rmorrison1116 Loc: Near Valley Forge, Pennsylvania

I just read a posting about a dropped lens and immediately remembered the last, and hopefully last, time I dropped a lens.

It was a few years ago and it was an almost brand new Tamron SP 70-200 f/2.8 lens. I was removing the lens from its case and it somehow slipped out of my hands and landed face first at an angle on the pavement below.

I generally do not use UV filters when taking photos as they only add an extra layer of glass for the light to pass thru. But, when the lens is not in use I always put a UV filter on it for added protection.

The then $1500.00 lens hit the concrete with a nasty thud. I uttered a few four letter expletives then picked up my lens. The glass was cracked and the rim was bent at the point of contact.

I then removed the $10 UV filter that saved my lens, mounted the lens to the camera body and went about taking photos. On the way home I stopped at the local camera shop to pick up a replacement filter. The sales person tried to sell me some special quadruple coated specifically designed for digital cameras super deluxe UV filter for like $80 or some outrageous price. I said, just give me the cheapest one you've got, its only purpose is a companion for the lens cap.

Macronaut Loc: Redondo Beach,Ca.

I believe you have just opened a huge can-o-worms here. There those that feel very strongly for and against "protective" filters, very similar to Canon vs. Nikon.

Hand on! :wink:

rmorrison1116 Loc: Near Valley Forge, Pennsylvania

Possibly, possibly not. I personally never got the whole Canon vs Nikon thing. I own a bunch of Canon stuff. I've owned Nikon stuff but currently I don't. I believe both companies manufacture really good cameras and lenses. I also believe that if you give the cheapest DSLR Canon makes to an experienced person and give the best DSLR Nikon makes to an inexperienced person, the person with the Canon will probably produce better photographs.

I remember a time when UV filters served a purpose other than add protection to the lens, but I haven't used any of my film cameras in years.

Rongnongno Loc: FL

Do not see a controversy here this for protection before using a lens not while using. The op seems well aware of the drawback of using a filter.

We all have 'horror stories'. I killed a RB 67 180mm portrait lens in a car fender bender. Camera was on the front seat, No curse words, just deep anger at myself for having been careless. A filter would not have helped, the inside thread use when changing the internal filter did not survive. No, I was not at fault... Was rear ended and bounced off the guy in front of me... AND THERE WAS NO CELL PHONE!!! :hunf: :hunf: :hunf:

-----
* Even when I mistake my finger for a nail... Just in breath whistle, hopping madly around my hand between my legs while waiting for the initial pain to change to a throbbing - THEN I curse myself.

mas24 Loc: Southern CA

The person who dropped his lens had no damage to the glass. He had dents and it balked on turning. I too have cheap clear UV filters on all my lenses for protection. But I watched a You Tube video by professional photographer Matt Granger, He claims your lens glass is far harder than your clear protective filter, and it diminishes image quality And that if you fear the wind may blow a pebble on your glass lens, it most likely will do no harm. And likely to never happen.. I compared the hardness of my lens glass to the clear UV filter glass. The lens glass was much harder. However I will still use them despite Matt Granger's opinion.

warrior Loc: Paso Robles CA

A lens hood also good protection! :thumbup:

drmarty Loc: Pine City, NY

:thumbup: :thumbup:

mas24 Loc: Southern CA

A lens hood is a good idea. If your lens takes a direct hit downwards on concrete, the flange of the hood would deflect it to prevent damage to the glass. There are some inexpensive ones to. I already have one on my prime wide angle lens.

rmorrison1116 Loc: Near Valley Forge, Pennsylvania

Yes, I read the posting, his lens impacted rear first, my lens impacted front first, where it is more likely to damage filter threads hood mounts and glass.

I'm a little familiar with the glass used in lenses, how it's formulated and how it's made. Most of my lenses are Canon and Canon glass quality is second to none, (as is Nikkor and pretty much all the big name camera and lens manufacturers). The lens I dropped is a top of the line Tamron with a really big piece of glass up front.

Many front elements, during the manufacturing process, are melted, crushed and melted again two or three times. This process makes for better aligned crystal lattice structures within the glass, making it much stronger. The glass element is weakest on its side, strongest on the front surface. Depending on how the front element is mounted in the lens may determine if the element is more or less likely to be damaged from a front rim impact. A shock wave sent through a single impact point on the rim edge may be far more likely to result in damage to the glass element through its side than a full frontal impact. Metal is more likely to bend and plastic is more likely to break. A cheap UV filter will absorb the energy from the impact while adding structural rigidity to the leading edge of the lens making damage to the lens and it's front element far less likely.

When I remove a lens from its case I remove the cap and filter, put the cap back on then either turn the hood around or mount the hood then mount the lens to the camera body.

I just hope I never drop another lens...

tjphxaz Loc: Phoenix, AZ

Google Steve Perry lens filter test on You Tube. He does a thorough job of testing the protective value of lens filters while breaking quite a few old lenses in the process.
For me, the better protection comes from keeping the lens hood on. I put a strip of gaffer tape on the hood to secure it to the barrel.

Leitz Loc: Solms

I believe a metal screw-in cap offers the best impact protection. Even 77mm caps are less than 10 USD.

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

How can you be sure the filter actually did anything? Lens front elements are far stronger and more robust than thin glass filters. Take a look at this video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P0CLPTd6Bds

bdk Loc: Sanibel Fl.

I have UV filters for all my lenses. Then when out shooting on a sunny day I was getting a lot of flare, I wasnt sure from where or why . The guy in the camera store said it was from the filter and the angle of the sun.

I now may store my camera with them on but I always have a lens hood , which I think is better protection.

so Im out in the woods shooting birds. I come across a woman also shooting birds.

Im sure you know how to store a camera with the lens hood on backwards. well this womans was on backwards.
I asked her why she said they were to protect the camera as you turned the lens and zoomed in or out. I explained what it was for, she thought I was nuts....

CHOLLY Loc: THE FLORIDA PANHANDLE!

CASE CLOSED. :thumbup:

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

While i almost never put one on, there are times though when a protective filter could be useful for some people. Examples are on a fine sand beach when its windy, to complete the weather seal on some lenses, and to keep mud, children's sticky fingers, and dog tongues off the front element. While i only put one on in extreme conditions, some people use them regularly for those purposes. But for impact protection, they are pretty useless.