[Tris]

Firstly - I am not talking about coloured or special effects filters, just the general ones (UV/Haze etc).

Does spending the extra cash on the different coatings make any difference whatsoever or is it a marketing ploy? Most of my (general) filters are Hoya and usually the basic cheap ones (some are HMC coated).

I really can't tell the difference between the basic and the HMC, but the price differential is big - even more so with super HMC/Ultra series...

Any thoughts?

[Johnny Brown]

Unless you're at altitude, at sea, or exceptionally clumsy, UV filters are a waste of time and money.

[dave]

Ditt: Don't pay extra, if it all. The only lens I've got a UV filter on is my 50mm and that's only cos the front element is recessed so far into the body of the lens that cleaning it is akward.

[Tris]

Fair points/views. I wouldn't say I was clumsy, more unlucky
I had an accident whilst climbing a year or two ago when a small rock fell and hit my camera. If it hadn't been for the filter, the lens would have been totally fecked. Since then I have systematically bought UV filters (each about a tenner) for each lens. All of my lenses each cost more than a tenner so I just get them for security I guess.

The reasoning behind this question is that a new lens shall be with me shortly c/o santa and again I was just about to systematically buy a filter.

As I said previously, I have never bought the more expensive fancy ones - just wondered what/if the difference was?

So thanks for your input guys, I shall buy the cheapest one I can find 

[Johnny Brown]

Hmm, that's not really what I was driving at. If you insist on using them, get a decent one - ie Hoya. Wouldn't stress about the HMC etc though.

[Tris]

Hmm, that's not really what I was driving at. If you insist on using them, get a decent one - ie Hoya. Wouldn't stress about the HMC etc though.

Yeah sorry - I meant I would just get the cheapest Hoya I could find... (I have one hama filter but it's shit and goes on the lens I use the least)

Cheers

[cofe]

Why spend several hundred quid or more on a lens and then stick another bit of glass on it?

[Tris]

Why spend several hundred quid or more on a lens and then stick another bit of glass on it?

Why spend several thousand quid on a car and then get an alarm fitted to it?

[Adam Lincoln]

Why spend several hundred quid or more on a lens and then stick another bit of glass on it?

Why spend several thousand quid on a car and then get an alarm fitted to it?

Err, not sure the context is the same there Tris.

[Tris]

I was trying to say that the filter protects the lens, just as the alarm protects the car. Apologies if my logic is confusing people, I don't get out much...

I must be losing the plot this afternoon - nobody is understanding me, or maybe I'm not undertanding cofe. Time to stop posting and go home I think 

[cofe]

People plonk cheapo uv or whatever filters (I.e. Glass) in front of £xxx lenses. All part of the drive to minimise image quality I guess. Never occured to me that a UV filter on my lenses might stop them getting nicked.

[nic mullin]

I only have fairly cheap lenses, and I tend to put filters on them, which have saved my lenses from damage in the past (I am clumsy). They also mean that I can walk around without a lens cap on and just just wipe any raindrops/pudding etc that gets onto the front of my filter away with my shirt in the first intance without stressing. Cheap filters have never given me any problems. Looking at my photos from a recent Font trip I can't see any systematic difference in image quality with and without a Jessops own brand protection filter (which got broken and saved my front element when I bumped my camera against a rock while scrambling around) on the front of my lens. There are plenty of other things that affect the image quality I get far more than the filter. Make of that what you will.

I have found that cheap polarizers (non-Hoya) don't actually polarize, so if you want one of those I'd spend money on a good one.

[David S]

I put filters on my lenses but only very high quality B&W ones (buy cheap and that's what you get). The very slight loss (if any) of image quality is far outweighed by the protection of the front element of an expensive lens when using them in a tough environment. Far cheaper to replace a filter than a front lens element.

I do have a couple of lenses that are only used for studio work and these aren't filtered because they don't need to be.

Oh yeh, and I check and replace the filters if they show any damage.

But it's horses for courses and depend on how much you want to spend, what lens you're using and what the final output of your images will be.

Hope that helps.

David

[slackline]

When I wrote my car off I had my camera loose in the car.  It bounced around lots whilst the car rolled, and when I retrieved it found that the UV filter was shattered.  I'd like to think that this took the impact and saved the lens, as I think I'd have been more pissed off at having to buy a new lens than getting a new car 

[SA Chris]

Did your car have an alarm fitted?

[slackline]

Did your car have an alarm fitted?

No 

[dave]

I'd take a lot of the "my UV filter broke hence it saved the lens" stories with a pinch of salt/common sense though - thing is the glass on a UV filter is far thinner and more fragile than any front lens element. Thus if you drop a lens or whatever a UV filter is far more likely to break anyway, even in situations where the lens would have been fine. Also consider that in these situations the broken glass of the filter can easily scratch your lens, making you worse off than you might have been without it. Obviously you pays your money you takes your choice.

Most of the fairly light drops that most people are likely to encounter are much more likely to ding the filter ring of your lens rather than break the glass. A couple of years back I'd got a new rucksac camera bag and first time out with it I manged to flick the camera out of it from being sat on top of a boulder on kinder. the camera cartwheeled through the air and hit a rock 6 foot below before landed up in a clump of heather on the deck. The lens made contact with the edge of the lens at the front - the thing that saved it is the cokin-p adaptor ring in place, took the brunt of the impact leaving the lens unscathed. I'm almost of the opinion that if you do want to protect your shit against dropping them you'd be beter off taking the glass out of your UV filters and just screwing the metal rim on.

[slackline]

Fair points, there dave.

No idea how many times my camera ricocheted around inside the car before coming to rest.

[SA Chris]

Did your car have an alarm fitted?

No 

Well if it had, it would probably be OK!

[David S]

Actually Dave, on at least two occassions having a filter on has saved the lens getting scratched whilst I've been moving around on ropes. Ironically the only time I didn't have a filter on a lens the front element was scratched. I was changing to a polariser, put it on the ground whilst I swapped filters in the case, it fell over against a rock and left two nice scratches, which thankfully were close to the edge and don't effect performance (altough if i was to sell it I wouldn't get anywhere near as much now). The moral is don't put your lenses on the uneven floor.

[Yossarian]

I'd take a lot of the "my UV filter broke hence it saved the lens" stories with a pinch of salt/common sense though - thing is the glass on a UV filter is far thinner and more fragile than any front lens element. Thus if you drop a lens or whatever a UV filter is far more likely to break anyway, even in situations where the lens would have been fine. Also consider that in these situations the broken glass of the filter can easily scratch your lens, making you worse off than you might have been without it. Obviously you pays your money you takes your choice.

Most of the fairly light drops that most people are likely to encounter are much more likely to ding the filter ring of your lens rather than break the glass. A couple of years back I'd got a new rucksac camera bag and first time out with it I manged to flick the camera out of it from being sat on top of a boulder on kinder. the camera cartwheeled through the air and hit a rock 6 foot below before landed up in a clump of heather on the deck. The lens made contact with the edge of the lens at the front - the thing that saved it is the cokin-p adaptor ring in place, took the brunt of the impact leaving the lens unscathed. I'm almost of the opinion that if you do want to protect your shit against dropping them you'd be beter off taking the glass out of your UV filters and just screwing the metal rim on.

I dropped my camera bag, with the lens pointing downwards, and the filter shattered.  It also jammed on the filter mount, and when I got Fixation to sort it out it turned out the front element was scratched.  I got it replaced, and the whole thing cost about £400 I think.

I'm slightly more careful these days. 

I do tend to leave a filter on that lens (B&W) because it does tend to get abused.  When I left the camera with a bunch of degenerate idiots (my friends) on a stag do, I discovered the following morning that the filter had at least prevented the front of the lens from the deluge of fluids, bodily and otherwise...

No filters in the studio though.