To filter or not
Well once again this little gem has come up, so I thought I would write do a short blog on it.
Should you have a UV(0) filter on your lens?
The two sites are:
- Any extra piece of glass is going to reduce/manipulate/change the quality of the image.
- The protection offers by the filter out ways any image quality images.
Here are my thoughts on the subject:
Both statements are true. You just paid $500-$1200 for a nice lens on your SLR to get the absolutely best image you can. Why introduce something that is going to take away from your image quality? But also, you just paid $500-$1200 for a nice lens, do you really want to scratch the front element when a small piece of debris get blown into it? Or while you’re cleaning it, you scratch it?
So what’s the answer? The answer is to use a filter, but use the best filter possible to reduce the amount of disruption to an absolute minimum. Multi-coated filters, good name brand filters are the best option.
I personally use Sunpack filters as they are actually made by the same manufacturers as other “name brand” filters but cost half. When I get a new lens, after testing it and within the first 12 hours I have a sunpack UV(0) filter on there and it doesn’t come off until spring cleaning. I do my very best not to have to remove the filter. I have heard of “What about sunflares?” USE your hood, that’s what it is for. Also, you can use a GND filter on top of the UV filter. Most non-ultra-wide filtes (< 14mm) will not notice the extra lens. You should check this on your lens before trying it though. My Canon EF 24-105mm L f/4 is my main walk around lens and it has had UV(0), and 2 GND (-3 stop) filters on it without it doing any vignetting — so it depends on the lens.
Final word…. I rather break and chuck s $60 filter than have to send in my lens to Canon for a $400 repair anyday of the week.
