Lens filter advice

[ToasterZapper]

Hi all,

A couple of questions.

First off - I've been a user of lens filters as a means of protection ever since my first SLR, and it's something that I've never really considered or questioned until now. I was recently photographing one of my lenses and noticed that when a strong light is shone horizontally across the filter it shows a number of sparkles/speckles that look to be in the glass. I've checked a number of my filters (different makes) and they all appear to have them to a degree. Could these be the coatings? The filters otherwise look spotlessly clean and clear to the eye. Photos below are a Hoya Fusion Next Protector filter.

• iPhone 14 Pro
• iPhone 14 Pro back triple camera 2.22mm f/2.2
• 2.2 mm
• ƒ/2.2
• 1/60 sec
• ISO 320

And final question - I'd like some advice and recommendations for a circular polariser to cover a 72mm and 82mm thread. I'm unsure if I'm best getting a single filter to cover both lenses or a filter each.

Thanks

 

[ToasterZapper]

The sparkles/speckles in question are visible to the right/top right of the filter on the photo.

 

[FowlersFreeTime]

Sure looks like dust to me. Could be on the inside of the filter if it doesn't wipe off? The only filter I've come across that intentionally had flecks in it was a black pro mist filter.
Regarding the CPL, why not get the larger filter size and get a 72-82mm step-up ring?

 

[ToasterZapper]

Sure looks like dust to me. Could be on the inside of the filter if it doesn't wipe off? The only filter I've come across that intentionally had flecks in it was a black pro mist filter.
Regarding the CPL, why not get the larger filter size and get a 72-82mm step-up ring?

Definitely not on either the front or rear surface, I’ve given both a good wipe. The speckles look coloured rather than white which made me wonder if they’re to do with the coating.

Yep, I was also thinking to go for an 82 with a step up ring for the 72. I’m only a hobbyist photographer and step up/down rings are something I’ve only just come across today.

Do you have any polarisers that you would recommend or steer clear of? I was looking at Marumi as these seem to be a good balance of quality and cost.

 

[ToasterZapper]

If it doesn't wipe off, then it's either a filter with two elements and the crud is in-between (unlikely), or it's the coating. Just for the heck of it, try isopropyl alcohol and a lens tissue or cotton swab. Something like tree sap or airborne adhesive could do that. Don't ask me how I know.

I should have mentioned that the filter is brand new and out of a sealed box.

I’ve just bought some Zeiss lens wipes so I’ll try those out on it when I get chance. I’m 99.9% sure that they’re in the glass though.

 

[ToasterZapper]

Sounds like a return for sure.

I returned the first two (a 72mm and 82mm) for this reason and the replacement two are identical. I’m thinking this is just how they are. The speckles are colourful when the light shines across them which is why I wondered if they’re part of the coating. The filter looks immaculate to the naked eye; it’s literally only when a light is shone horizontally across the filter are they visible.

 

[FowlersFreeTime]

Yep, I was also thinking to go for an 82 with a step up ring for the 72. I’m only a hobbyist photographer and step up/down rings are something I’ve only just come across today.

Do you have any polarisers that you would recommend or steer clear of? I was looking at Marumi as these seem to be a good balance of quality and cost.

I'm cheap, so I only have one set of filters and two step up rings to fit them to the majority of my lenses.
I'm also a hobbyist, and still novice when compared to the others here, so I can't say that the K&F Concept set that I have is better than any others as its all I've tried.

 

[FowlersFreeTime]

I returned the first two (a 72mm and 82mm) for this reason and the replacement two are identical. I’m thinking this is just how they are. The speckles are colourful when the light shines across them which is why I wondered if they’re part of the coating. The filter looks immaculate to the naked eye; it’s literally only when a light is shone horizontally across the filter are they visible.

How do the images come out when fitted? any artifacts?

 

[ToasterZapper]

How do the images come out when fitted? any artifacts?

No artifacts, all looks good.

 

[ToasterZapper]

No artifacts, all looks good.

I’ll perhaps take a photo of something plain with and without the filter on to see if there is any difference in quality. As far as I can tell though I’m not seeing any artifacts.

 

[ToasterZapper]

I'm cheap, so I only have one set of filters and two step up rings to fit them to the majority of my lenses.
I'm also a hobbyist, and still novice when compared to the others here, so I can't say that the K&F Concept set that I have is better than any others as its all I've tried.

I also have some K&F filters and they seem very good.

 

[iamdlewis]

In the SLR days a UV filter may have actually served a purpose depending upon shooting conditions. Today UV filters have no technical befit and 99.9% of the time you are putting a cheap piece of glass in front of very high quality glass. The UV filters are more likely to get micro scratches, scratches, and have dust and water stick to it than the front element of any lens will.

 

[ToasterZapper]

In the SLR days a UV filter may have actually served a purpose depending upon shooting conditions. Today UV filters have no technical befit and 99.9% of the time you are putting a cheap piece of glass in front of very high quality glass. The UV filters are more likely to get micro scratches, scratches, and have dust and water stick to it than the front element of any lens will.

I take it you use your lenses "naked"? I've been using filters as protection for years without really considering it/questioning, until now.

 

[iamdlewis]

I take it you use your lenses "naked"? I've been using filters as protection for years without really considering it/questioning, until now.

Yup. My 100-400 (5yrs 100,000 images) and 200-600 (since release and 100,000 images) have been through a lot and not a mark on either.

 

[ToasterZapper]

As do I. There's a current thread around here somewhere discussing the same thing. I don't see the point in putting a $50 piece of glass in front of a $2000 lens. Use the hood for protection.

Lens coatings are way tougher than most people think. When I got back into photography I immediately bought UV for all my lenses. I removed them about 2 months later and have never considered it since. Obviously, if you need a polarizer or ND that's different, but putting one on just to have it there? Nope.

I’m definitely coming around to the same way of thinking, I guess I just need to pluck up the courage and take the leap!

 

[AlphaWorld]

Protective filters have their place. If you plan to be shooting in an area with a lot of wind and abrasive dust (a salt lake or sand dunes, for example), then a protective filter can save the coatings on the front element. It's a lot easier to replace a filter than a front element.

Roger Cicala of Lens Rentals has written on the subject of protective filters multiple times. One thing he pointed out was that replacing a front element that was scratched or damaged varied in price considerably. Sometimes the front element was a fairly cheap matter. Sometimes it meant replacing an entire front group. And the price of the repair could be as much as a third of the price of the lens... Another of the articles showed some of the horrible artefacts caused by cheap filters.

Note that I said "protective filter", not UV filter. It used to be that camera stores recommended UV filters for protection because: a) film could be fogged by UV and b) UV filters were cheap!. These days we don't need the UV protection (digital sensors don't fog like film) and there are filters made specifically to be protective, using toughened glass or even transparent ceramic (Sigma's ads for their transparent ceramic filters are cute! Bouncing ball bearing off the filters). These are much tougher than the classic UV filter.

And the argument about putting a cheap filter in front of an expensive lens doesn't necessarily hold, either - there are protective filters which have coatings just as good as your expensive lens. You won't be shopping for them at the cheap end of the filter selection, though - there are still plenty of really rubbish filters out there, but there are some really good ones, too. B&W's better filters were up there when I was last looking. I'd like to try one of Sigma's WR filters one day.

So do you put a $200 filter on a $100 lens? I wouldn't. But I also wouldn't put a $10 filter on a $2000 lens. If all you can afford is a cheap filter, maybe it's not worth it. If you are shooting in a studio, it's probably not worth putting on a protective filter, either.

A lot of the time I use my lenses without protective filters. But if I was headed to a beach to shoot surfing, I'd seriously consider putting a protective filter on my lens to protect the front element from windblown sand. (I'd also be wary of salt spray on my camera, too)

 

[Deleted Member 5045]

I run a Kenko Celeste C-POL. I find the image quality and the build quality to be very impressive. They're very well priced too. I have them in 72 and 82mm but there is absolutely no harm in using a stepper ring if you want to save space in your camera bag, or of course, your wife's money...

 

[ToasterZapper]

Those that said this is dust were correct. I finally got around to removing the filter today and a few Zeiss lens wipes later and the filter was clean; I can’t believe how dusty it was out of a sealed packet. The filter also had some sort of dirty sheen to it which is why it took a few wipes to sort.

 

[Gaz]

I use sacrificial filters, if you’re taking lenses outside, it’s sensible. I don’t have one on my 200-600 lens because filters that size are expensive. I always use the hood and cap though.

It’s easier on my anxiety to throw away a scratched filter.

I have polarized filters sized to my wider angle lenses for landscape and architectural stuff.