gretchenk Loc: DC

Yes. Please continue to post. It’s educational to know what others think and the reasons behind their beliefs.

bwana Loc: Bergen, Alberta, Canada

I've read numerous threads / articles on the pros / cons of filters / lens hoods. I've never used a filter for the simple reason one does NOT need more glass distorting the optics train (regardless of their reported value in preventing lens damage). I do, however, swear by a lens hood at all times!

bwa

ralf Loc: NJ

I understand why you use protective filters - and glad to see that it worked, at least somewhat. For myself, I recently switched to the concept of "no filters" because I have some very expensive glass for taking seriously great pictures with, and I do not want anything "extra" in getting in between the subject and the camera sensor. An extra layer of glass is an opportunity for flare and other bad things to creep in.

Given the number of times I have dropped a camera in the past (never), this is the right decision for me. And only me.

dennis2146 Loc: Eastern Idaho

Come on, get real. We have had these exact threads on UHH as long as I have been here and you as well. Some of the people like and use them for a lens protector and the other half does not see the point. As for seeing my prose on record I am on record here on UHH just about every day. I have no need to see my prose as I have been writing for a long time. Come to think of it I see your prose here all the time too. So what is your post against me about? Where do you disagree with what I have posted?

Dennis

f8lee Loc: New Mexico

So your choice is to introduce another piece of glass in the optical path which may well diminish the image quality. So good choice!

You have a fantabulous day as well.

PS-are you a flat Earther as well?

PHRubin Loc: Nashville TN USA

I, too, don't use filters for protection, but I always have the lens hood on, even in darker locations. I have been using SLRs and now DSLRs since the mid 70s and never lost a lens to breakage due to dropping the lens or it hitting something. Once an internal spring snapped as I focused.

dennis2146 Loc: Eastern Idaho

I have looked at my photographs both with and without a filter. So far I have seen nothing of which you are talking about. Why are you getting all pissy and insulting? Apparently you choose to not use a filter. I choose to use a filter. Why are my personal preferences any concern to you? You must be a Liberal for calling me a flat farther just because my decisions which have nothing to do with you are not the very same decisions you have made.

My only advice is to suggest you get over yourself ASAP. My God poor thing, you could easily cause more perplexion and then a myocardial infarction. We would not want that would we?

Simmer down and have a wonderful day now,

Dennis

DirtFarmer Loc: Escaped from the NYC area, back to MA

Chill, guys.

There is no right answar here. One person's solution will work for some but not all.

If you have a preference, state your preference and state your reasons for that preference. Give the undecided something on which to base their own decision.

tomcat

Again, I am the OP: There always exists the possibility that a very cheap clear glass filter may cause a distortion or a flare on the lens, but I have never experienced that in the 48 years that I have been shooting. I also have shot multiple exposures on a tripod both with and without a filter with the subject sitting at an acute angle to the lens in an effort to artificially create a lens flare and I have not been able to do so. So I think that one can argue that filters do not create a flare that did not already exist--however, I am also certain that some folks will produce websites that say it is so. It was not my intention to stir the pot again. My point then and now is that the filter took the brunt of the impact from the drop and saved the lens threads from damage and possibly the front element. The front element probably would not have impact from a point object striking it because it was a flat floor with no projectiles. I always use a lens hood, even when in the dark, just to keep fingerprints off of the filter and to protect the lens front element. It is the 2nd thing that I do when I take the camera out of the camera bag (first is to remove the lens cap). When I put the camera back into the bag, the hood comes off because there is no room in the bag to have the hood attached. So a lens hood in the bag has no potential for protection unless it is on. (By the way, I just thought of a humorous analogy comparing a lens hood to a condom. A condom/lens hood does no good unless it's attached in its designed location---laying in the bag is useless and unless you put it on, dire consequences can happen). So we can end this conversation anytime. It was not my idea to convert the die-hards----only to show newbies what can happen when you drop a lens with a filter on it. I also mentioned that I did crack a front element years ago in the mountains when the lens struck a guard rail post while I was climbing back from a water fall shot.

RGG

I keep a clear filter on when shooting a festival, concert, auto/bike race, offroad shenanigans and the like. Otherwise the filter is in my bag.

TreborLow

I continue to use a protective filter so I can more easily clean the front when dust, dirt or finger prints need attention. It is more difficult (particularly where the lens is deeply recessed) to quickly clean the front element and surrounding areas. I also use a sun shade but primarily to prevent flare and reduced contrast from side light. I can't recall breaking a lens or a filter since my Brownie days.
Bob

happy sailor Loc: Ontario, Canada

I would say that if you install the lens hood backwards over the lens in the storage position and had the lens cap on in your camera bag and dropped as per your experience there would be no damage to anything. What happened to your filter is because filters are skinny little fragile pieces of glass that break easy.

Your front element that cracked must have been a hell of a whack and even had it had a filter on I think you would have had a cracked lens and a broken filter.

I am not a die hard and use filters, even the Lee filter system, cpl’s, nd’s, etc. But for what they were designed for not something their not. My filters are in protective little cases inside my bag so they don’t get broken.

I too have fallen in my life and whilst holding my camera, ended up with bloody knees, scraped elbow and some scratches on the camera body and lens hood. No damage to the lens or the workings of the body.

And what the heck, why end the conversation, saves the new members from searching and they get to see a wealth of opinions! What else does one have to do on a snowy evening?

Quixdraw Loc: x

Pretty simple - a statement of faith in either direction. For me, with 60+ year old lenses that have mint front elements, and no one having demonstrated (not even extreme pixel peepers) the negative effect of filters on my photos, I will stand pat on my belief. I encourage all, regardless of "side" to follow their faith.

PierreD

Sorry to hear of what happened, Tomcat.

I think you should send your message & accompanying photo to anyone who still argues against using a protective filter on their lenses... This should help settle the matter.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

Imagine your future when you stop using a filter.