Having read the last couple of threads on this subject of filters and lens hoods, I have tried my lenses with and without filters, cheap one's as well as hoya and was totally surprised at the difference. I have removed the filters off the 5 lenses and they will be staying off while the lens is in use. I think I will put them back on for added protection when in my bag. I have a canon 75-300 which I have never been really happy with. Yesterday I took some photo's of a robin who obligingly sat for me with the 75-300 lens, the lens I thought was rubbish. I trashed all the one's with the filter they were just to soft and flat. I should have kept one to show for comparison. Then I took some without the Hoya filter, I was amazed.

What surprised me, John was using a Hoya HMC Super Pro 1 Filter and removing it improved the image. It begs the question are there a good filter out there ? I often shoot through window glass and when the conditions are right I can get a sharp image with little flare. So why and how do these filters degrade the image ?

Wel I can honestly say that none of my filters have impaired any of the photographs I have taken and I've taken thousands, in fact in a lot of cases they have definately improved the picture. I must emphasise that I keep them scrupulously clean and avoid reflecting highlights from the side wherever possible. It could be that this is a problem that is more apparent on digital images, we know that lenses for digital cameras need to be better corrected and the internal surfaces need to have a better matt finish to reduce reflections to a minimum. I see that Hoya and Sigma are now producing filters specially coated for digital imaging lenses, if that's the case then they obviously think it makes a difference!

nirofo.

Not necessarily. Go to any camera shop and you'll see almost all accessories are being advertised as 'digital'. I've even seen a 'digital' lens brush.

I think it's a bit like when compact discs came in during the 80's ... great for manufacturers, stick 'digital ready' on an old product and your sales go shooting up ;)

Yesterday I tested all my and Stevies lenses. With and without filters. Filters range from Nikon through Hoya HMC Pro1 to a Jessops. Camera was a Nikon D100.

Lenses tested,

2 x Nikkor 17-35ED AFD
1 x Nikkor 28-105 AFD
1x Nikkor 50mm AIS
1 x Nikkor 55mm AIS Macro
1 x Nikkor 105mm AIS
1 x Nikkor 80-200ED AFD
1 x Sigma 28-200 D

The camera was mounted on my big Slik tripod and a cable release was used. Additional to standard lens hoods the lens was additionally shielded from stray light by a black flag.

I could find no detectable difference filter on or off.

While I don't doubt that some members have found filters having an adverse affect I cannot find a logical reason for this.

Don

Must be quality variances within a filter type. I have a cheap Jessops filter which shows very little image deteration whereas a Hoya filter costing twice as much is utter rubbish. No doubt some people will have good copies of the Hoya filter.

Strange,Christine,I also used the 70-300 Canon lens,but was never impressed with the results.I eventually sent it off as a p/ex,then a few mths ago,I purchased the Tamrom 28-300.What a difference,clear and sharp,I do not use a filter with the Tamron lens,but I did use one with the Canon,maybe just a coincedence.I put it down to the fact that perhaps the Tamron was more suited to the smaller sensor size of the 300/350 series.

I usually use lens hoods unless I take extreme close-ups. The Flower and plastic lens hoods that are cylindrical in nature are much better than the soft conical rubber types. I used one of the conical rubber types and had a real bad experience, wouldn't recommend those.

I use filters only if I were to use them for effects which I don't get through using a normal lens. My concept is by adding a filter to your lens you are adding another layer between the subject and the lens.

Interesting thread starting out with hoods and migrating to filters. If the premise is protection then both the hood and filter should be used to protect the front element. Would you buy a used lens with a scratched front element even though the seller claims it doesn't affect image quality? I sure wouldn't. There are countless accounts of how both a hood and filter have saved front elements from scratches and cracks from impact damage. If the premise is image quality then again you should use your lens hood. Manufactures design the lens hood for each lens to combat flare. If a lens didn't need it probably the maker wouldn't supply one, offering one as an option for an additional cost:) Regarding filters and image quality: Why put a cheap or "less expensive" filter on an expensive optic..doesn't make sense to me. I only use Nikon filters. I figure that the manufacture is only going to use the best possible optical glass with multicoating so as not to degrade the image. I have read about the possibility of rub marks on front optics from over cleaning. If a filter becomes scratched or the coating rubbed off, its a cheap replacement. Bottom line for me is I always use the lens hood and filter.
Michael Rogers
www.imagesbymichaelrogers.com