought it for $220. Now I'm finding MF primes for a fraction of that.

It's all about fun! So really glad you're enjoying yourself. Personally, I paid a lot of money for a camera with a great AF system.... so I'm not rushing to use manual focus lenses. (On the other hand, the Sony A99 makes manual focusing even easier with focus magnification and peaking, so I do find I'm using manual focus a bit more than I would have expected)

I picked up a new Tamron 70-300 f/4-5.6 for $350 during the holiday season. It may be about one third the price of the Sony 70-300 /4.5-5.6G but given how well it performs I don't see the need to pay three times more for a very marginal performance increase.

To some people who never go beyond a kit lens, $350 is a lot for a lens. But yes, compared to the Sony "G".. compared to constant aperture zoom lenses, the Tamron is a real bargain. And I agree... especially in good light, it gives me everything I need in a telephoto zoom.

Took this yesterday with the Tamron:


feb-36.jpg by Havoc315, on Flickr

Now, that was wide open at 300mm -- which is the "weak spot" for this lens. But the subject is still more than sharp enough for normal size viewing. If the corners are soft.. wouldn't know it and wouldn't care for this type of shot.

 

[photo_chick]

Very true. But the same can often be said of lenses (to a lesser degree). You may be paying more for weather sealing, or for a quiet focus motor, etc.

Yes. Sometimes the difference between two lenses is totally about the build and not the glass itself. Another aspect of this is the aperture blades. Both number and design.

 

[boBQuincy]

Everything matters!

...if we are interested enough to look for the difference. We decide what is good enough and what matters but it does not take pixel peeping if we want to look for it.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/u...ters__it_is_all_about_the_small_details.shtml

MP3, the audio analogy of JPG is good enough for most listeners but it is obviously far from the original, anyone who listens to a live symphony orchestra knows that. MP3 is inexpensive and convenient, and often we are willing to accept the compromise but other times we want something better. Photography is no different, 2MP JPG is good enough sometimes, 0.5 MP is sometimes ok too. But not always, because the difference between good and great can be small but it matters.

 

[Skywise]

As I think is commonly agreed on here the answer is... it depends!

For probably 80% of the population an iPad is the perfect photo taking device for their needs. (Yeah I'm pulling that out of my butt but I think it's a fair approximation and no I'm not suggesting an iPad is good enough. )

tl;dr - It all depends on what you're trying to accomplish. Better sensors and computer processing will greatly enhance a lot of the ability to take a picture in a particular way but, ultimately, the glass is still the largest deciding factor. Even if you have a highly sensitive sensor with good noise reduction you can't get more light or more of a scene than the lens will let you have.

And now to the rambling...

I used the same kit lens on my Canon DSLR film camera up through a Canon Xti (digital) and Canon T2i and my IQ went up tremendously with each camera body change so, obviously the lens didn't make a difference there but I'm partial to taking natural and low-light pictures. Even with the better sensor resolution I was unable to always get the picture I wanted using that lens. So when I upgraded to the Canon 17-55 f2.8 - booyah... there was a night and day difference in my IQ when shooting indoors and low light but not that much in daylight (actually I think the colors/detail are better in the daylight with that lens too but not as dramatically so).

I thought I was perfectly happy until last year when I shot some fireworks video of Wishes. I shot the video at 2 stops down and the picture STILL came out noisy and by the time I got finished with post-processing in lightroom the castle looked like an amorphous blob... (especially in pink... Canon hates shooting Cinderella's castle in pink...I can never get it to look like my eyes see it...). This was with an EF-S 10-22 wide angle lens at F3.5 (best it could do). It's a FANTASTIC lens, don't get me wrong but I realized I had pushed that lens/camera combination as far as I could go. So when I decided to make an impromptu trip back to DW for Christmas and intended to shoot the holiday fireworks I plunged in, sold off all my camera equipment that I had picked up over the past 5+ years and invested in a used 6D plus a 16-35 f2.8II wide angle lens (and that was it because that was all I could afford! So I went to DW with that and my trusty Canon 70-300 leaving me with a large dead zone that could've really come in handy at times... ). The daylight pictures I took didn't look any better or worse than my T2i with the 10-22. (There's more detail, definitely, because of the 6D's larger sensor but it's not that noticeable on an 8x11 print and certainly not on a 4x6). The night pictures, however, were far sharper and with much less noise (but that's because of the better sensor plus the lens). The fireworks turned out great except for two problems - I forgot and left the UV filter on so I got more lens flare than I would've and I left the camera set at the default exposure because I wasn't sure how it was going to "behave" because of my inexperience with it. This made the castle look good but some of the fireworks ended up overexposed (white blobs, especially with initial large explosions and when lots of fireworks popped up at once in a concentrated area). But for all the cost of that wide-angle lens I surprisingly got some of my best shots from my cheap Canon 70-300 (EG From the castle to Main street with the partners statue centered bottom at night with the Christmas lights and snow.)

 

[SkaGoat]

I forgot and left the UV filter on so I got more lens flare

One of the many reasons to never use a UV filter.... A good UV filter is $100. The front element on a 16-35mm f/2.8L is $200 - $300 installed.

You're better off using the lens hood (which will actually help your pictures), and no filter. And on the off chance you need to replace the front element on your lens it's not extraordinarily expensive.

 

[Skywise]

One of the many reasons to never use a UV filter.... A good UV filter is $100. The front element on a 16-35mm f/2.8L is $200 - $300 installed.

You're better off using the lens hood (which will actually help your pictures), and no filter. And on the off chance you need to replace the front element on your lens it's not extraordinarily expensive.

I do use the lens hood and I had just gotten out of the habit of using the filter on my older lenses. But I was so paranoid about the first time for this lens that I got one anyway.

 

[Pixel Dust]

One of the many reasons to never use a UV filter.... A good UV filter is $100. The front element on a 16-35mm f/2.8L is $200 - $300 installed.

You're better off using the lens hood (which will actually help your pictures), and no filter. And on the off chance you need to replace the front element on your lens it's not extraordinarily expensive.

Another proud member of the no UV filter club. I found out the hard way shooting MSEP.

However, they do have their uses in extreme dirty environments.

I do use a polarizer when it's bright out and ND filter for fireworks.

 

[mom2rtk]

I generally don't use a U/V filter. But I'm thinking of adding one to my Canon 17-55 f/2.8. It really has lived up to its "dust magnet" reputation for me. I wasn't bothered by it until my last trip where I had the sun hit it just right and reflect countless dust particles on my shot.

I came home and read up on how to take it apart and clean out myself....... then called Canon to find out what they'll charge to clean it. I think once I spend the $129 on that I am considering adding the U/V filter. I'll have to rely on my memory to take it off when I'm shooting fireworks I guess.

 

[photo_chick]

One of the many reasons to never use a UV filter.... A good UV filter is $100. The front element on a 16-35mm f/2.8L is $200 - $300 installed.

You're better off using the lens hood (which will actually help your pictures), and no filter. And on the off chance you need to replace the front element on your lens it's not extraordinarily expensive.

And if you have good insurance that protects you from your own stupidity that repair will cost even less.


+1 on the hood with no UV filter.