In partial defense of protective filters (Page 3): Yet another filter fight? So...The image made on a demolition site required a FILTER for lens protection. There were dust, dirt...

E.L.. Shapiro Loc: Ottawa, Ontario Canada

Yet another filter fight?

So...The image made on a demolition site required a FILTER for lens protection. There were dust, dirt, smoke, flying particles and sparks, and acrid fumes everywhere. I was pretty close to the action- FILTER TIME!

The Pizza shot was made in the kitchen of a pizzeria/fast food restaurant. There was grease, smoke, steam, melted cheese, and I was helping the chef with styling so my hands were touching food all day. Besides, we were shooting burgers, fries, and breaded fried fish and the was stuff splattering in the deep fryer. Did anyone around here ever try to get residue from melted Mozzarella off your front element? Not good! FILTER TIME and the Pizza shot was made into a giant wall mural with no IQ loss- filter and all!

The portrait of the gentlemen was made in my clean, air-conditioned studio- no filter but I did use a lens shade to prevent stray KICKER light from striking the lens. I always use the deepest lens shade possible without vignetting.

This filter argument is silly. Sometimes you need a filter for polarization, ND, monochromatic tonal separation, special effect or whatever so you use it! And yes, sometimes it is required for the protection of the front element of you lens- so use it! And...that does not make your lens "bulletproof". If a projectile strikes your lens or you drop it, head-on, on a spike, nothing will protect it and the shattered filter may exacerbate the damage.

Lens shads are not really intended for lens protection, they are for the prevention of flare. They might offer some protection from objects striking the lens kinda sideways, however, if you shade in big and strong enough and you accidentally impact your camera on something like a tree or a wall, the additional extension will add leverage and cause more damage to the filer mount or the lens mount. Remember rubber lens shades? They kinda roll with the punch.

Common sense and good judgement folks! You use the right to for the job at hand and make logical compromises. Listening to rhetoric does not make for better photography.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

Obviously, we all look at things through the filter of our own experiences.

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

E.L.. Shapiro wrote:

Yet another filter fight?

So...The image made on a demolition site required a FILTER for lens protection. There were dust, dirt, smoke, flying particles and sparks, and acrid fumes everywhere. I was pretty close to the action- FILTER TIME!

The Pizza shot was made in the kitchen of a pizzeria/fast food restaurant. There was grease, smoke, steam, melted cheese, and I was helping the chef with styling so my hands were touching food all day. Besides, we were shooting burgers, fries, and breaded fried fish and the was stuff splattering in the deep fryer. Did anyone around here ever try to get residue from melted Mozzarella off your front element? Not good! FILTER TIME and the Pizza shot was made into a giant wall mural with no IQ loss- filter and all!

The portrait of the gentlemen was made in my clean, air-conditioned studio- no filter but I did use a lens shade to prevent stray KICKER light from striking the lens. I always use the deepest lens shade possible without vignetting.

This filter argument is silly. Sometimes you need a filter for polarization, ND, monochromatic tonal separation, special effect or whatever so you use it! And yes, sometimes it is required for the protection of the front element of you lens- so use it! And...that does not make your lens "bulletproof". If a projectile strikes your lens or you drop it, head-on, on a spike, nothing will protect it and the shattered filter may exacerbate the damage.

Lens shads are not really intended for lens protection, they are for the prevention of flare. They might offer some protection from objects striking the lens kinda sideways, however, if you shade in big and strong enough and you accidentally impact your camera on something like a tree or a wall, the additional extension will add leverage and cause more damage to the filer mount or the lens mount. Remember rubber lens shades? They kinda roll with the punch.

Common sense and good judgement folks! You use the right to for the job at hand and make logical compromises. Listening to rhetoric does not make for better photography.

Yet another filter fight? br br So...The image ... (show quote)

👍👍 Exactly - the voice of a professional.

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

DirtFarmer wrote:

However there are situations where I use protective filters. Usually those situations involve environmental hazards such as salt spray, blowing sand, flying mud, or small hazardous things flying around (e.g. welding). ...

We have to go to extreme lengths to measure any effect at all on image quality. Unless there is something wrong with the filter it just cannot be seen.

They provide marginal protection from the most serious possible injuries from impact - sometimes they do, sometimes they don't.

Their real value is in those situations where you want to avoid the effects that you have pointed out. I would add that they are also protection from casual or careless cleaning that can damage the coating or surface of the front element of a lens. In the worst case you might have to replace the filter but that's a lot easier and less expensive than repairing the lens. That's the main reason I keep a filter on every lens I buy.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

If you dream today of ever selling your expensive lens in the future, ask yourself if you'd buy a used lens with a scratched front glass?

billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont

DirtFarmer wrote:

I am not a dedicated protective filter user. My lenses do not have filters on them for protection most of the time. I depend on a lens hood for protection from ordinary hazards such as having the camera bump into things. However there are situations where I use protective filters. Usually those situations involve environmental hazards such as salt spray, blowing sand, flying mud, or small hazardous things flying around (e.g. welding).

There are many instances in which someone claims that his lens was saved by something hitting the front of his lens and breaking the filter but not the lens. I believe that something hit their filter and broke it but I do not believe that their lens would have necessarily been broken in the same situation without the filter. After all, the front element of a lens is probably several millimeters thick while a filter is generally going to be a millimeter or less in thickness. This opinion is based on Steve Perry's post in which he performs extreme tests of things hitting lenses with and without filters. (I emphasize here that this is my opinion. YMMV).

On the other side of the coin there are a lot of people who claim that the excessive use of filters can affect image quality. While it is true that adding surfaces to an optical path increases the chance of reflections causing flare and such things, well made filters will have antireflective coatings which will reduce (not eliminate) this possibility.

So, being an experimentalist, I decided to do the experiment.

I did a study of edges to look at image sharpness. It was a limited study, using only one lens, but results to date show no significant effect of filters on the sharpness of an image. I also used a piece of regular window glass as one of the test filters. No significant effect was seen there. I concluded from this study that using a filter will not significantly affect the sharpness of objects in the image. The study did NOT include the possibility of flare or other effects. A PDF of the study is attached below.

I am not a dedicated protective filter user. My le... (show quote)

I have been a professional photographer for over 35 years (now retired).
Have only used a lens hood for protection of my lenses.
If you drop a lens with a UV or other filter on it it may damage the threads on your lens. A hood will not damage threads in a fall.
A hood will act as a shock absorber for your electronic rich lens and camera body, a filter will not.
Filters can get stuck on a lens, hoods will not.
Never had a scratched front lens element, no matter how often I have blown the dust off with my Giottos.
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/541904-REG/Giottos_AA1903_Rocket_Air_Blower.html?sts=pi&pim=Y
Or with my Zeiss wipes.
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1350132-REG/zeiss_2203_468_pre_moistened_cleaning_cloths_box.html?sts=pi-ps&pim=Y
Sorry Charlie, you barking up the wrong tree.
Over my life time I have cracked two lens hoods, no damage to the lens or body.
And my lenses continue to take award winning photo's, image that.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

Ken Rockwell is a professional photographer and online equipment review expert, with published work back to the 1970s and numerous awards. Ken Rockwell puts a filter on all his lenses. I can't believe the number of people who profess to be 0.3% more knowledgeable of photography than Ken Rockwell. Consider listening to the successful photographers when they talk about the equipment they use.

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

billnikon wrote:

Over my life time I have cracked two lens hoods, no damage to the lens or body.

Having a filter attached does not prevent you from also using a lens hood.

In seven decades of photography I have only dropped one lens. It was attached to a Nikon’s III in a SCUBA bag on a small boat. It bent the aperture thumbwheel. It also had a filter, hood and lens cap attached.

My daughter still uses the camera and lens. It’s still waterproof.

ELNikkor

Agree

billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont

selmslie wrote:

Having a filter attached does not prevent you from also using a lens hood.

In seven decades of photography I have only dropped one lens. It was attached to a Nikon’s III in a SCUBA bag on a small boat. It bent the aperture thumbwheel. It also had a filter, hood and lens cap attached.

My daughter still uses the camera and lens. It’s still waterproof.

No, your right, but using a filter increases the chances of damage to the filter ring on the front of the lens and risks internal electronics of lens and body using only a filter.

Canisdirus

Groan...not again.

Running out of topics?

Bill_de Loc: US

E.L.. Shapiro wrote:

Yet another filter fight?

So...The image made on a demolition site required a FILTER for lens protection. There were dust, dirt, smoke, flying particles and sparks, and acrid fumes everywhere. I was pretty close to the action- FILTER TIME!

The Pizza shot was made in the kitchen of a pizzeria/fast food restaurant. There was grease, smoke, steam, melted cheese, and I was helping the chef with styling so my hands were touching food all day. Besides, we were shooting burgers, fries, and breaded fried fish and the was stuff splattering in the deep fryer. Did anyone around here ever try to get residue from melted Mozzarella off your front element? Not good! FILTER TIME and the Pizza shot was made into a giant wall mural with no IQ loss- filter and all!

The portrait of the gentlemen was made in my clean, air-conditioned studio- no filter but I did use a lens shade to prevent stray KICKER light from striking the lens. I always use the deepest lens shade possible without vignetting.

This filter argument is silly. Sometimes you need a filter for polarization, ND, monochromatic tonal separation, special effect or whatever so you use it! And yes, sometimes it is required for the protection of the front element of you lens- so use it! And...that does not make your lens "bulletproof". If a projectile strikes your lens or you drop it, head-on, on a spike, nothing will protect it and the shattered filter may exacerbate the damage.

Lens shads are not really intended for lens protection, they are for the prevention of flare. They might offer some protection from objects striking the lens kinda sideways, however, if you shade in big and strong enough and you accidentally impact your camera on something like a tree or a wall, the additional extension will add leverage and cause more damage to the filer mount or the lens mount. Remember rubber lens shades? They kinda roll with the punch.

Common sense and good judgement folks! You use the right to for the job at hand and make logical compromises. Listening to rhetoric does not make for better photography.

Yet another filter fight? br br So...The image ... (show quote)

What you say makes sense, as usual! But if it wasn't for the high click count threads like this provide UHH might not make enough money to survive.

---

Sidwalkastronomy Loc: New Jersey Shore

I think you have to decide if you feel the filter degrades the image enough that any possible protection is negated.
From my telescope hobby the best way to clean optics is not getting them dirty. Every time you clean them what is it doing to the thin microcoatings?

Bultaco Loc: Aiken, SC

quixdraw wrote:

Dead horse. Have used them for decades with success and satisfaction. Others have never, will never use them with equal commitment. Never the twain shall meet!

Jimmy T Loc: Virginia

DirtFarmer wrote:

I am not a dedicated protective filter user. My lenses do not have filters on them for protection most of the time. I depend on a lens hood for protection from ordinary hazards such as having the camera bump into things. However there are situations where I use protective filters. Usually those situations involve environmental hazards such as salt spray, blowing sand, flying mud, or small hazardous things flying around (e.g. welding).

There are many instances in which someone claims that his lens was saved by something hitting the front of his lens and breaking the filter but not the lens. I believe that something hit their filter and broke it but I do not believe that their lens would have necessarily been broken in the same situation without the filter. After all, the front element of a lens is probably several millimeters thick while a filter is generally going to be a millimeter or less in thickness. This opinion is based on Steve Perry's post in which he performs extreme tests of things hitting lenses with and without filters. (I emphasize here that this is my opinion. YMMV).

On the other side of the coin there are a lot of people who claim that the excessive use of filters can affect image quality. While it is true that adding surfaces to an optical path increases the chance of reflections causing flare and such things, well made filters will have antireflective coatings which will reduce (not eliminate) this possibility.

So, being an experimentalist, I decided to do the experiment.

I did a study of edges to look at image sharpness. It was a limited study, using only one lens, but results to date show no significant effect of filters on the sharpness of an image. I also used a piece of regular window glass as one of the test filters. No significant effect was seen there. I concluded from this study that using a filter will not significantly affect the sharpness of objects in the image. The study did NOT include the possibility of flare or other effects. A PDF of the study is attached below.

I am not a dedicated protective filter user. My le... (show quote)

DirtFarmer, thank you so much for the time/effort in testing to bring additional light to this subject.
Personally, I use both filters and a lens hood on my glass.
The following is not meant to provoke, just added info: "My Not Quite Complete Protective Filter Article" https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2017/06/the-comprehensive-ranking-of-the-major-uv-filters-on-the-market/
My Canon "Protect Filter" https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/763705-REG/Canon_2602A001_77mm_UV_Protector_Filter.html?sts=pi&pim=Y
Smile,
JimmyT Sends