"Protective Filter" (Page 2): This was my thought and I always took/take care with my lenses. I did not want anything that would lesson the quality of my pictures. Then one fine day I...

wilsondl2 Loc: Lincoln, Nebraska

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.

This was my thought and I always took/take care with my lenses. I did not want anything that would lesson the quality of my pictures. Then one fine day I found a 3/4" scratch on my great 50mm f/1.4 lens. It has been protective filters every since. PS I never saw a drop in sales or had a customer ask if the picture would have been better if I had not had a filter on my lens. - Dave

davidrb Loc: Half way there on the 45th Parallel

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.

The folks who launched the Challenger used "as much care as possible". Nobody ever intended to destroy a lens, but shit happens. Hospital emergency rooms are full of people who were cautious, at least none of them intended to be there.

CHOLLY Loc: THE FLORIDA PANHANDLE!

boncrayon wrote:

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.

Neither specks nor moisture are any threat to your lens or it's coatings. In fact, it is MUCH more difficult to remove or etch the coating on a front element than it is to scratch that cheap piece of glass, further degrading image quality beyond what you get using elements that were not compensated for in the lens formula. ;)

You really don't need a protective filter... and they really DON'T provide any meaningful protection to your front element.

CHOLLY Loc: THE FLORIDA PANHANDLE!

wilsondl2 wrote:

This was my thought and I always took/take care with my lenses. I did not want anything that would lesson the quality of my pictures. Then one fine day I found a 3/4" scratch on my great 50mm f/1.4 lens. It has been protective filters every since. PS I never saw a drop in sales or had a customer ask if the picture would have been better if I had not had a filter on my lens. - Dave

Dave, something capable of scratching your front element would NOT have been stopped by a filter.

Think Saran Wrap on a windshield. ;)

dabbe Loc: Mountain Home, Arkansas

rpavich wrote:

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 :)

:thumbup: :thumbup:

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

wilsondl2 wrote:

This was my thought and I always took/take care with my lenses. I did not want anything that would lesson the quality of my pictures. Then one fine day I found a 3/4" scratch on my great 50mm f/1.4 lens. It has been protective filters every since. PS I never saw a drop in sales or had a customer ask if the picture would have been better if I had not had a filter on my lens. - Dave

Yup, stuff happens.
And, it is a personal preference as stated prior.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

CHOLLY wrote:

Dave, something capable of scratching your front element would NOT have been stopped by a filter.

Think Saran Wrap on a windshield. ;)

Sorry, I don't follow the logic here. Saran wrap on a windshield is in contact with the windshield, definitely no protection. However, a filter has a space between it and the lens, and, a filter is a little stronger than Saran wrap. Even if there was enough force to damage the filter glass, the full impact energy would not have hit the front element of the lens, the filter would have absorbed most of the energy.

CHOLLY Loc: THE FLORIDA PANHANDLE!

Well, there was an earlier post that described the concept in greater detail on page one. ;)

And while some of the force of impact is absorbed by the filter, bear in mind that the material of the filter is multiple times LESS robust than the front element of your lens. It will be scratched and broken by force that would not effect the front element at all.

But you CAN be sure that an impact with sufficient force to damage the front element will not be stopped or even sufficiently reduced by that thin glass to prevent said damage from the front element.

Additionally, the few millimeters of air gap between the filter and front element also present no shield.

It is literally like putting saran wrap on your windshield to prevent damage from a stone strike at highway speeds.

Just doesn't work. :(

ralphc4176 Loc: Conyers, GA

I consider myself to be as careful with equipment as anyone, but I put some type of protective filter on every lens I own.

lsimpkins Loc: SE Pennsylvania

rpavich wrote:

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 :)

Agree totally. I might add that if the OP decides to use one, buy the best quality.

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

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 a Hoya clear filter on my lenses, attached with a Xume magnetic holder. It takes almost no time to remove and replace it, if I think a shot is "filterless worthy."

ValliPride Loc: Lost in Florida

rmalarz wrote:

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

:thumbup: :thumbup: good filters

Festus Loc: North Dakota

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.

What do most of the pros do? Not that I am one. :~)

Jim Bob

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.

Use the search function. In summary, some say use them (I am in this group along with a friend of mine who is an astro physicist and uses filters on all of his lenses), others say don't. Make up your own damn mind.

insman1132 Loc: Southwest Florida

Again, Will, it may be an economic decision. How much do you have invested in the lens?