By: Syd

Syd — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 18:38:33 +0000

Yes, this in a way ties in with another recent blog entry advising newcomers and hobbyists to invest in glass first. Opinions about filters for protection seem quite "polarized" (no pun intended) but I think that there's a compromise or middle ground that may settle the debate for some people. If you have an expensive lens, and are concerned about protecting your investment, then use a filter if it gives you peace of mind. But perhaps consider the following: Buy a good quality multicoated filter; shop around on line (you'd be amazed at the difference in price vs the local camera shop); and just remove it in any situations where it's more prone to pose IQ problems (eg. strong light sources in the frame). I think many hobbyists like myself get caught up in the decision because they just finished stretching their budget to buy the best glass they can('t) afford, and then they're being pressured by fear into considering dropping another $100+ on a protective filter. Fear not! The popular on line auction site has all kinds of good quality filters for $25 - $70 delivered to your door!!! Enjoy the best of both worlds! It's the pros and the wealthy who can talk about going naked and never having a problem. Clutzes like me need to embrace the better safe than sorry philosophy!

By: Paul Parkinson

Paul Parkinson — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 22:28:46 +0000

I’ve always used basic polarising filters on my lenses. Does it affect image quality? Possibly but if it acts as some sort of protection for the lens then I believe it’s a price worth paying.

Comments on: Filters for lens protection

By: Syd

By: Paul Parkinson