Macro Lens and Filters

[drk75]

Hello every body,
I just bought my self a 100mm IS L Macro lens and was woundering is it worth while investing in a filter. I have no idea what brand to go for. The lens will be used for both Macro and Portrait. Would you use the filter for both shots or would it be just as easy to use the hood that came with the lens?
Thanks heaps for your help.

[Arg]

I have that lens and don't use a filter, but I do use the hood. The polariser would be a useful filter for some macro shots.

[Othrelos]

polarisers are surprisingly useful on macro lenses, I would recommend getting one of the highest quality you can afford. I don't use polarisers for portraits in the studio but in the outdoors, polarisers have the benefit of enhancing saturation.

[Bennymiata]

To me, the very first filter you should get is a good UV filter.
This is an expensive lens, and the UV filter is one of the best things to keep on your lens to protect it from bangs and scrapes, if not for the reason of cutting down UV haze.
You'd hate to get a scratch on the front element!
Next would be a good polariser filter, as these are excellent to use for any outdoor shoots and really bring up the sky really well, and also stops reflections marring your photos.

When choosing filters, try and go for the thinnest ones you can as thick filter housings can cause vignetting in some lenses.

[kiwi]

Do not buy a uv filter for protection or as a uv filter

[davearnold]

I agree with Kiwi, do not get a UV filter for protection.

If in doubt, read some of the very informative previous posts about using filters.

Cheers

[Bennymiata]

I don't want to disagree with you learned gentlemen, but I was taught to always have a UV filter on a lens, as the front elements of most lenses are delicate, and that a scratched filter isn't nearly as bad as a scratched front element.
I have used lenses with and without UV filters, and can't tell any difference between them, except for the occasional refractions on some photos where the light is coming from just the right angle.

Could you please direct me to the posts about the filters?
Maybe I should take off the UV filters from all of my lenses?

[kiwi]

taught by UV salespeople ? lol Front elements "these days" are really quite tough, and easily replaced

If you cant tell the difference that's cool, use them, I just think they are a waste of money that I could spend on lots of other stuff

[Othrelos]

"taught by UV salespeople ? lol Front elements "these days" are really quite tough, and easily replaced "

Indeed they are, borosilicate glass that they use in lenses these days is already quite hard, and the modern coatings they use make this already toughened glass even harder. The use of UV filters hails from the old days when lenses were coated with magnesium fluoride, which was easily scratched and rubbed away and the glass used in the lenses wasn't of the same quality as is common today and tended to transmit more UV which was troublesome because the older film emulsions were very sensitive to it. Hence the precautionary use of UV filters which by force of habit, some photographers still use. I don't use UV filters because the glass used in lenses these days are absolutely terrible at transmitting UV light so it makes the use of a UV filter completely pointless*. I will however use a clear,double multi-coated glass protective filter in harsh, dusty weather to prevent any mechanical issues with my lenses. Considering that both Nikon and Canon incorporate such protective glass filters on their super telephoto lenses I really don't see any harm in using them, when protection is required. But I consider the use of a hood to be more of a crucial aspect of using, and protecting any lens.


* quick anecdote, for ultra violet photography lenses with elements made from fused Quartz and Fluorite were the material of choice, the Pentax 85mm f/4.5 superachromat was a remarkable and unique example of this. Due to it's optical properties it could focus wavelengths from 720nm(near infra-red) to 200nm (near Ultraviolet) and visible light all at exactly the same point of focus. Typically UV lenses were only useful for UV and weren't all that good for visible light photography.

[Speedway]

Benny the only scratched (from knocking or dropping) front element I have personally seen on a later lens was scratched by a broken UV filter. As said above, a hood does a better job of protection.
Keith.

[Bennymiata]

Thanks guys!
I knew that modern lenses are just so much better than the old ones, but I was taught old-school on old-school equipment.

Now I'm going to have more room in my filter bag than before.

[Perfectoarts]

Yes, I too have removed my UV filter. But ever so careful with my lens, especially when placing the hood on.
I do use best quality CPL when out in the bright tropical light. Amazing how this improves the blow outs on shiny green leaves etc.
Oh you will love this lens and a fine investment. Remember, to manual focus with macro photography - you won't be sorry.

[Xenedis]

The issue of UV filters has been discussed umpteen times.

The short answer is this:

Don't bother with UV or 'protection' filters; they're as useful as tits on a bull.

For the long answer, read this thread:

http://www.ausphotography.net.au/forum/showthread.php?63081-My-take-on-the-use-of-UV-filters