Filter necessary?

By: mharvey 5783 days ago
I read recently (Hogan? - can't recall) proposing that one doesn't need a "standard" (UV) filter. Waste of money, affects contrast, and only sold as high margin. Anyone agree with this position? Should I drop carting my UV's around?
By: Clay 5783 days ago
I still shoot film with a Nikon F2AS. I only have 3 filters:
A polarizer to bring out the clouds;
A L1bc skylight for in the mountains to cut the haze and give
a little "warmth";
A L37 UV just to put on when it is raining hard and keep the
water drops off of the front lens element. I do not use
filters to "protect" the lens, the lens shade does that for
me. Just my opinion after 50 years.
Best regards,

By: johnriley 5783 days ago
When I shot film I used 81A filters, basically to warm up the image.

Now I shoot digital I can warm the image in the white balance settings, so I no longer use a filter routinely. Any piece of glass put in front of a lens must degrade the image slightly, so why do it unless there is a reason?

The only filters I use these days will be polarisers. Every other effect can be done in Photoshop.

However, I do always use a lens hood and lens hoods protect the front of the lens from knocks very effectively.

By: mharvey 5782 days ago
Thanks Clay and John for confirming my "suspicions". I am referring to a DSLR - a D70 which has faithfully served me for a while now.
By: jxinxan 5667 days ago
I use a UV merely for the protection of those costly lenses. I found no difference to mount a UV that will get worst result of the pictures.

Add your message

Login required
Please login here or if you've not registered, you can register here. Registering is safe, quick and free.