It's written as a bit of a joke, but it makes it easy to see why you shouldn't buy the super cheap filters stores try to sell you all the time:
http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2011...th-bad-filters
It's written as a bit of a joke, but it makes it easy to see why you shouldn't buy the super cheap filters stores try to sell you all the time:
http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2011...th-bad-filters
i would say that totally depends on the lens you are purchasing and if you factored the cost of a filter at the time. i definitely wouldn't put a $100 B+W on the nifty fifty.
but yes.... every bit of it is true
I don't put UV/NC/etc filters on my lenses at all...the 300 2.8 has a 52mm drop in that's factored in to the optical formula, so that's a little different. But other than that, no filters for me unless it's modifying the image (ND filters, Polarizers, etc)
good read though, entertaining.
Originally posted by HeavyD
you know you are making the right decision if Toma opposes it.
I use NC filters on my 70-200 VR II and 300/4. They are there strictly for protection and so I don't have to rub the front element for cleaning, if I get a droplet of water or a fingerprint on it. Then when I go to sell the lens, there won't even be so much as a cleaning mark on it and I can sell it as as-new condition. I don't put filters on my cheaper lenses, but lenses like the Nikon 50/1.8, Sigma 105/2.8, etc. have recessed front elements which are always quite protected to begin with.
The first line of defense is always the lens hood anyways, so if you keep that on, you will block most things that can hit the front element. The chances of anything serious happening are very small, but I'd rather replace a $100 filter than a $2500 lens, especially since there is zero impact on image quality. I'm also super anal though haha.