C300: Lens clear filter to do or not to do?

[New_Zealand]

I noticed behind the scenes some of the Cine lens like the Canon 30-300 don't have a clear lens filter to protect the glass? Wasn't sure where to post this but figured that since I'm shooting on the C300 using Cine lens this might be a good place.

 

[JPNola]

Whether or not to use a protective front filter is something that has been debated endlessly and there is no correct answer. There are pros and cons.

It mostly comes down to: preserving optimal image production vs protecting the investment

If you run "naked" you avoid any optical negatives that can result from use of a protective filter. But you put the front element of the lens more at risk.

Generally speaking, feature film productions and "high-end" commercial productions / music video productions do not use protective front filters on the lenses. When you rent expensive lenses from rental houses, most often the lenses are "naked". They do not have protective front elements attached. Often on film productions a matte box will be used. The use of a matte box results in the front element of the lens being somewhat "protected", more so than when not using a matte box. Too, feature film / narrative style shooting is generally more controlled and "careful" than what is known as "Run & Gun" style shooting as employed in reality tv, documentaries, sports news, etc.

One reason you might choose not to use a protective front filter is that the protective filter can introduce flare and blooming, particularly if the protective filter is of a size larger than the front element of the lens you are using. By using a protective filter you also introduce any dust, scratches, fingerprints that are on the protective filter. That said, if you are shooting at larger apertures ( f/4 and greater ) any dust, scratches, etc. will hardly impact the image. It is surprising how dirty and / or scratched a front element of a lens can be yet it doesn't significantly deteriorate the image. Consider that there are DP's who have been known to intentionally put fingerprints on the front element or the rear element of a lens because they found the image overly sharp. A softening filter such as the "pro mist" or "Hollywood FX" is effectively similar to dust or other imperfections on the front of a lens. So there's that.

I have used Canon L lenses that were veiling terribly when pointed towards a large window...I removed the protective front filter...and the veiling was dramatically reduced. But I have also damaged the front element of one of my Canon L lenses that was without a protective filter.

One approach would be to use a protective front filter but also be conscious of how it might be impacting the image. Take it off temporarily when you are in a situation where the filter may be causing flare, blooming or veiling. ( unless you want the flare, bloom, or veil. ) A protective filter on a wide lens is more likely to impact the image than is a protective filter on a telephoto lens. As well, on some wide lenses the lens will see any filter beyond one front filter. If you want to use ND filters on the front of the lens the stacking you will have to do on front of the UV filter will result in vignetting.



Personally, despite having damaged one of the lenses I own, I still run without any protective filters.

 

[Run&Gun]

My .02. On all of my 2/3" ENG glass($$$) I have clear protective filters. But I'm using those generally in rougher ENG/Run & Gun environments where the possibility of damage to the front element is a lot higher than a controlled environment, like narrative or corporate(not that those can't be rough environments either, just generally speaking). All of my still lenses and all of my CN-E primes are naked, because they're generally being used in much more controlled environments as opposed to the racetrack, football field, etc. of my ENG glass. And I do have a lens that lives in-between, the 17-120. It generally has a clear protective filter on it, as well. If it needs to come off for a specific shot, because it's causing issues(flare, etc), it will(and I do the same on my ENG lenses if need be). But tomorrow it will live on the 17-120 all day, since I will be out running around at the Daytona 500.

 

[gkantziper]

My .02. On all of my 2/3" ENG glass($$$) I have clear protective filters. But I'm using those generally in rougher ENG/Run & Gun environments where the possibility of damage to the front element is a lot higher than a controlled environment, like narrative or corporate(not that those can't be rough environments either, just generally speaking). All of my still lenses and all of my CN-E primes are naked, because they're generally being used in much more controlled environments as opposed to the racetrack, football field, etc. of my ENG glass. And I do have a lens that lives in-between, the 17-120. It generally has a clear protective filter on it, as well. If it needs to come off for a specific shot, because it's causing issues(flare, etc), it will(and I do the same on my ENG lenses if need be). But tomorrow it will live on the 17-120 all day, since I will be out running around at the Daytona 500.

Same here Chris...always filtered ENG zooms, but not primes. Another funny thing is how I use lens caps, especially talking about the lens that "lives" on the camera. Seems like 99% of the time the cap goes on it is to put the camera back in the protective case. That's funny if you think about it!

 

[Imamacuser]

This should go without saying, but there's a big difference between knock-off uncoated UV filters that don't use optical glass, and multi coated optical glass filters from name brands. Not everyone realizes the distinction when arguing against UV filters.

I like the Hoya HMC filters because they offer pretty good bang for the buck.

 

[cpreston]

I've found the Hoya antistatic filters to be good. mainly, large pieces of dust or fingerprints can cause light flares. It is easier to clean a filter or take a filter off than clean a front lens element. Therefore, I use filters. Cheap filters are the worse. Tiffen UV filters just make me angry. On the other hand, I will often throw on a Tiffen effects filters, so I am not too concerned about getting the cleanest image possible.

 

[puredrifting]

What Run&Gun and GKantZiper said, use your head. I hate using clear filters generally, they always seem to introduce unwanted internal reflections, but if you're heading into physically challenging situations, makes sense to protect that front element.

 

[JPNola]

Same here Chris...always filtered ENG zooms, but not primes. Another funny thing is how I use lens caps, especially talking about the lens that "lives" on the camera. Seems like 99% of the time the cap goes on it is to put the camera back in the protective case. That's funny if you think about it!

A Owner / OP ENG shooter that I have worked with for many years is notorious for his failure to use lens caps. Never any lens caps and never any tripod bags. For him both are impractical if not also "fussy". Hardcore ENG. Down and dirty. Lens caps? Puh-leeze. Those were either chucked aside or lost long ago. No time for that and the gear ceased being precious way back in the career. He has no problem just laying the camera on the back seat when traveling to the next location. When I wanted to at least put a seat belt around the camera he became aggravated with me-"It'll be fine, kid. Let's go, already. Leave it be. " That was overkill. A rookie move. At first I found that shocking...but now I find there to be something wonderfully rock and roll in that attitude. After all, look how many guitars Pete Townsend has gone through in his career. :tongue:

 

[Joshua_G]

A Owner / OP ENG shooter that I have worked with for many years is notorious for his failure to use lens caps. Never any lens caps and never any tripod bags. For him both are impractical if not also "fussy". Hardcore ENG. Down and dirty. Lens caps? Puh-leeze. Those were either chucked aside or lost long ago. No time for that and the gear ceased being precious way back in the career. He has no problem just laying the camera on the back seat when traveling to the next location. When I wanted to at least put a seat belt around the camera he became aggravated with me-"It'll be fine, kid. Let's go, already. Leave it be. " That was overkill. A rookie move. At first I found that shocking...but now I find there to be something wonderfully rock and roll in that attitude. After all, look how many guitars Pete Townsend has gone through in his career. :tongue:

It reminds me … many years ago I started to work as a freelance reporter/photographer for a newspaper weekly magazine. The first day I came with my film SLR camera in a leather case. It seemed to me logical to protect my investment … The head photographer laughed at me, how amateur it was … should I encounter something worth taking picture of, by the time I'd remove the camera's cover the event may be gone … So, no more camera covers for me. When I worked for the newspaper magazine, not even a camera bag. I realized that scratches and bends to the camera's body have no impact on the image quality …

As for protecting filters, I have them on almost all lenses (save the cheap ones that a good filter may cost almost as much as the lens itself …) - though, branded multi-coated optical glass ones - usually B&W or Hoya.

 

[Run&Gun]

A Owner / OP ENG shooter that I have worked with for many years is notorious for his failure to use lens caps. Never any lens caps and never any tripod bags. For him both are impractical if not also "fussy". Hardcore ENG. Down and dirty. Lens caps? Puh-leeze. Those were either chucked aside or lost long ago. No time for that and the gear ceased being precious way back in the career. He has no problem just laying the camera on the back seat when traveling to the next location. When I wanted to at least put a seat belt around the camera he became aggravated with me-"It'll be fine, kid. Let's go, already. Leave it be. " That was overkill. A rookie move. At first I found that shocking...but now I find there to be something wonderfully rock and roll in that attitude. After all, look how many guitars Pete Townsend has gone through in his career. :tongue:

Sounds similar to a guy I used to shoot for in my early days. Guess which one of us still has gear and which one doesn't.

You can only show up on shoots so many times with broken and busted s*%t that doesn't work...

It was always the biggest pain in the ass putting together gear from him. It took 45 minutes to get even the simplest package together, then you crossed your fingers that it was all working and not broken. He had some of the best cameras and lenses around back in the day, but he treated it all like they were Tonka Toys.