Do you use filters?

[Tiger926]

Bought our first SLR last night - Nikon 5100 with 2 lenses. On order, so we haven't actually got it yet!

Felt very guilty as we have a lot of great cameras around here, but we have outgrown some of them, and so we are excited to finally learn how to use our new SLR, but we need some help with filters.

Camera shop recommended Hoya for protection of lense. Also reading about Tiffen too. I am researching and finding that some people recommend them to protect the lense just as the camera shop said, while others say no way.

So, what should we do, and what filters would you recommend for our Nikon D5100?

Thanks so much, Tiger

 

[wbeem]

Which kind of filter are you asking about? I don't use a filter to protect my lenses, but I will use a filter for a specific effect.

 

[Tiger926]

Which kind of filter are you asking about? I don't use a filter to protect my lenses, but I will use a filter for a specific effect.

For protection, as I mentioned. Not looking for special effects at this point in time.

Thanks, Tiger

 

[wbeem]

Sorry, I misunderstood. Honestly, I don't recommend filters for that purpose. Some people will claim that you're putting inferior quality glass in front of an expensive lens and it degrades your quality, but I don't buy into that at all.

There are always stories about folks who claim their lens was saved by a filter, but I think the circumstances are uncommon. This is probably one of those things where you just do it if it gives you peace of mind.

 

[photo_chick]

Some people use UV filters to protect the lens, and I'm guessing that's what you're talking about. I'm in the no UV filter camp because I don't feel it's worth the trade off in image quality and flare issues. A lens hood can work very well to protect against bumps. I do use other filters when needed for effects that can't be replicated in editing.

 

[Experiment_626]

Some people will claim that you're putting inferior quality glass in front of an expensive lens and it degrades your quality, but I don't buy into that at all.

I think that in many situations most people would never see a difference, but here's "exhibit A" that shows how a UV filter — at least a cheap one — can indeed ruin an image. In fact, after I shot this and saw the result, I took off my UV filter and never put it back on again. In truth, I don't know how much the filter affects overall image quality — this one still looks pretty sharp — but you can see how reflections made this image useful only as an example of what not to do.


Don't use cheap UV filters -- Exhibit A! by Scott S. Baxter, on Flickr

There are some situations where I'd consider one for protection — at the beach, for example, if I noticed the spray I sometimes see there, or on a windy day where the sand was getting kicked up. But most of the time, mine stays in the case at the bottom of my bag.

SSB

 

[photo_chick]

Ewww.. really good example of filter ickyness. I've also found that some cheaper filters tend to make images have a really gritty look that resembles noise. Of course some cheap lenses do this too.

 

[reimero]

I'm not sure there's necessarily a "right" answer to the question. Anything you put between your lens and your subject is necessarily going to change your photo and is going to take away light.

I tend to be hard on stuff, so I've got a UV filter, but I've started shooting without it recently. The one "good" filter I have, which absolutely *does* make a difference is a Hoya HD circular polarizer. Many photographers will tell you that a circular polarizer is the one filter that has no "alternate" (i.e. lens hood for protection; camera settings for color/warmth manipulation). If you're going to be shooting outdoors, I strongly recommend investing in a good circular polarizer, but that's something you should research and invest in deliberately. It's also not a protective filter.

 

[Experiment_626]

Neutral density filter effects also cannot be replicated with software, at least in the sense of the longer exposures they allow you to use.

SSB

 

[KarenAylwood]

I'm not sure there's necessarily a "right" answer to the question. Anything you put between your lens and your subject is necessarily going to change your photo and is going to take away light.

I tend to be hard on stuff, so I've got a UV filter, but I've started shooting without it recently. The one "good" filter I have, which absolutely *does* make a difference is a Hoya HD circular polarizer. Many photographers will tell you that a circular polarizer is the one filter that has no "alternate" (i.e. lens hood for protection; camera settings for color/warmth manipulation). If you're going to be shooting outdoors, I strongly recommend investing in a good circular polarizer, but that's something you should research and invest in deliberately. It's also not a protective filter.

Ditto this. I do not believe in using filters for protection. I have a circular polarizing filter (B+W) and use it often outside. I could have spent $80 on a 77mm but spent $200 to get a better quality one. I have not been disappointed.

 

[Tiger926]

Thanks all for your replies - this info is very helpful.

She recommended a HOYA multi coat UV filter for protection. Since we purchased 2 lenses, she recommended one for each and they were approx. $30.00 each.

It seems based on your replies, that it is not necessary. My friend just purchased an L Series Canon lense that cost $1800.00 and he doesn't have a filter for protection either, so it's great to get all of your opinions on the matter.

Thanks, Tiger

 

[Gianna'sPapa]

Normally, I do not use the UV filter for protection but rely on the lens hood. The exception to that rule is when I shoot the team demolition derby tournaments at our racetrack. Because it is run in the mud, I and my equipment are constantly being hit by flying mud clods. My 70-200 f2.8 lens was struck with the clod hitting both the hood and the lens. Fortunately, no damage, just a lot of cleanup!


TDD 8786 by Gianna'sPapa, on Flickr

I don't suspect that you will be shooting in this environment!! For the future, another little trick that I use for my special effect filters is buying the filter for my largest lens. Then I purchase step down(or up, I can never remember which, ) rings. This way you can use your one filter on all your lenses.

 

[wbeem]

Wow, that's nasty reflection. Good reason to avoid it, especially at night.

 

[ukstitch]

Another vote for no filter - my colleague used to use them, but was complaining about lack of sharpness in his photos (assuming it to be the lens).

After bringing his and my cameras together to compare and finding mine to be noticeably sharper, he took his filter off the lens out of curiosity and suddenly found his pictures were noticeably sharper.

 

[photo_chick]

This thread reminded me of this fun demonstration...
http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2011/06/good-times-with-bad-filters

 

[pgowder]

Some people use UV filters to protect the lens, and I'm guessing that's what you're talking about. I'm in the no UV filter camp because I don't feel it's worth the trade off in image quality and flare issues. A lens hood can work very well to protect against bumps. I do use other filters when needed for effects that can't be replicated in editing.

I agree! Just use your lens hood!

 

[Tiger926]

Thanks all!

I talked to my friend again, the one who just bought his new L Series lens, and I misunderstood him, as he does use filters. His photos are nice, but I do some lack of sharpness at times.

I think we decided to get the lens hood. We've always used it on our Panasonic bridge camera FZ-30 (fixed lens), and it has worked very well.

Thanks. Our camera is still on order, as the store sold 2 of them in the same afternoon, so we don't have our camera yet!

Tiger

 

[Experiment_626]

One other note -- there are very good UV or just plain clear filters available -- they are pretty darn expensive, as has been noted. You can certainly spend a couple hundred dollars on a really high-quality example, I think. But if it is meant to protect the lens, then I'm not sure how much sense it makes. I mean, "protect the lens" translates to "protect the front element." Thing is, those front elements can be replaced if damaged, in many cases for not a whole heck of a lot more than the cost of one of those high-end filters. After such a bad experience (granted, with a cheap Sunpak model), I say that in most circumstances you can combine exercising due care with using a hood and be just fine. In extreme situations, a filter might make sense.

SSB