Finally tossing filters!

Discussion in 'Open Discussion' started by zensu, May 11, 2018.

  1. zensu

    zensu Mu-43 All-Pro Subscribing Member

    Aug 8, 2012
    Alabama USA
    Bobby
    Been an amateur photographer for 50+ years and have always mounted clear or UV filters on all of my lenses to protect the front lens element . In these 5 decades I've never damaged any protection filter. 65 years old and I've decided that I'm tossing my filters, but still leaving the lens hoods on as they have shown that they will protect the front of the lens.
    Who knows, maybe in a few years we'll have force fields to protect our gear!
     
    • Like Like x 6
    • Agree Agree x 3
    • Informative Informative x 2
  2. ijm5012

    ijm5012 Mu-43 Legend

    Oct 2, 2013
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Ian
    Cool. :thumbup:
     
  3. tkbslc

    tkbslc Mu-43 Legend

    Using filters as "insurance" never made sense to me. If you use cheap ones, you definitely run into image quality issues. If you use expensive ones, by the time you outfit your whole kit, you've spent about enough to cover a lens repair. Seems like it's easier just to just save your money and self-insure.
     
    • Agree Agree x 6
    • Informative Informative x 1
  4. zensu

    zensu Mu-43 All-Pro Subscribing Member

    Aug 8, 2012
    Alabama USA
    Bobby
    "tkbslc you are right, always thought it would be foolish to put a $10 filter on a $1000 lens so I only used high quality (expensive) filters some costing $100. I wish I could get all that money back.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  5. Will Focus

    Will Focus Mu-43 All-Pro

    I've always used filters and probably will always continue to do so. I use them not to protect the lens from impact, but to be able to clean to my hearts content without fear of damaging or scratching delicate coatings on the lens itself. If I scratch a filter or damage the filter coating, I'll replace the filter a lot easier and cheaper than I will the lens. It is inevitable that grease, grime, dirt, sand, salt spray etc etc will collect on whatever is exposed to the air. Some of that stuff doesn't come off easily, or at all, with distilled water. Cleaners of some type need to be employed. About a year ago I went searching for lens cleaner. I had an expensive pair of binoculars and wanted to be able to clean the front elements while I awaited protective filters I had on order. I didn't have a camera at the time. I had sold all of my 35mm Nikon gear a few years back, using point and shoots and my phone to satisfy my photographic needs. On all of my previous lenses I made sure there was a uv or skylight filter permanently mounted. I also kept lens cleaning solution, lens cleaning tissues, staticmaster brushes, blowers and clean soft cloths on hand. I was a stickler for clean.
    Anyway, looking for lens cleaner for binoculars a year ago I was a little shocked to find out no one carries it anymore. At least not any solution I'd be comfortable with. All of it is from China with no label as to what the heck is in it. If I don't know what's in it, it ain't going on my front lens element.

    So in short. which is impossible at this point, if there is anyone out there considering throwing away your filters, throw them my way. I'll find a use for them. Except the cheap ones of course. You can throw them away.
     
    • Agree Agree x 5
    • Funny Funny x 1
    • Informative Informative x 1
  6. ijm5012

    ijm5012 Mu-43 Legend

    Oct 2, 2013
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Ian
    Damn, what UV/Haze filter did you use that cost $100?

    The most expensive one I ever used was an 82mm B+W MRC 010 UV Haze filter for my 150/2 SHG, and even that is only $60. I've never seen a UV/Haze filter for $100, especially for any m43 lenses.
     
  7. ijm5012

    ijm5012 Mu-43 Legend

    Oct 2, 2013
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Ian
    And as an FYI, here's a very good article from Photography Life talking about the degradation in sharpness when one uses no filter vs. a quality filter vs. a cheap filter, where they actually use quantitative data to measure the effects on sharpness (Imatest).
     
    • Informative Informative x 4
    • Like Like x 1
  8. tkbslc

    tkbslc Mu-43 Legend

    They are cheaper than they used to be, due to falling popularity. And a lot of local shops still charge MSRP, which is often double what places like Adorama charges for filters. And remember SLR lenses use much bigger filters than m4/3. I used to shoot Canon SLR. A lot of the Canon L lenses are in the 72-82mm filter size range. And it was pretty common to spend $80-100+ on a top quality protector filter. Especially for wide angles where you needed special thin rim filters, etc.

    But, even at $20-50 each, if you go through enough lenses, that adds up fast.
     
  9. zensu

    zensu Mu-43 All-Pro Subscribing Member

    Aug 8, 2012
    Alabama USA
    Bobby
    ijm5012, it was a 77mm Helloipan that used brass filter threads .
     
  10. skellington

    skellington Mu-43 Veteran Subscribing Member

    323
    Mar 4, 2013
    Atlanta, GA
    Keith
    • Like Like x 1
    • Informative Informative x 1
  11. Mike Wingate

    Mike Wingate Mu-43 All-Pro

    Feb 21, 2017
    Altrincham
    Mike Wingate
    I have always used skylight 1A or UV filters. With the exception of my P7-14 lens all the other lenses have a filter and lens hood. Even the FZ82. And they always will.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
  12. Ziggy

    Ziggy Mu-43 Top Veteran Subscribing Member

    632
    Sep 21, 2016
    Melbourne, Australia
    What makes you think the coatings are delicate?
     
  13. Ziggy

    Ziggy Mu-43 Top Veteran Subscribing Member

    632
    Sep 21, 2016
    Melbourne, Australia
    It seems if they're not flat and of even thickness to a high degree they'll degrade the image, and these criteria are difficult to meet with larger filters.
    Clarkvision.com: Evaluating Filter Quality
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
  14. ijm5012

    ijm5012 Mu-43 Legend

    Oct 2, 2013
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Ian
    I know that you've blocked me so you won't see this, but here's a quantitative test showing the effect of no filter vs. high-quality filter vs. cheap filter. I prefer tests that are quantitative, not qualitative in nature, with actual numbers and data to back-up the claims being made.

    Do Filters Affect the Resolution of Lenses? - Photography Life

    Not All Lens Filters Are The Same - Photography Life
     
    • Informative Informative x 2
  15. PakkyT

    PakkyT Mu-43 All-Pro

    Jun 20, 2015
    New England
    I stopped using them for "protection" once I started to use interchangeable lens cameras (Olympus 4/3rds dSLRs). Previous to that on my Oly fixed lens cameras I used the "nose cone" protection which was an extension tube meant to mount various add on lenses and then a clear filter on top to create the nose cone. But back then those extending lenses on those models were a bit fragile with respect to bumps and if you broke that then the whole camera was toast.

    But once I moved to the E-520 and all 4/3rds and micro-4/3rds bodies after that one, I have not bothered with "protection" filters. But I always used my hoods, even inside or at night to have something other that the front element knock into things when slung over my shoulder.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
  16. Will Focus

    Will Focus Mu-43 All-Pro

    I suppose that depends on what your definition of delicate is. When I'm dealing with layers measured in microns I consider that delicate, especially if I have a microscopic foreign substance that may be as tough or tougher than the coatings finding their way into a cloth or lens tissue I use for cleaning.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  17. Ziggy

    Ziggy Mu-43 Top Veteran Subscribing Member

    632
    Sep 21, 2016
    Melbourne, Australia
    Just start by blowing or brushing the particles off. Then wipe.
    Coatings have come a long way.
    I'm out in all conditions and particle accumulation is low. Smear and droplet residue even lower.
     
  18. twigboy

    twigboy Mu-43 Veteran

    374
    Sep 10, 2016
    Virginia
    When looking at photos even here, I wonder if we can tell if a filter was used or not.

    I do use them, not for impact protection (geez, even glass parts will scratch glass) but for cleaning ease (e.g. ball field dust). And sometimes I take them off, like to get rid of or minimize that weird glare thing. Perhaps one day I'll dump them also.

    How about those ND and polarizing filters? Do they count here, assuming they are good filters?

    That force field thing would be cool, until you carry 2 cameras -- then they'll be bouncing around like 2 opposing magnets.
     
  19. alex66

    alex66 Mu-43 Top Veteran

    813
    Jul 23, 2010
    I use them for one good reason; small children our little on is of the age where he pokes his finger at the lens so its easier to clean the filter and toss it if need be. Once he stops Ill chuck em on the auction site but I don't use hoods quite happy to get a good bit of flair in the pictures.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  20. Will Focus

    Will Focus Mu-43 All-Pro

    I do that already, with the filters. I spend alot of time on the water. Spray from the Great Lakes, though it is freshwater, is not sterile by any means. There is alot of material suspended in even the smallest drops, from chemicals to bird droppings and microscopic marine life. Every year I scrub, and I mean scrub it off the hull of the boat. Dust turns to mud in that environment. It's why they sell deck cleaner. Windex sells because windows get dirty. So do lenses. I like to come down on the side of caution. I've dipped into my bag of luck more often than I'd like to admit so I subscribe to a policy of crisis and inconvenience prevention whenever possible.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.