Filters

[Hektor]

I am going to look for UV filters, primarily to protect the Panasonic lenses I have. A couple of lenses already have B&W UV filters which I believe to be the highest quality. My question to you is whether they are that much superior to Opteka and Sunpak filter (generally)
Thanks in advance

[Manfred M]

Nicely said, in photography and as with anything else there is defintely a correlation between price and quality. While B+W are high end; there are other brands out there that tend to be viewed as being even higher quality; for instance Heliopan.

The second thing, of course is that the link between price and quality is not linear (a nice way of saying spending twice as much money is not going to give you twice as much quality).

One does have to understand that even with higher end filters, there are differences in terms of construction and features. Better filters tend to use brass as the material the glass is mounted in, whereas lower end ones use aluminum and in some cases I beleive, plastic. Brass mounts will not stick to your lenses filter mount, while aluminum tends to. Multi-coatings, contaminant resistant coatings all add to the cost; for one I would never use a uncoated filter UV when shooting because of issues with reflections (learned that one the hard way).

Sunpack seem to be a marketing company and Opteka, I've never heard of; but suspect both are likely near to bottom end when it comes to pricing.

So while I might not (and frankly don't) just use B+W filters, I will stick to companies with a decent reputation in the industry (Tiffen is probably the lowest I will go, and I have some Sigma and Nikon filters, as well as B+W and Heliopan ones). Some people really like Hoya, but I don't have any of their products.

[Kodiak]

There is no such a thing as a good UV filter!
The minute you put any filter on your lens it is to your own detriment. However,
I would not carry around a 3000€ + lens without some form of protection. The
best one may hope for is a filter that will protect a lens to the less detriment.

[Mark von Kanel]

i use Tiffen HT ultraclear, not at the top end of the price range. but i havnt noticed any colour cast or image degradation.

[DanK]

Hektor,

Without getting into the usual "use filters" vs. "Oh, no, don't use filters!" argument, here is what I would suggest.

1. Only buy multicoated filters, to mimize flare. If the filter is not specifically noted as multicoated, don't buy it.
2. You can often buy multicoated protective filters for less than UV filters. Since digital does not require a UV filter, there is no reason to avoid the cheaper protective filters.
3. If you can accept aluminum mounting rings (I do), an excellent choice is Marumi. They are very high quality and cheaper than many of the competitors. Another reasonable alternative is the better Hoya filters. I own one B+W, but frankly, I don't see the need to pay the difference between that and Marumi. I don't buy cheaper than that.

I know nothing about Sunpak and Opteka filters. B.H. Photo does not even stock either of them.

Now, for the great filter wars: I have been using protective filters much of the time for decades. When in doubt, I leave one on. In my experience, a good filter will not make much difference when the light is behind you. When the light is in front of you, however, it can cause more flare and ghosting. So I remove them for things like night photography, and I remove them when I am in a clean environment without any threats.

[travis4567]

•
There is no such a thing as a good UV filter!
The minute you put any filter on your lens it is to your own detriment. However,
I would not carry around a 3000€ + lens without some form of protection. The
best one may hope for is a filter that will protect a lens to the less detriment.

My thoughts exactly. I buy only B+W MRC filters for shooting in the field. When I shoot in the studio, no filter.

[lukaswerth]

I don't use protective filters, because I like to shoot backlit motives in which the coating of the lens is put to a test anyway. I take a picture, or pictures, cover the lens. I live in an environment which s sometimes quite dusty, but I don't always clean every speck away. I have a brush with a rubber bulb which I use to blow particles away if they become too many, and perhaps once a year I need to clean a lens by other means.
I get a real pain in my stomach, however, when I touch the glass with my finger because I think there is a lens cap but it is not. Happens not often, fortunately.

Lukas

[Colin Southern]

There is no such a thing as a good UV filter!
The minute you put any filter on your lens it is to your own detriment. However,
I would not carry around a 3000€ + lens without some form of protection. The
best one may hope for is a filter that will protect a lens to the less detriment.

My encouragement to all is to separate the "theory" from the "practice". In THEORY a child contributes to the rising of all oceans by throwing in stones from the shore; In THEORY adding a UV filter degrades an image - but in both cases in PRACTICE of course it's a different story.

When it comes to UV filters for protection, I like to use the term "no visual degradation" (whether or not machines could detect something, I have no idea) for pretty much all apart from extreme contrast scenes (ie pin light sources at night, at which point it's usually better to remove a filter) (assuming a high-quality filter of course).

Filters have saved me twice now -- paying for replacement front elements is somewhat to our detriment as well!

Front element and wallet doing fine

[Kodiak]

This reminds me of two quotes I was served when I was younger:

• A physics teacher repeated:
"In theory, theory and practice are the same… but in practice, they are not!"

• A common quote:
"… a necessary evil!"

[DanK]

In response to Colin's comment: my reaction, when I came across the Great Filter Wars online a few years ago, was that I never noticed any problems, assuming appropriate lighting. However, I was so taken by the vehemence of the anti-filter crowd that I actually set up an A/B test. I couldn't tell the difference.

I find it interesting that the people who insist that adding one more layer of glass is awful don't advise people to buy lenses with fewer elements.

[lukaswerth]

My encouragement to all is to separate the "theory" from the "practice". In THEORY a child contributes to the rising of all oceans by throwing in stones from the shore; In THEORY adding a UV filter degrades an image - but in both cases in PRACTICE of course it's a different story.

When it comes to UV filters for protection, I like to use the term "no visual degradation" (whether or not machines could detect something, I have no idea) for pretty much all apart from extreme contrast scenes (ie pin light sources at night, at which point it's usually better to remove a filter) (assuming a high-quality filter of course).

Filters have saved me twice now -- paying for replacement front elements is somewhat to our detriment as well!

Front element and wallet doing fine

Colin,

this broken filter looks indeed impressive, makes one think! But such a thing did not happen to me in more than 30 years of photography, so I guess it is also the style of the work, and the motives one is after which expose one to more or risk of physically damaging one's equipment. (The worst thing which happened to me was fungi in my lenses, and a view camera on a tripod blown over by the wind; fortunately this was on a meadow and the camera was wooden, so I was able to mend the damage with a bottle of glue.

With regard to your difference between theory and practice: I confess I never tested that, for instance photographing into the light with and without filter with a certain lens. But these are the situations in which a filter may just create one more ghost image/flare which would not have been there without it. Just a thought...

Lukas

[lukaswerth]

My encouragement to all is to separate the "theory" from the "practice". In THEORY a child contributes to the rising of all oceans by throwing in stones from the shore; In THEORY adding a UV filter degrades an image - but in both cases in PRACTICE of course it's a different story.

When it comes to UV filters for protection, I like to use the term "no visual degradation" (whether or not machines could detect something, I have no idea) for pretty much all apart from extreme contrast scenes (ie pin light sources at night, at which point it's usually better to remove a filter) (assuming a high-quality filter of course).

Filters have saved me twice now -- paying for replacement front elements is somewhat to our detriment as well!

Front element and wallet doing fine

Colin,

this broken filter looks indeed impressive, makes one think! But such a thing did not happen to me in more than 30 years of photography, so I guess it is also the style of the work, and the motives one is after which expose one to more or risk of physically damaging one's equipment. (The worst thing which happened to me was fungi in my lenses, and a view camera on a tripod blown over by the wind; fortunately this was on a meadow and the camera was wooden, so I was able to mend the damage with a bottle of glue.

With regard to your difference between theory and practice: I confess I never tested that, for instance photographing into the light with and without filter with a certain lens. But these are the situations in which a filter may just create one more ghost image/flare which would not have been there without it. Just a thought...

Lukas

[Colin Southern]

Colin,

this broken filter looks indeed impressive, makes one think! But such a thing did not happen to me in more than 30 years of photography, so I guess it is also the style of the work, and the motives one is after which expose one to more or risk of physically damaging one's equipment. (The worst thing which happened to me was fungi in my lenses, and a view camera on a tripod blown over by the wind; fortunately this was on a meadow and the camera was wooden, so I was able to mend the damage with a bottle of glue.

With regard to your difference between theory and practice: I confess I never tested that, for instance photographing into the light with and without filter with a certain lens. But these are the situations in which a filter may just create one more ghost image/flare which would not have been there without it. Just a thought...

Lukas

I like to compare it to wearing a seatbelt in that it's not so much a case of "how many years I've been driving and not needed one" as it is "being prepared should the worst ever happen". For me anyway, a no-brainer in that it has the upside of protecting my lenses to a degree, and ZERO downside. For sure there are occasions where it makes ghosting or flare worse, but I see those situations a mile off and simply remove the filter on those occasions - so it's not like I have to choose between image quality or front element protection -- I just run with both.

In practice, removing a filter in extreme contrast situations doesn't eliminate ghosting and flare - it just reduces it - so it usually still needs to be dealt to in PP anyway. Plus, after shooting in salty air, it's a darn site easier to run a filter under the tap than it is a lens

In my opinion people get far far far far far too hung up over this theoretical "loss of image quality" theorem; I know that for many photography goes hand in hand with perfectionism (borderline excessive/compulsive in some cases) (and I'm serious about that - and yes, I consider myself one of them) - but I've had to learn that in the "real world" we just end up making life difficult for ourselves if we don't learn to weigh the factors that do make a difference -v- those that don't.

[William W]

Whatever UV filter that you choose to use – apropos Real World Noticeable Image Quality Degradation:

it is generally more important to know when to take the filter off, than how much money that you spend on the filter.

WW

[ajohnw]

My feeling is that the important things is to buy decent filters. For safety I would suggest Hoya Digital as these are multi coated and as such are reasonably priced. Some times on ebay for instance but not so often these days other makes can be found that can be traced back to a manufacturer. They can be cheaper but come and go. If the manufacturer makes a whole range of filters going on ones that I have bought they wont disappoint. Only problem is that they may not be the real manufacturers. A lot of rebranding goes on.

John
-

[Hektor]

Thanks for all the replies. In the several years when I used Leica M camera lenses I would automatically buy B&W or Leica filters, primarily because those Leica lenses were so expensive. Then again, I was single with a little more disposable income back then. Ahh...if only had I kept my M2R and the M4.

[csa mt]

I like to compare it to wearing a seatbelt in that it's not so much a case of "how many years I've been driving and not needed one" as it is "being prepared should the worst ever happen". For me anyway, a no-brainer in that it has the upside of protecting my lenses to a degree, and ZERO downside. For sure there are occasions where it makes ghosting or flare worse, but I see those situations a mile off and simply remove the filter on those occasions - so it's not like I have to choose between image quality or front element protection -- I just run with both.

In practice, removing a filter in extreme contrast situations doesn't eliminate ghosting and flare - it just reduces it - so it usually still needs to be dealt to in PP anyway. Plus, after shooting in salty air, it's a darn site easier to run a filter under the tap than it is a lens

In my opinion people get far far far far far too hung up over this theoretical "loss of image quality" theorem; I know that for many photography goes hand in hand with perfectionism (borderline excessive/compulsive in some cases) (and I'm serious about that - and yes, I consider myself one of them) - but I've had to learn that in the "real world" we just end up making life difficult for ourselves if we don't learn to weigh the factors that do make a difference -v- those that don't.

I absolutely agree with this! If I would somehow scratch or otherwise damage my lens, then the camera is completely worthless! A filter can be replaced if damaged; but camera? Not so easily.

[DanK]

For my two cents: I have only broken one filter, when the wind blew my tripod over (!!). However, I have ruined a number of filters in other ways over the years. My favorite recent incident happened when I was taking candids at a large party. I momentarily put my camera on a kitchen counter, and when I picked it back up, there was something smudged on the filter that I simply couldn't clean off. I tossed the filter. I did wonder, however, what it was that we were eating.

[Venser]

However,
I would not carry around a 3000€ + lens without some form of protection..

Isn't that what the lens hood is for?

[ajohnw]

There is another factor that people wouldn't be aware of unless they used microscopes. Over time crud build up on glass, grease and things from the air. Even if people buy exactly the correct things for cleaning it off this still slowly damages the coatings. Best to just clean the filter.

The correct thing out of interest is triple distilled water and a certain type of soap and the correct stuff to apply it with. Some glass is so dirty that 100% alcohols have to be used first. It doesn't take all that long to build up either.

John
-