RobertP

It has happened to me too where the clear filter and/or UV lens was shattered to pieces which would have shattered my lens instead. There is no issue spending the money for protection, just make sure you take them off if you ate photographing the moon.

rmorrison1116 Loc: Near Valley Forge, Pennsylvania

I have two very inquisitive dogs, so, when I set a camera down on the coffee table or end table or some other surface they may get to, I always make sure the strap is folded under the camera. I definitely don't want one of the pups biting or hooking onto a dangling camera strap and pulling the camera to the floor. Hanging straps are definitely cringe worthy, especially around pets and young children.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

No, I don't remember the lens at the Mall store. The Mall store received a lot more traffic than VF Center.

cbtsam Loc: Monkton, MD

Yes, I adopted this strategy several years ago. My wonderful bu jumpy dog has never knocked a camera over.

nervous2 Loc: Provo, Utah

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

There is absolutely no proof that filter did anything at all to "save" your lens. In fact, it might have put it at greater risk by transmitting the shock from the fall or bump to the lens barrel or when the shards of broken glass were pushed against the front element of the lens. I've seen seen that happen. I've also seen lenses where the filter was fine, but there was internal damage to the lens (which the filter may or may not have made worse... there's really no way of knowing).

I'm glad your lens is okay. But all you can say for certain is that you have a broken filter to replace. Maybe it helped. Probably it didn't.

Your plastic lens cap very likely does more to absorb shock and protect the lens while the lens wasn't in use. A nice deep plastic lens hood certainly does a better job protecting the lens when shooting with it.

There actually IS a place for "protection" filters. They're probably a good idea if you're crazy enough to be out shooting in a sandstorm, may help improve weather resistance in rain or snow storms and can make cleaning up after a shooting near the sea a lot easier. "Sea air" can be sort of "greasy" and difficult to clean off of optics... I'd rather rinse it off a filter than try to clean it off the front element of the lens. The filter also might be useful when photographing paint ball battles, colorful powder explosions, puppies with wet noses and small children with sticky fingers!

I'm not against using "protection" filters. In fact,I have them for all my lenses that can be fitted with a filter. I keep those filters stored separately in my bag, ready for the very rare occasion when it might actually be useful. Most of my lenses have gone filterless much of the time for 20 or 30 years and have survived just fine.

People who work in camera stores love "protection" filters... It's additional profit for them to sell you one.

The whole idea of a "protection" filter probably got started due to a misconception. Back in the days of film we used UV, "Sky" and various slightly tinted "warming" filters a lot because most color film was overly sensitive to UV light where it would cause a bluish tint (typically) in images. It's worse at higher altitudes, where UV is more intense, and I was living in "mile high" Colorado at the time. So there was usually a UV or Sky filter on my lens. I even continued to use them most of the time after moving to live at sea level in the 1980s. But with digital UV isn't a problem.

But people saw others using UV filters and Sky filters, which look clear, and assumed they were for some sort of physical lens protection. But that was rarely the case. We were using the filter to solve the problem with UV and film. That's largely unnecessary with digital. Since beginning to use digital in 1998 and fully converting from film in 2004, I almost never use UV filters and don't have any Sky or warming filters in my bag at all. (I now only use film very occasionally in vintage/collectible gear. Usually just for testing or to "exercise" the gear... almost never for serious shooting. Also usually just black & white film, so no UV filtration needed.)

Even with digital, there can be rare instances where a UV can be useful to reduce bluish haze in the distance in a scenic shot.

In fact, it's kind of silly to think a thin piece of glass provides very much protection. Steve Perry's video (below) where he tested "protection" filters even shows one failed that to hold as much as a plain sheet of paper!

Watch and decide for yourself: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P0CLPTd6Bds

It's also very often not true the without the filter the entire lens would have needed to be replaced after some sort of accident. Often a scratched front element is pretty easily replaced and may not even cost very much more than the price of a good quality "protection" filter.

On the other hand, a filter might mean less frequent cleaning ("scrubbing"?) of the front lens element, which might eventually lead to some wear on the coatings of that element. Today's lenses have pretty tough coatings, so it would take a lot. But when I'm buying a vintage lens I watch for "cleaning marks" (common and probably caused by cheap "lens cleaning tissues"... wood pulp used to make the paper has minerals in it). However, one approx. 10 year old lens I bought had a "protection filter on it from new", according to the seller. It was reportedly from a "smoke free" home, too. Those were good things, since I knew right away the lens hadn't been cleaned to death! But the first thing I did after buying is was remove the filter to clean off the fogging on both the front element and the inside surface of the filter, which couldn't have been good minimizing flare and was enough it probably also affected sharpness and resolution. It was amazing how pristine the lens was after cleaning, thanks to the filter. But the seller really should have removed it for a proper cleaning once in a while. It appeared he never had. I no longer use a filter on it. (BTW, this was a 300mm lens with a very deep, built-in lens hood that takes 1/2 second to pull out and lock into place.)

Yet again, a vintage lens I bought several years ago also had a protection filter on it. I was thankful because the lens showed quite a bit of wear and tear elsewhere on the barrel. (It was a rare enough lens and low enough price I didn't mind that.) But then I found the filter was VERY securely stuck on the lens! I have the tools and know the tricks to remove stuck filters, but none of them worked. I was going to order a couple additional tools that probably would have worked, but the lens was stolen! I guess it was jinxed!

By all means, use a quality, multi-coated filter on your lens if you wish. A good one will have minimal negative effect on your images in most situations, but should be removed if shooting sunsets or sunrises directly, or when using another filter like a C-Pol. In general, if having "protection" on your lens makes you feel more comfortable about getting out and shooting with your gear, that's worthwhile. Just be realistic and don't expect too much from the filter. Use your lens cap when storing and lens hood when shooting to protect both the lens and that fragile filter!

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

Need I say more ?? ..........Lens hoods mounted 24/7 and capped .......just like filters .......and lens cases sized accordingly.....What? - you do not have a well padded soft case for your lens when transporting ??
.

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

But lighter in the wallet ! LOL

limeybiker

Done that several times and once with a borrowed camera, cost to repair $50.00 instead of $1000.00

rmorrison1116 Loc: Near Valley Forge, Pennsylvania

I don't remember what year it was but I remember walking through the mall and in the courtyard that was outside the Camera Shop, Canon had several very large telephoto lenses on display. One of them was one of the, I believe 1200mm f/5.6L lenses that Canon later converted to EF 1200 f/5.6L. I remember it because it was really big and it had the dual built in handles. I remember reading they only made a few of them. I wonder what a lens like that sells for today.

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

People who use lens hoods generally have more money in their pockets than those who buy useless UV filters.

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

Reportedly Canon EF 1200mm f/5.6L USM just recently sold in Europe for something like $580,000. That's a bit more than they sold for new (roughly $90,000 US, if I recall correctly). It weighs upwards of 35 lb., is close to three feet long (more with the hood installed), was sold by special order only and there were supposedly only about 25 of them were ever made in the EF mount.

Incidentally, that lens uses drop-in filters in the rear, as do most of the 300mm f/2.8, 400mm f/2.8, 500mm f/4 and 600mm f/4 and various other "super telephotos".

My 300mm f/2.8 has approx. 120mm front element, while my 500mm f/4 has 130mm or larger. Too big for a filter and no threads provided to fit one anyway (the largest common size of round filter is 105mm... and those ain't cheap!) I have no idea how large diameter the front element and inner barrel of the Canon 1200mm f/5.6 lens might be... best guess is 200mm or more (8+ inches), based upon the exterior barrel dimensions (223mm).

Both of my lenses have a "plain" front element that's supposedly less expensive to replace.... Even so, I'd rather avoid that! (And use the caps and hoods religiously!)

I don't know if the 1200mm was also designed with a plain element (though it appears to have one, in the block diagram shown in Canon Museum, see link below).

More info about the EF 1200mm here: https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-1200mm-f-5.6-L-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

And here: https://global.canon/en/c-museum/product/ef319.html

P.S.

Canon offered a similar 1200mm "back in the day", in their FD system. But the lens was totally revised for the EF mount. The latter was not "converted" from the FD version, though it followed an overall similar design. The The earlier 1200mm f/5.6 was actually an FD"n" lens, part of the later "new" series that was modernized and mostly more compact (though this lens most certainly wasn't). Rumors are that only a half dozen or less of these lenses were ever made.

I found some info on the FDn version here: https://www.canonrumors.com/history-lesson-canon-fdn-1200-f5-6l-1-4x-lens-images/

Note: The 1200mm f/5.6 FDn lens has a built-in, 1.4X teleconverter, which would make it a 1680mm f/11 when engaged. The more modern EF 1200mm f/5.6 doesn't have a built-in TC.

Even further back in time, Canon also offered a 1200mm f/11 FL... that was the earliest design of the FD/FL mount... fully interchangeable, but using a breech mount style attachment that's rotated, instead of rotating the entire lens to lock the the lens in place.

More info on the 1200mm f/11 FL here: https://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/canon/fdresources/fdlenses/1200mm.htm

There is rumor Canon might offer the lens in RF mount eventually, too. Meanwhile the EF version of it can be adapted for use on R-series mirrorless, if you wish... provided you can find and afford one!

BTW, the EF 1200mm doesn't have image stabilization. If there ever was a lens that could use it, this is the one! The IBIS in the latest R-series cameras might help a little.

P.S. The two earlier Canon 1200mm are rare enough that the Canon Museum doesn't even list them!

scallihan Loc: Tigard, OR

When not in use, my camera lived in it's padded bag. In the car, on the floor. Just like when transporting food, if it's on the floor, it won't go flying if you have to hit the brakes!

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

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.