Filter or no filter for 85 1.2?

[Oren]

Daniel:


2255 / 6 = 375.8 - that's what you will be paying for a damaged *front element*. If you ask me, other damages can occur thanks to dust, dirt and moisture, but let's assume that the only possible damage is a broken front element, that would cost you $375.


40*4 = 160 - that's what you will be paying for 4 (assuming 4 lenses) UV filters.

[Joel Bookhammer]

Well I have ordered one to be on the safe side.


Thanks everyone


Joel


P.S. Anyone have any examples of filtered versus non filtered with the same shot?

[Oren]

Sorry Joel, I don't have since I take all my shots with the UV filter on and I doubt I'd see any noticeable difference if I took it off. Yes, maybe flare and such, but sometimes it's nice and has some added value to the picture (my opinion at least). Also, I doubt in how many situations where you have strong flare, taking the same shot without the filter would make such a big difference.

[Gian Luca]

Personally I agree with Daniel. I use UV only in case of bad weather or extreme conditions. I notice a sharper image, a faster shutter speed, and less problems of flare, even with the best quality filter.


The Hood is a great protection for the front element.

[ThomasJ]

Hi Joel,





I also own a Canon 85mm f1,2 L. It kicks ass! Enjoy the lens.


I personally have UV Filters for protection on all my lenses. To me, a protected front element is more valuable than max-quality images. Since I don't do photography for a living, I can accept some image degradation. Honestly though, I think the difference isn't so crucial.... With a wide-open aperture the 85mm L lens tends to ghost/flare anyway a little, the filter doesn't really make that much of a difference...


A new 50$ filter wouldn't hurt me. A new 300$ front element would very well!


I use Hoya HD UV filters. (HD as in heavy duty, not high definition!) They kick ass, and are made from a more tougher glass than most. Which means, they are harder to break when you drop them.. They should be on par with the B+W filters quality wise, I guess.





@Gian Luca:


Faster shutter speed without a UV filter? what filter do you use? Sure it's not a polarization filter? Good UV filters don't seriously affect shutter speeds so much.


Tom

[iND]

I agree the face is not as well focused as the shoes.


Did you use a single point focus? If so which point did you choose?

[Keith B]

I always love when someone posts a pic or tells a story of a lens that was saved by a filter. The filter is alway shattered and jammed on the lens and my response is, " Great! Glad you saved the lens. Imagine if you had a hood on it, you probably wouldn't have had any damage at all."


I don't know if some folks realize, a filter will not absorb any shock and the lens and body absorb it all. A hood will absorb quite a bit of the shock and could save the internals of both lens and body.


I know from personal experience shock will take out a USM even in an L lens.

[Cory]

With me it's almost more about just general protection. Whacking your lens on something accidentally, the random chance of getting hit by something (like a baseball - I've been hit in the face twice with soccer balls), using the lens on a beach (as I was just over a week ago) and getting even just that saltwater mist on your lens face (say you say: Weather sealing?)


Call me crazy, but on a $1800-$2000 lens I'm a little more comfortable with a protective filter on it.

[Fink_Studios]

As I do belive that all filters do degrade image quality even if it is unnoticable I personally still use them for these two reasons #1 I would like to mention yes high quality fliters like B+W and Heilopan have less of a quality effect and point 2. All but the super tele lens that are weather sealed are not fully sealed unless they have a filter on them

Hope this gives you some insight into filters

Happy shooting