Posts
Photographers seem split on the merits of a UV filter as a permanent feature of their lenses, some decrying the decrease in quality and increase in flare generated by an extra piece of glass in front of the lens, while others worry about damaging the glass of their expensive lens.
Here's my observations on the issue.
1) if you can't afford to replace your lens if it gets a major scratch or buff, then it probably makes sense to use a filter to protect it.
2) the quality reduction by using a filter is unnoticeable 99% of the time (and could be removed that one time when photographing into the sun where flare is an issue).
3) some lenses need protection more than others. Not only is my 70-200 f2.8 IS worth more than two grand, it's front element is large and right there. Occasionally a lens cap falls off inside the camera case and there's a risk of it rubbing on the glass while you walk - not a good feeling.
4) other lenses are quite recessed - my 90 ts-e and my 50 macro are like that and I don't bother with filters.
5) some lenses don't respond well to filtering - eg. extreme wide angle lenses - eg. my 17-40 on a full frame camera already shows spots in the image from every piece of dirt on the front element - glass in front of that doesn't make sense - so I don't protect that lens.
6) lenses that are dropped have a bad habit of falling front element forward and the number of people who have protected their lens by letting a 'cheap' filter take the brunt of the damage is not insignificant - this is a common occurrence.
7) minor scratches to a lens usually don't affect image quality but can do so against the light - not something I often do other than can be shaded since it is outside the image, but if you not uncommonly shoot into the light, it's an issue.
8) lenses with even a small scratch are almost impossible to sell even though it isn't all that likely to affect the picture quality - though now that I have a system I'm comfortable with, that doesn't happen often. Still, a UV filter would ensure that the lens is in pristine condition for selling purposes.
9) UV filters are getting darn expensive - the 77 mm. filters for my 70-200 and 24-70 were over $100 each - but still well less than 10% of the cost of the lenses.
So:
I'd not generally bother protecting any lens significantly under $1000 in cost. I'd not protect any super wide lens. For the rest, it's a personal decision.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
The other argument is that replacing a front element costs about as much as a good UV filter, especially for lenses with 77mm filter sizes. Front elements tend to be cheap repairs (Usually $1-200, which is cheap on a $2000 lens).
I don't run UV filters on lenses in general. I would on a lens with an exposed front element that isn't factory repairable and where the lens costs more than a good filter (Like say a Nikkor AI-S 200/2 or similar).
Adam:
I confess I had assumed replacing the front element would cost half the replacement cost for the lens - very interesting! That does change things.
Another thought is to simply insure the lens with a typical homeowners personal article policy (assuming you are not a professional) that gives you replacement coverage. It covers all "events" which includes damage. Actually quite cheap per year and you want it anyway for theft.
Post a Comment