ecobin Loc: Paoli, PA

Actually, it's my wife's experience.

We just had a week vacation in the Canadian Rockies (Calgary, Canmore, Banff, Jasper, and many lakes, waterfalls, wildlife, etc.)€“ had a great time. There were hundreds of tourists from many nations everywhere we went and I couldn't believe how many carried their DSLRs without using the strap (I use the Op/Tech Custom Strap Pro with X-Long extensions and Uni-Loop connectors which allows me to sling the strap/camera across my body and have no neck or shoulder discomfort). And, I couldn't believe how many times I had to remind my wife to use her strap (she didn't appreciate my reminders but I recently upgraded her Canon SX30 to a Nikon P900).

I know that digital camera sensors eliminate UV light so that UV filters are superfluous. But having several from my film camera lenses, I use them as protection instead of buying new clear filters. I'd much rather clean a filter several times a day than my lens, and in Canada we both needed to clean our filters constantly (I mostly used a CPL filter on my wide angle lens and a UV filter on my telephoto lens; I took only two lenses with me). Well, on the last day at night as we entered our room to pack up, my wife dropped her camera on a very hard floor (again she was hand holding without the strap on). I contained myself as much as possible. Fortunately, the UV filter that I gave her was on the camera – it shattered (don't know what it hit) but there are no dings or scratches on the camera or lens glass and the camera works fine.

I have taken many test shots with and without a UV filter, with all of my cameras, and cannot tell the difference. I'€™ll replace her filter with a clear glass quality filter. For us, the protective filters will remain on. Hopefully, lesson learned about the strap!

Apaflo Loc: Anchorage, Alaska

Which proves that filters are much more fragile than lenses, and unlike the lens will break every time. It didn't protect your lens in any sense.

Bill_de Loc: US

You nor I know whether it did or didn't. How can you make a statement like that with nothing to go on but a picture of a broken filter, unless your name is Carnac?.

--

Stanton Loc: Ohio

Great advice, Ecobin. My favorite camera store in Phoenix has a shelf in its most prominent display case dedicated to the display of broken lens filters. The "collection" grows every year. All a salesman in that store will do when fielding a question about the advisability of using a protective filter is point to the case. Straps are a pain, but a smashed Nikon is a shame, and they do smash. I'm outdoors on and off a trail most of the time carrying two cameras - one with a long strap and the other with a shorter one around my neck. Sure beats watching one bounce off the rocks to the bottom of a canyon.

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

The evidence is only anecdotal. All we know for sure is that the filter cracked and the lens didn't. We can't say for sure whether the lens would have been damaged without the presence of the filter. Keep in mind that filters are very thin and crack easily. Lens elements, however are very thick and strong. If you think i'm anti filter, you would be wrong. I own a few for various purposes like lens weather proofing and for use in extreme conditions, like blowing sand. But I doubt the filter provides much protection against impacts. There are, however stronger filters around. I read just yesterday of some new filters made of Gorilla Glass, and Sigma has a new line of ceramic filters which are several time more break resistant than normal filters.

Macronaut Loc: Redondo Beach,Ca.

How can you say that!!!??? Floyd is never wrong about anything.....ever!

Apaflo Loc: Anchorage, Alaska

First there actually has been experimentation that showed there is virtually no protection provided for the type of impact described.

But in this case it is extremely obvious from the picture provided that the damage to the filter is not from frontal penetration, where the filter supposedly would block the foreign object from hitting the front surface of the lens. Instead the damage is from impact with a floor that is flat and not penetrating. It hit the edge of the lens and the filter had virtually zero effect. (Other than to provide convincing evidence that careful handling is important.)

Macronaut Loc: Redondo Beach,Ca.

Though the protection from drops is extremely limited. It's still impossible to know with absolute certainty. And I doubt that there will ever be any conclusive evidence on either side of the debate.

BHC Loc: Strawberry Valley, JF, USA

He knows because Carnac knows ALL. Ignore him. He has his own way of doing things and that is the only way. Heaven forbid that he should say something like, "Thanks for the demonstration." The fact that the broken filter may have prevented damage to the lens filter ring is irrelevant.

Leicaflex Loc: Cymru

The one thing it most certainly protected is the lenses filter thread.

Apaflo Loc: Anchorage, Alaska

The threads on the filter were not damaged, so it doesn't seem likely that threads on the lens would have been damaged if there had not been a filter there. By the same token it is almost certainly true that if the filter threads get damaged by impact it will also damage the lens threads. IOW, there is virtually no protection at all offered to the lens threads.

If folks want to see the results of some very good tests, check out a video by UHH member Steve Perry. Steve does a lot of very good videos, and this particular one is excellent.

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

He has been quoted elsewhere as saying

joer Loc: Colorado/Illinois

It defies logic that filters do not protect lenses. Unsubstantiated opinions to the contrary do not dissuade me in the least.

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

Provide a link for the experimentation.

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

Good response!

I have a few lenses that have no filters - and I just know that should something happen to the front element, it will cost me. This I know from experience. The cost to replace a front element on a 14-24mm is almost $400, and on a 24-70mm is $300. While I have no choice on the 14-24, I keep a clear filter on the 24-70. Much cheaper to replace that.

And like others, I cannot see a difference between lpictures taken with lenses with and without filters. What I can tell you is that the front elements get cleaned once a year, or even less frequently, and they have zero cleaning marks. Not so with the unprotected lenses, and yes, a couple have very minor cleaning marks.

Grnway Loc: Manchester, NH

I think the main issue is not necessarily protecting the lens from breaking. A substantial fall may do damage in any case. I use my clear filters to protect from scratches when moving around. Better to replace the filter than the front lens element repair.

When doing portrait work, then no filter.