"Protective Filter": I know this is a personal preference, but if a person uses as much care as possible is a filter on the lens really needed? Especially if one feels that he/she is...

will47 Loc: Indianapolis, IN

I know this is a personal preference, but if a person uses as much care as possible is a filter on the lens really needed? Especially if one feels that he/she is doing this to protect the lens.

canon Lee

will47 wrote:

I know this is a personal preference, but if a person uses as much care as possible is a filter on the lens really needed? Especially if one feels that he/she is doing this to protect the lens.

For me; I ask myself, I have expensive glass, do I want to put an inexpensive glass over it? I would consider putting a filter over my expensive lens only on a beach or windy conditions. I use a hood all of the time, & feel that is enough protection.

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

will47 wrote:

I know this is a personal preference, but if a person uses as much care as possible is a filter on the lens really needed? Especially if one feels that he/she is doing this to protect the lens.

I use B+W filters on all of my lenses. The lenses are way too expensive, by comparison, to risk. I clean my filters quite frequently. I clean my lenses about 2 times a year. That alone is worth the extra protection.
--Bob

UXOEOD

This is like asking, "If I drive really carefully, are seat belts really needed?"

The first thorn you miss while walking thru the woods that scratches your multi-thousand dollar lens coating, instead of your $15 US filter may change your opinion. However, you are correct, it is a personal preference.

UXOEOD

canon Lee wrote:

For me; I ask myself, I have expensive glass, do I want to put an inexpensive glass over it? I would consider putting a filter over my expensive lens only on a beach or windy conditions. I use a hood all of the time, & feel that is enough protection.

I put the best brakes I can afford on my car, but I still make the kids wear seat belts.

tsilva Loc: Arizona

Use a lens hood. Look at the top PROFESSIONAL shooters in the world. How many of them use "protective" filters.

To the guy stating thorns, that is what a HOOD is for. Plus you will never see a scratch.

To the guy with seat belts, the HOOD is the seat belt. A filter would be putting them in a condom.

I have taken my lens through brush, bounced it off rocks, cactus and fallen on it on concrete shattering my ribs. Not one effin' mark on the front element, because I use a HOOD.

Jahawk Loc: Rhode Island

canon Lee wrote:

For me; I ask myself, I have expensive glass, do I want to put an inexpensive glass over it? I would consider putting a filter over my expensive lens only on a beach or windy conditions. I use a hood all of the time, & feel that is enough protection.

:thumbup: :thumbup:

Mr PC Loc: Austin, TX

Lens hood... Never had a problem and camera is ALWAYS ready for a quick shot. I only use a circular polarizing filter when needed, my lens hood allows for that as well. Only downside I can see is some shadows at bottom of images if I use popup flash in a pinch. I can usually work around that with cropping. Other filters can be replicated in Lightroom. Good luck.

rook2c4 Loc: Philadelphia, PA USA

Do I wear safety goggles all day every day to protect my eyes from the unexpected mishap? No, only in limited situations when there is very high danger of injury to them. It doesn't seem logical to me to pay more attention to the safety of my lens than my own eyes, which happen to be far more vulnerable to damage, as well as more costly to "fix" when damaged.

CHOLLY Loc: THE FLORIDA PANHANDLE!

UXOEOD wrote:

This is like asking, "If I drive really carefully, are seat belts really needed?"

The first thorn you miss while walking thru the woods that scratches your multi-thousand dollar lens coating, instead of your $15 US filter may change your opinion. However, you are correct, it is a personal preference.

Really bad analogy.

Protective filters won't and don't stop anything capable of damaging your front element from doing so.

The glass is NOT impact resistant and is not only thinner, but multiple times SOFTER than even the CHEAPEST front element.

Plus, so-called protective filters DECREASE contrast, while INCREASING ghosting and flare.

So no; you don't need protective filters, and no; they don't actually protect your lens from anything that you can't protect the lens from better with a proper hood, lens cap, and common sense precautions and situational awareness. And you can do it all WITHOUT the decrease in image quality that comes with added glass that wasn't corrected for in the lens formula.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

I ALWAYS use a filter to protect the lens. When I worked at a camera shop years ago, one customer came in - He had the camera on the floor behind the driver's [electric] seat, moved the seat back and scrunched the camera. VERY luckily, a set of filter wrenches, and a new filter, and he was happily on his way. Smashed the crap out of the filter, but didn't damaged the lens or the threads on the lens. That instance simply supported my reasoning for me. Filters are like insurance policies, not necessary until you need it?

Macronaut Loc: Redondo Beach,Ca.

rook2c4 wrote:

Do I wear safety goggles all day every day to protect my eyes from the unexpected mishap? No, only in limited situations when there is very high danger of injury to them. It doesn't seem logical to me to pay more attention to the safety of my lens than my own eyes, which happen to be far more vulnerable to damage, as well as more costly to "fix" when damaged.

This is more or less my thinking too. I do however use the best, cheapest protective filter I have when not actually shooting something, it's called a lens cap.

Everyone is different and each person should learn the pros-n-cons of with or without, then decide which is best for them personally.

CHOLLY Loc: THE FLORIDA PANHANDLE!

Longshadow wrote:

I ALWAYS use a filter to protect the lens. When I ... (show quote)

The thin glass used in so-called protective filters will break and scratch with much MUCH less force than is necessary to damage a lens front element. It's like putting Saran Wrap in front of your windshield to stop it from being damaged by rocks. The Wrap might stop bugs, but then those bugs wouldn't crack your windshield anyway.

Protective filters are EXACTLY analogous to that plastic wrap.

Even down to the optical distortion that results from their use.

No; lens hoods, caps, and common sense precautions along with situational awareness are the only way to protect your lens... and using them doesn't introduce any image quality reduction. ;)

rpavich Loc: West Virginia

will47 wrote:

I know this is a personal preference, but if a person uses as much care as possible is a filter on the lens really needed? Especially if one feels that he/she is doing this to protect the lens.

You were right at the beginning...it's a personal preference.

Let's leave it at that.

We can also discuss Chevy VS Ford, Nikon VS Canon and Knicks VS Celts :)

boncrayon

I get quick on-the-go photos without a lens cover by using a daylight filter over my "more expensive" coated lens. It also protects the coated surface from outdoor specks and moisture.