The title of this post? That is a warning, the kind of warning you get on the flight deck as you are about to fly into a mountainside.
It is also the kind of warning I feel internally when I see something like this:
I mean… digital filter? Like photons care? Yes, I can imagine scenarios where a sensor needs a different filter from film, but not readily, and this ain’t one of them. This is more a marketing ploy to get Uncle Fred to hand over more money to replace his “analog filters” with digital equivalents, I think. So while having some lens filters for protection is a good idea in case it rains, do buy good filters, but don’t worry about having them always on every lens. I personally never use them.
Instead, spend your good money on a modern camera, 3 years old or younger, and on lenses.
And on my newest ebook, and do use the discount code, see yesterday’s post. Click on the image below to also see a few sample pages, plus the table of contents.
Well I was talking to the Tiffen rep last week and he was showing me an ND filter with the light transmission of a hockey puck. Then we looked at the other extreme, made with an exotic white glass, it is clearer than a UV filter for those times you just want mechanical protection.
The optical effect of the Optex filter you show is: multi-coat reduces flares & ghosting, a common problem for digital camera sensors.
I agree it is a stretch to expect a filter with multiple coatings to do something all the coated elements in your much more expensive lens are not doing to remove ghosting and flares. For the same, or less, money I think a lens hood may work better for most photos.