Comments on: Good Times with Bad Filters

By: grubernd

grubernd — Tue, 30 Apr 2013 12:36:14 +0000

roger, great article. but there is one difference about the filter and the frontlens element: on the spot instant service.
which is kinda crucial if you are out in the boons shooting anything that might smack a stone against the front surface of your lens. like mountain bikers, cars, little kids, etc. throw away the filter and keep going. actually you would put the filter into the recycling bin, of course. but usually you just get that stone on your head, so yes, filters are mostly useless.

By: Linuxpresso

Linuxpresso — Tue, 16 Apr 2013 16:57:24 +0000

Interesting article!

I feel confirmed, because I never used a filter on my D90 and especially not (!) for “protecting the lens”.

By: tom hardwick

tom hardwick — Fri, 29 Mar 2013 20:44:04 +0000

Although your statement that ‘the idea that a high quality, multicoated UV filter has little effect on image quality’ may be true, many cameras have their lens hood’s efficiency considerably reduced when a filter is fitted (i e the front element is moved forward 5 mm or so). So expensive filter plus less lens hood = more flare. I’m right there with Dave’s post (Jan 19). tom.

By: Desmond Spotts

Desmond Spotts — Tue, 05 Feb 2013 08:37:15 +0000

It’s in reality a great and useful piece of information. I am satisfied that you simply shared this helpful information with us. Please stay us up to date like this. Thanks for sharing.

By: Olaf Veenstra

Olaf Veenstra — Tue, 22 Jan 2013 23:02:22 +0000

Funny article…

Why bother with an UV filter at all.
Protect the lens with a cheap and nasty lenshood.
Preferably a soft plastic one. It will keep you from knocking the front lens.
A plastic hood will absorb a shock where a metal one will transfer the shock energy to the lens causing damage.
For image quality you should use a lenshood all the time anyway!
UV filters are not required for image quality on a DSLR as they used to be on a film camera.

By: Frampaign

Frampaign — Sat, 19 Jan 2013 02:01:08 +0000

Thank you. A great and simple experiment that I would not be able to afford to do, but it drove home the lessons. (A picture is worth a 1000 words, eh?). Enjoyed reading through the comments as well. Great information on which to base decisions.
Merci encore!

By: Paul Sturtevant

Paul Sturtevant — Sat, 13 Oct 2012 00:00:24 +0000

First, I like the article.

Second, Canomike, I like how you put it together! Especially the comment on the 9mm! LOL Let’s get together and check that on out!

I would suggest that using a quality UV for protection ‘in the bag’ and for certain situations in general would usually make sense. Using one in higher UV light situations could also be of value. Take it off when doing work in a safe and low UV environment. And, as said above … use insurance or accept the risk if you do not use a UV filter.

Roger, this is a real fun article. I liked reading the comments. Even the comments I might not totally agree with.

By: Common Lens Filters? and there uses? - Page 2

Common Lens Filters? and there uses? - Page 2 — Wed, 27 Jun 2012 16:05:35 +0000

[...] It might stop you from being able to use a lens hood And for a fun read about filters, check this out from lensrental.com LensRentals.com – Good Times with Bad Filters [...]

By: Lena Lauderbaugh

Lena Lauderbaugh — Wed, 20 Jun 2012 13:39:03 +0000

Great article. Cool.

By: canomike

canomike — Tue, 08 May 2012 22:00:10 +0000

Rule of filters: First, do no harm.
So filters that harm the image as little as possible are better. Then come the questions, can I afford the better one, should I use one at all, do I have a specific need that needs to be met by the filter, will a stack of 50 filters protect my lens from a 9mm, etc.