Great dissertation on filter vs. no filter
Jul 16, 2018 13:02:49 #
https://digital-photography-school.com/clear-uv-filters-essential-waste-money/
(I really didn't think about the lens coating damage from a lot of cleaning.)
But, it's really up to the individual......
I know my stance.
(I really didn't think about the lens coating damage from a lot of cleaning.)
But, it's really up to the individual......
I know my stance.
Jul 17, 2018 01:00:07 #
Longshadow wrote:
https://digital-photography-school.com/clear-uv-filters-essential-waste-money/
(I really didn't think about the lens coating damage from a lot of cleaning.)
But, it's really up to the individual......
I know my stance.
(I really didn't think about the lens coating damage from a lot of cleaning.)
But, it's really up to the individual......
I know my stance.
Let me ask you: What is better, a drop/bang/etc that cracks a $150 77 mm U/V filter, or the front element of a $2000+ 70-200 lens? Hmmmm.
Jul 17, 2018 06:46:41 #
rgrenaderphoto wrote:
Let me ask you: What is better, a drop/bang/etc that cracks a $150 77 mm U/V filter, or the front element of a $2000+ 70-200 lens? Hmmmm.
(That's why I have something on all my lenses.)
Years ago someone came in to the camera shop with a camera that was caught in a power seat of a car. (The camera was on the floor in the back seat.)
Five minutes later we had the scrunched filter off and found the lens threads perfectly intact.
Put a new filter on it and he was on his way.
(Stuff happens.)
Jul 17, 2018 15:08:26 #
amfoto1
Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA
Yes, stuff happens. But IMO it's pretty silly to think a thin piece of glass does very much to "protect" a lens.
In fact, I've seen lenses that appeared to have been damaged by filters.... when broken glass was driven into the front lens element scratching it or its coatings, or when the metal frame of the filter transferred the impact to the barrel of the lens.
A lens that's taken a hard enough knock to damage filter could well have hidden, internal damage too... a de-centered element, jammed meachanisms or other broken parts.
Also, many (most?) modern lenses use plastic lens caps and plastic bayonet mount lens hoods... "High impact" plastic, in fact... much better absorbing hard knocks than thin glass and metal!
Was a lens "saved" by a filter that broke when the lens was dropped or bumped? It's impossible to say for certain. Conversely, it's also impossible to say whether a filterless lens would have survived been better. You'd have to do a long series of controlled drop tests with a bunch of lenses and filters to test it. Even then the best you could do is determine the "odds of survival". And for valid info you'd have to test every model of lens and every type of filter available! Not very practical!
The closest anyone has come to a valid test can be seen in Steve's Youtube video at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P0CLPTd6Bds Watch that to complement the other video and especially notice in one case where a piece of typing paper held up better than a glass filter!
People often talk about a $100 filter "saving" their $1000 lens.... which it may or may not have done. But even if it did, it's also a fallacy because there's a good chance the entire lens wouldn't need to be replaced at the cost of $1000. It's likely any damage would be confined to the front element of the lens, which on modern lenses are much tougher than most people think... certainly a lot tougher than most filters... and cheaper to replace than the entire lens. So long as there isn't internal damage to the lens (which the filter very likely wouldn't have prevented, might even have exacerbated), simply replacing a lens' damaged front element might cost little more than replacing a quality, multi-coated filter. In fact, two lenses I use have plain "protective" glass front elements built into them, precisely to be replaceable at reasonable cost, if needed. (And that's a good thing with these lenses, since one is 120mm diameter and the other is 150mm! So filters for them would be extremely expensive, if they even were available and the lenses had threads to mount them, which they don't.)
Viewing the video, I agree with a lot of it. But I do exactly the opposite of what he proposes: using a filter and removing it in certain situations where a filter becomes problematic. Instead I carry a set of high quality, multi-coated filters with me to fit most of my lenses, and install one for "protection" in those very rare situations where one might actually do some good. My lenses are naked and filterless most of the time.... But I'll install and use one if I'm out shooting in a sand storm or at the beach or shooting a paintball battle, etc.
There are just too many times when a filter shouldn't be used for photographic reasons... A filter can cause flare issues when shooting in extreme lighting conditions (sunrises & sunsets included). They also can amplify chromatic aberrations. And, as cited in the video, filter stacking should be kept to a minimum so when I'm using a polarizer (which is far more useful and far more likely than a "protection" filter), I don't have to stop and fumble around removing an existing filter.
That video also mentions "cleaning marks" on lenses, fine scratches that gradually accumulate and degrade the lens over time, which might be avoided by minimizing the need to clean the lens with a "protective" filter. First, cleaning marks were more of an issue with lenses made in the 1960s and earlier, which used softer glass and early coatings that were less durable. Modern glass and coatings are a lot less susceptible to this type of damage. But, also, the primary culprit causing cleaning marks were the cheap paper "lens tissues" sold by many camera stores. Paper made from wood pulp can contain minerals that are hard enough to scratch glass. Modern cleaning methods using micro fiber cloths and 100% rag papers and swabs can help avoid this issue. Proper cleaning techniques where any dust particles are blown or gently brushed away first, before doing any wiping and or rubbing to clean the surface, also can avoid possible damage (dust particles also might be a hard mineral that can scratch).
Yes, a filter can reduce the frequency you need to clean a lens, but with modern glass and coatings it's a lot less of an issue than it was in the past. Plus, when you install a "protective" filter, you now have three surfaces to keep clean! The lens front surface, as well as the front and back sides of the filter. Obviously the back side of the filter and front of the lens will need cleaning less often... but I can tell you from experience that you'll need to occasionally remove the filter and do a more thorough cleaning of all the surfaces anyway.
By all means, use a "protection" filter if you wish. If that makes you feel more comfortable going out to shoot more freely... Well that's a good thing. Just be realistic and don't expect too much from it. Be sure it's a high quality, multi-coated one that will have minimal negative effects on your images and be prepared to remove it in some circumstances. (I once had to do corrections to many of 1200 images that a second shooter made for me, who didn't listen to my request he remove protective filters from his lenses when we were shooting in a strongly backlit situation. Removing flare effects from many of his images was a lot of extra work that could have been avoided!)
Me... I choose not to use a protection filter (or any filter at all, for that matter) except when it truly serves a purpose. Sometimes... though pretty rarely... "protection" makes sense. But most of the time the lens cap and lens hood do a better job of that and I have insurance that can help cover the cost to replace or repair my lens in the event of serious damage too.
In fact, I've seen lenses that appeared to have been damaged by filters.... when broken glass was driven into the front lens element scratching it or its coatings, or when the metal frame of the filter transferred the impact to the barrel of the lens.
A lens that's taken a hard enough knock to damage filter could well have hidden, internal damage too... a de-centered element, jammed meachanisms or other broken parts.
Also, many (most?) modern lenses use plastic lens caps and plastic bayonet mount lens hoods... "High impact" plastic, in fact... much better absorbing hard knocks than thin glass and metal!
Was a lens "saved" by a filter that broke when the lens was dropped or bumped? It's impossible to say for certain. Conversely, it's also impossible to say whether a filterless lens would have survived been better. You'd have to do a long series of controlled drop tests with a bunch of lenses and filters to test it. Even then the best you could do is determine the "odds of survival". And for valid info you'd have to test every model of lens and every type of filter available! Not very practical!
The closest anyone has come to a valid test can be seen in Steve's Youtube video at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P0CLPTd6Bds Watch that to complement the other video and especially notice in one case where a piece of typing paper held up better than a glass filter!
People often talk about a $100 filter "saving" their $1000 lens.... which it may or may not have done. But even if it did, it's also a fallacy because there's a good chance the entire lens wouldn't need to be replaced at the cost of $1000. It's likely any damage would be confined to the front element of the lens, which on modern lenses are much tougher than most people think... certainly a lot tougher than most filters... and cheaper to replace than the entire lens. So long as there isn't internal damage to the lens (which the filter very likely wouldn't have prevented, might even have exacerbated), simply replacing a lens' damaged front element might cost little more than replacing a quality, multi-coated filter. In fact, two lenses I use have plain "protective" glass front elements built into them, precisely to be replaceable at reasonable cost, if needed. (And that's a good thing with these lenses, since one is 120mm diameter and the other is 150mm! So filters for them would be extremely expensive, if they even were available and the lenses had threads to mount them, which they don't.)
Viewing the video, I agree with a lot of it. But I do exactly the opposite of what he proposes: using a filter and removing it in certain situations where a filter becomes problematic. Instead I carry a set of high quality, multi-coated filters with me to fit most of my lenses, and install one for "protection" in those very rare situations where one might actually do some good. My lenses are naked and filterless most of the time.... But I'll install and use one if I'm out shooting in a sand storm or at the beach or shooting a paintball battle, etc.
There are just too many times when a filter shouldn't be used for photographic reasons... A filter can cause flare issues when shooting in extreme lighting conditions (sunrises & sunsets included). They also can amplify chromatic aberrations. And, as cited in the video, filter stacking should be kept to a minimum so when I'm using a polarizer (which is far more useful and far more likely than a "protection" filter), I don't have to stop and fumble around removing an existing filter.
That video also mentions "cleaning marks" on lenses, fine scratches that gradually accumulate and degrade the lens over time, which might be avoided by minimizing the need to clean the lens with a "protective" filter. First, cleaning marks were more of an issue with lenses made in the 1960s and earlier, which used softer glass and early coatings that were less durable. Modern glass and coatings are a lot less susceptible to this type of damage. But, also, the primary culprit causing cleaning marks were the cheap paper "lens tissues" sold by many camera stores. Paper made from wood pulp can contain minerals that are hard enough to scratch glass. Modern cleaning methods using micro fiber cloths and 100% rag papers and swabs can help avoid this issue. Proper cleaning techniques where any dust particles are blown or gently brushed away first, before doing any wiping and or rubbing to clean the surface, also can avoid possible damage (dust particles also might be a hard mineral that can scratch).
Yes, a filter can reduce the frequency you need to clean a lens, but with modern glass and coatings it's a lot less of an issue than it was in the past. Plus, when you install a "protective" filter, you now have three surfaces to keep clean! The lens front surface, as well as the front and back sides of the filter. Obviously the back side of the filter and front of the lens will need cleaning less often... but I can tell you from experience that you'll need to occasionally remove the filter and do a more thorough cleaning of all the surfaces anyway.
By all means, use a "protection" filter if you wish. If that makes you feel more comfortable going out to shoot more freely... Well that's a good thing. Just be realistic and don't expect too much from it. Be sure it's a high quality, multi-coated one that will have minimal negative effects on your images and be prepared to remove it in some circumstances. (I once had to do corrections to many of 1200 images that a second shooter made for me, who didn't listen to my request he remove protective filters from his lenses when we were shooting in a strongly backlit situation. Removing flare effects from many of his images was a lot of extra work that could have been avoided!)
Me... I choose not to use a protection filter (or any filter at all, for that matter) except when it truly serves a purpose. Sometimes... though pretty rarely... "protection" makes sense. But most of the time the lens cap and lens hood do a better job of that and I have insurance that can help cover the cost to replace or repair my lens in the event of serious damage too.
Jul 17, 2018 15:18:24 #
Granted, a filter may not protect completely from a massive strike.
But it will for the more mundane.
But it will for the more mundane.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.