Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main Photography Discussion
UV Filters, use them or not
Page <prev 2 of 5 next> last>>
Feb 15, 2016 14:39:35   #
joer Loc: Colorado/Illinois
 
rmorrison1116 wrote:
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.
I just read a posting about a dropped lens and imm... (show quote)

I use protective filters mostly unless its some exotic size that costs a fortune.

A hood is probably better protection in some circumstances but a filter does even better in other situations which don't need explanation.

As far as IQ loss I believe its more of a theory than actual fact, especially when using a quality filter.

If I remember correctly Roger Cicala of LensRental published an experiment on the affects of multiple filters stacked on a lens. It was enough to convince me that in practical terms there is nothing to be concerned about.

And when its time to trade the lens the front element is as good as the day I took out of the box.

Reply
Feb 15, 2016 23:50:17   #
CHOLLY Loc: THE FLORIDA PANHANDLE!
 
The OP is totally and completely mistaken in the belief that some cheap, thin piece of glass and metal prevented ANY damage from occurring to that lens in the example given in the opening post of this thread.

Anyone who thinks a "protective filter" will protect his or her lens is free to use them for that purpose. Just remember the old adage about a sucker being born every day AND the one about a Fool and his money.... :roll:

Reply
Feb 16, 2016 08:06:45   #
pithydoug Loc: Catskill Mountains, NY
 
rmorrison1116 wrote:
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.
I just read a posting about a dropped lens and imm... (show quote)


Took it off years ago. A lens hood, which I have on all the time, does more to protect then a UV and one less place to get dirty.

Reply
 
 
Feb 16, 2016 08:28:57   #
aellman Loc: Boston MA
 
mwsilvers wrote:
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.


Call me crazy, but I would never take my camera out on a fine sand beach in the wind (unless it was a waterproof point-and-shoot or a DSLR in an underwater housing). The risk is far more than just to the lens front element. UV filter or not, when you get back home, you might find that your camera/lens has become a paperweight.
>>>AL

One more comment on UV filters: If you surf the Web for this topic, you'll find that virtually every expert/professional recommends NOT using one for shooting, but they agree that they offer some degree of damage protection. It's obvious to me that a lens hood would offer much more protection, as some posters have suggested. Keep in mind that the risk is not limited to dropping the lens. Your camera can swing on its neck strap and the lens can hit a wall, for example. There are many accidents waiting to happen out there. Be careful. >>>AL

Reply
Feb 16, 2016 08:38:39   #
rmorrison1116 Loc: Near Valley Forge, Pennsylvania
 
CHOLLY wrote:
The OP is totally and completely mistaken in the belief that some cheap, thin piece of glass and metal prevented ANY damage from occurring to that lens in the example given in the opening post of this thread.

Anyone who thinks a "protective filter" will protect his or her lens is free to use them for that purpose. Just remember the old adage about a sucker being born every day AND the one about a Fool and his money.... :roll:


Had there not been a cheap filter attached, the cost of replacing the damaged front piece would have far exceeded the cost of the cheap filter that took the damage.

The front piece is made of plastic. The cheap filter frame is metal. The metal bent upon impact. Had it not been there to absorb the impact, the plastic would probably have broken. There was a cap on the lesn, it just popped off on lmpact. The lens is fairly heavy and the concrete was very hard. There is no way there wouldn't have been damage to the front of that lens. The plastic front piece would have broken and possibly the front element would have been scratched.

I don't appreciate being called a Fool by someone who doesn't know me and wasn't present at the time the event occurred to witness first hand what took place. I'm not even partially mistaken because, I dropped the lens, I watched the impact occur, I picked up the lens and I saw the damage and yes, the cheap filter did exactly what it was there to do and all the videos and tests and opinions won't change that.

Reply
Feb 16, 2016 08:54:35   #
insman1132 Loc: Southwest Florida
 
Not to stoke the fires of controversy, but, rmorrison, I am with you. I keep both a UV filter and, many times, a lens hood on my cameras. Maybe the filter more to protect against scratching my lens, but nonetheless I use them. Keep doing what feels good for you. Probably no one is right and no one is wrong on this issue.

Reply
Feb 16, 2016 09:15:10   #
aellman Loc: Boston MA
 
rmorrison1116 wrote:
Had there not been a cheap filter attached, the cost of replacing the damaged front piece would have far exceeded the cost of the cheap filter that took the damage.

The front piece is made of plastic. The cheap filter frame is metal. The metal bent upon impact. Had it not been there to absorb the impact, the plastic would probably have broken. There was a cap on the lesn, it just popped off on lmpact. The lens is fairly heavy and the concrete was very hard. There is no way there wouldn't have been damage to the front of that lens. The plastic front piece would have broken and possibly the front element would have been scratched.

I don't appreciate being called a Fool by someone who doesn't know me and wasn't present at the time the event occurred to witness first hand what took place. I'm not even partially mistaken because, I dropped the lens, I watched the impact occur, I picked up the lens and I saw the damage and yes, the cheap filter did exactly what it was there to do and all the videos and tests and opinions won't change that.
Had there not been a cheap filter attached, the co... (show quote)


There is a vocal minority of members here that are anxious to insult other members and/or refute their opinions without evidence. These people try to be the experts on everything, and then it gets into a back and forth counter-posting of competing wannabe "experts." If you are an inherently angry person, take it somewhere else. Let's keep this positive for the benefit of all. >>>AL

Reply
 
 
Feb 16, 2016 09:24:50   #
aellman Loc: Boston MA
 
CHOLLY wrote:
The OP is totally and completely mistaken in the belief that some cheap, thin piece of glass and metal prevented ANY damage from occurring to that lens in the example given in the opening post of this thread.

Anyone who thinks a "protective filter" will protect his or her lens is free to use them for that purpose. Just remember the old adage about a sucker being born every day AND the one about a Fool and his money.... :roll:


If you don't know it, look up the definition of "hubris." In other words, “You never really learn much from hearing yourself speak.” (George Clooney)

Reply
Feb 16, 2016 09:56:51   #
PhotoPhred Loc: Cheyney, Pa
 
I only use them when I'm outdoors in a dusty/dirty environment like the beach for example. Indoor photos, especially flash or macro stuff, I take them off.

Reply
Feb 16, 2016 11:26:18   #
Jim Bob
 
rmorrison1116 wrote:
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.
I just read a posting about a dropped lens and imm... (show quote)

Geesus, this issue has been hashed and rehashed ad nauseam.

Reply
Feb 16, 2016 11:55:11   #
Barney127
 
A lens hood made of a flexible plastic could protect the lens and take the jarring impact. However we looking down our noises at such a cheap product on our wonderful cameras would not be readily available!

Reply
 
 
Feb 16, 2016 12:09:36   #
CHOLLY Loc: THE FLORIDA PANHANDLE!
 
rmorrison1116 wrote:
Had there not been a cheap filter attached, the cost of replacing the damaged front piece would have far exceeded the cost of the cheap filter that took the damage.

The front piece is made of plastic. The cheap filter frame is metal. The metal bent upon impact. Had it not been there to absorb the impact, the plastic would probably have broken. There was a cap on the lesn, it just popped off on lmpact. The lens is fairly heavy and the concrete was very hard. There is no way there wouldn't have been damage to the front of that lens. The plastic front piece would have broken and possibly the front element would have been scratched.

I don't appreciate being called a Fool by someone who doesn't know me and wasn't present at the time the event occurred to witness first hand what took place. I'm not even partially mistaken because, I dropped the lens, I watched the impact occur, I picked up the lens and I saw the damage and yes, the cheap filter did exactly what it was there to do and all the videos and tests and opinions won't change that.
Had there not been a cheap filter attached, the co... (show quote)


There is absolutely NO basis for you to make your assumption that that cheap, thin piece of glass saved your front element. In fact, it is scientifically incorrect for you to claim that it did.

You are totally and completely WRONG in your assertion... COMPLETELY.

There is no such thing as a filter that protects the front element from damage because anything TRULY capable of damaging that element WILL NOT BE STOPPED BY A THIN, CHEAP, PIECE OF GLASS.

But don't take MY word for it...

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

The ONLY reason we are having this discussion is because someone SOLD you on the idea that your front element is puny and needs to be "protected" when in fact it is the thickest, most robust, and hardest element in your lens... FAR MORE CAPABLE OF WITHSTANDING DAMAGE than some flimsy piece of glare inducing, contrast reducing profit-making glass.

Keep using your so-called protective filter all you want; just know that it really isn't protecting anything, but it IS lowering your image quality. ;)

Reply
Feb 16, 2016 12:18:45   #
charles tabb Loc: Richmond VA.
 
My lens crash wasn't with the ground. My wife was taking a picture of me scratching a tiger by sticking the end of my 300mm lens through a fence. She wasn't looking and the tiger's mate came rushing by and with one swat she took off the end of my lens. Fortunately I had bought insurance on the lens, it being new, and had it repaired free. The camera store put a note on the lens when they sent it back saying the it had been attacked by a tiger.



Reply
Feb 16, 2016 12:19:35   #
CHOLLY Loc: THE FLORIDA PANHANDLE!
 
aellman wrote:
If you don't know it, look up the definition of "hubris." In other words, “You never really learn much from hearing yourself speak.” (George Clooney)


Had you taken your OWN advice you never would have made this or your previous post.

Look up the definition of the word fool, then apply it's noun sense to folk who buy a product that does not serve the purpose they ASSUME it does because they lack a fundamental understanding of Optics or Physics, but instead, rely on anecdotal evidence and hearsay by an interested party to make a decision to use said product.

A UV filter will no more protect your front element from physical damage than Saran Wrap on your windshield would protect IT from damage... for EXACTLY THE SAME REASON.

Your attempt to upbraid me for what in ignorance you thought was an insult, is upon reflection, in fact an example of the very same hubris you complained about. :roll:

Reply
Feb 16, 2016 12:42:07   #
Macronaut Loc: Redondo Beach,Ca.
 
While I personally, do not use any filters for protection and believe that in many cases the protection just may be over rated, to say that they offer absolutely, 100% no protection under any circumstances what so ever, is simply misguided and impossible to validate. There is more to protect than just the front element. There is the casing that holds the front element. It would also seem the filter frame would/could absorb at least some of the energy of an impact.

I do use what I think is the best protective filter you can get. It's called a lens cap :wink:

Reply
Page <prev 2 of 5 next> last>>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main Photography Discussion
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.