Filter necessary?

By: mharvey 3791 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 3791 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 3791 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 3790 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 3674 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.

photodo Stats

1102 lenses
428 MTF tests
74 in-depth        photodo reviews
100+ users join each day

Help the lens community by reviewing or rating a lens today via our lens search