Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main Photography Discussion
Filter or no filter
Page 1 of 5 next> last>>
Dec 4, 2019 23:41:21   #
tomcat
 
This topic has been kicked around many times in the past year, so I thought I'd add a visual to the discussion. For those folks who still are reluctant to use a filter on the front of their lenses, here is a shot of the remains of the filter. This was attached to my 85mm lens that took a direct hit when I dropped my camera bag last night. I cannot pry the lens cap out of the filter and I don't plan to anyway because it's probably full of tiny glass shards. The front element in the lens did not get damaged, but is full of tiny glass shards that I cannot remove with a blower or soft brush. So off to Nikon it went today. The filter is a clear glass filter to avoid any color distortion. I have been a firm believer in the clear glass filters from Nikon for many years since one of my lenses hit the corner of a guard rail and shattered. Even having the filter cap attached did not save the filter.

PS, the camera bag is headed for the trash dump.


(Download)

Reply
Dec 4, 2019 23:51:33   #
nicksr1125 Loc: Mesa, AZ
 
I agree with you, Tom. I've lost a couple UV filters over the years due to mild episodes of carelessness. The most recent being a couple years ago when I was on Mount Washington in Pittsburgh, PA. I had a Tamron 150-600 mounted on my Alpha 850 and turned around. The camera/lens swung out a little further than I anticipated & contacted a metal post. The rim of the filter was bent & the glass cracked. Made me glad I (1) had the filter on the lens & (2) had a set of filter wrenches to get it off with. We're sure to get some comments to the contrary.

Reply
Dec 5, 2019 00:31:57   #
Strodav Loc: Houston, Tx
 
I swear by Hoya Protectors.

Reply
 
 
Dec 5, 2019 00:49:56   #
Rongnongno Loc: FL
 
I have been using cameras since... 1977 on almost a daily basis.

The only time I broke a lens, it was in a car accident.

I do not use a filter as protection. I do not see the point at all. Filter have their place but not as 'protection'. If anything a good insurance is the best 'filter'. The insurance paid for the 180mm fixed onto my RB67.

Also there is one guy who made tests breaking lenses with and without filter. Results? They were no protection at all as the shocks were able to shift elements inside the lens.

So... to 'protection filters'.

Reply
Dec 5, 2019 01:01:27   #
rmorrison1116 Loc: Near Valley Forge, Pennsylvania
 
To each their own. If you choose to use a protection filter then do so. I you choose not to, then don't. It's a choice and it's up to the individual. Based on the OP'S story, it's debatable if the sacrificial filter saved the OP any money since the lens had to be sent to service anyway.
As I said, if you believe a protection filter is the way to go, go for it.

Reply
Dec 5, 2019 01:54:10   #
mas24 Loc: Southern CA
 
I have read in a past article regarding lens protectors (filters), that the glass on a lens is much harder than the glass on the filter. And, the hardness can also prevent a scratch on the lens. I have seen one lens with a scratch on it. And that photographer still uses it, he claims, without it being noticeable on his images. If, he had a filter on that lens, perhaps that scratch would not have been there. He said the camera fell forward, on a tripod, that he tripped over, and the glass lens hit the corner of a short metal fence. With force. Although debatable, I use a filter on my lenses. And lens hoods when appropriate. Both are protectors.

Reply
Dec 5, 2019 03:58:14   #
bleirer
 
I fear scratching my lens more than breaking it, so I'll use one when hiking, at the beach, around thermal areas. Really a lens scratch can't do much harm because light from the same point in the world strikes everywhere on the surface of the lens before it gets bent to converge back to a point in the image, so even big scratches don't show much, not that I'm willing to find out personally.

Reply
 
 
Dec 5, 2019 04:13:39   #
CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City
 
It's not whether you get knocked down in life, it's whether you can afford to repair your broken lens.

Reply
Dec 5, 2019 08:03:35   #
f8lee Loc: New Mexico
 
Well,here we go again....it's funny how the myth persists.

Individual anecdotes like the OP's aside, the fact remains that @mas24's comment is generally true (for all but the oldest lenses) and the reason anyone "believes" adding more glass in front of the lens makes sense is thanks to camera stores pushing a highly profitable item (the filter) onto a customer who purchases a far lower profit item (the lens).

Back in the day, local stores (like one I managed in New Orleans in the '70's) knew they had to match the mail order prices of places like 47th St Photo or Willoughby-Peerless, et al. So the $500 lens (which might have had a MSRP of $600) provided only a $20 profit to the store when the price was matched. But that filter sold for $20 had a $10 profit - so of course the push was made to convince the victim, er, customer, that they needed to protect that valuable lens for which they were spending $500!

So nervous nellies the world over have become convinced that clear filters are in some way needed. Well, it's their money. Lens hoods offer protection and are included with the lens anyway, and are cheap to relace on the rare occasion when one bumps into a wall.

The only time it makes sense to use a clear fulter for "protection" is in situations where actual stuff may be sprayed onto the front of the lens, like sea spray (when shooting on a windy day at the beach perhaps) or dirt and mud (when taking shots at the side of a motocross race), etc.

But why I just wasted time writing this is a mysery to me; it's like convincing flat earthers that they are wrong.

Reply
Dec 5, 2019 08:11:50   #
mikeroetex Loc: Lafayette, LA
 
tomcat wrote:
This topic has been kicked around many times in the past year, so I thought I'd add a visual to the discussion. For those folks who still are reluctant to use a filter on the front of their lenses, here is a shot of the remains of the filter. This was attached to my 85mm lens that took a direct hit when I dropped my camera bag last night. I cannot pry the lens cap out of the filter and I don't plan to anyway because it's probably full of tiny glass shards. The front element in the lens did not get damaged, but is full of tiny glass shards that I cannot remove with a blower or soft brush. So off to Nikon it went today. The filter is a clear glass filter to avoid any color distortion. I have been a firm believer in the clear glass filters from Nikon for many years since one of my lenses hit the corner of a guard rail and shattered. Even having the filter cap attached did not save the filter.

PS, the camera bag is headed for the trash dump.
This topic has been kicked around many times in th... (show quote)


Filters are much thinner, delicate glass. you may find this Steve Perry demonstration interesting.
https://youtu.be/P0CLPTd6Bds
It gets fun around 7:30 mark.

Reply
Dec 5, 2019 08:13:39   #
CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City
 
Lens hoods are for Disneyland, filters are for life.

Reply
 
 
Dec 5, 2019 08:43:21   #
tomcat
 
rmorrison1116 wrote:
To each their own. If you choose to use a protection filter then do so. I you choose not to, then don't. It's a choice and it's up to the individual. Based on the OP'S story, it's debatable if the sacrificial filter saved the OP any money since the lens had to be sent to service anyway.
As I said, if you believe a protection filter is the way to go, go for it.


The filter didn’t “save me any money” but it could have kept the front element or threads from being damaged. Ironically I am going to trade the lens in for the 85mm S Z lens and since it was dropped I want to get it repaired. Even though the cost of the repair is equal to the value of the lens, ethically I don’t want to give my camera store a bad lens. So I’ll probably net nothing for the trade but at least I’ll have been honest

Reply
Dec 5, 2019 09:15:09   #
Toment Loc: FL, IL
 
They include lens hoods for a reason...FWIW

Reply
Dec 5, 2019 09:33:42   #
tomcat
 
Toment wrote:
They include lens hoods for a reason...FWIW


True point. But they don’t always fit in the camera bag. I’ve thrown that bag in the trash

Reply
Dec 5, 2019 09:38:37   #
CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City
 
Life as a photographer is either a daring adventure or a life where a hood is good enough.

Reply
Page 1 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.