I have 3 filters for my Canon 400D. Warm, UV and PL-CIR. Should I keep one of these on my primary lens at all time or should I use the lens without a filter, only bringing them out when I have it?
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
To filter or to not filter?
- Thread starter M@lew
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Personally, I'd never use my lens without a UV/protection filter. It helps protect the glass on the lens. I hardly ever take it off.. I have even tended to leave it on when also using my Circ. polarizing filter (although I've heard some say not to stack filters..
). It'd be a good general practice for you to leave your UV filter on your lens at all times.
I seem to remember a thread about this a while back, filled with lots of debate.
If you have really good glass, you have to make sure that any filter you put in front of it is of at least the same quality. If not, you're defeating the purpose of having a good lens.
If you have really good glass, you have to make sure that any filter you put in front of it is of at least the same quality. If not, you're defeating the purpose of having a good lens.
I don't think the people who buy what I would call a "high quality UV filter" have any illusions that it makes the pictures a lot better, really. To me it would be about having the highest quality piece of glass infront of the lens glass, that doesn't degrade the quality of light coming through the filter and lens to the sensor, to protect it from scratches dings. Hope that makes sense .
.
I've never used a filter and have never damaged glass. It doesn't make sense to me to buy some nice glass, then add a filter in front of it. Just make sure to use your lens hood, which will provide excellent protection and simply be careful
Well, to each their own, I guess.. but when I spend $1,000+ on a great piece of glass, it does give me a little piece of mind to pay a little premium for a high quality filter to protect the glass.
Well, to each their own, I guess.. but when I spend $1,000+ on a great piece of glass, it does give me a little piece of mind to pay a little premium for a high quality filter to protect the glass.
That's certainly one argument. Others will likely argue that they didn't pay $1000+ for a lens just to stick a $100 filter in front of it and degrade their image quality. Like you said- to each his own.
And, as most people here are, in all likelihood, actually talking about a $15 piece of glass they're putting in front of their lens...
I used to do this all the time, but now I've stopped - I examined all of my UV filters, and none had so much as a scratch on it (and frankly, anything less than a huge gouge on the front element is not likely to affect your photo significantly anyway). It is possible to get a damaged lens repaired, should something awful actually happen.