In partial defense of protective filters (Page 4): I agree, TriX. And, personally, I use both filter and hood.

Bubbee Loc: Aventura, Florida

TriX wrote:

Now that is what I would term a professional, well controlled and comprehensive experiment! Thank you for performing this and sharing - scientific rigor at its best.

I agree, TriX. And, personally, I use both filter and hood.

User ID

billnikon wrote:

I have been a professional photographer for over 3... (show quote)

(Download)

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

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)

As do you, I use filters for effects (ND, CPL, etc.) and for protection (clear, multi-coated glass protectors) when working in potentially hazardous locations. I use lens shades all the time, if they are available for my lenses (they are for all but my macro lens). My lens shades have saved my lenses several times. A filter would have cracked.

However, I do think the use of a filter for full time protection is probably benign, most of the time.

A notable exception is when aiming a camera at a bright light source in a dark field (i.e.; astrophotography is an example of this). Every additional glass surface in a lens creates at least the potential for flare when intense light strikes at just the right angle. In some circumstances, light can be reflected back from the front element of the lens onto the rear surface of a filter and then back into the lens as flare. The effect is similar to dirt or fingerprints in some cases, and creates unique halos in others.

Speaking of dirt and fingerprints, if they are on a filter instead of the front element of the lens, they are more likely to reduce contrast and sharpness. So if you do use a filter, keep it clean! I keep lens cleaning tissues and fluid and a rocket blower bulb in my bag all the time. Of course, keeping lenses clean is important, too. Both shades and filters help do that. But one or the other WILL get dirty over time. (When's the last time you cleaned both front and rear elements of your lenses?)

Picture Taker Loc: Michigan Thumb

We are on our way, again. I use---- I don't use---- I don't care!

photoman43

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!

I agree completely.

I do not need to do tests. I saw for myself a 24-70mm lens ruined when its front element cracked when hit by hot bird poop that covered the whole front of the lens. The ambient temp was about 10 degrees F. This was at a sunrise fly off at Bosque de Apache one December morning.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

photoman43 wrote:

I agree completely.

I do not need to do tests. I saw for myself a 24-70mm lens ruined when its front element cracked when hit by hot bird poop that covered the whole front of the lens. The ambient temp was about 10 degrees F. This was at a sunrise fly off at Bosque de Apache one December morning.

EEEWWWW! TMI.

User ID

photoman43 wrote:

I agree completely.

I do not need to do tests. I saw for myself a 24-70mm lens ruined when its front element cracked when hit by hot bird poop that covered the whole front of the lens. The ambient temp was about 10 degrees F. This was at a sunrise fly off at Bosque de Apache one December morning.

There are at least a couple things wrong with that story. Summarized, there was no thermal shock from bird poop.

Ava'sPapa Loc: Cheshire, Ct.

Picture Taker wrote:

We are on our way, again. I use---- I don't use---- I don't care!

But a lot of us do find this interesting. You read the heading, if you don't care why did you delve? ALMOST all of the responses are POSITIVE. hmm...

Picture Taker Loc: Michigan Thumb

Not challenging any think but the divergence and reasoning of both sides. Always interesting.

KarenKaptures Loc: New Jersey

Happened once with this lens, twice with another. Both lived 😊

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

Bill_de wrote:

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.

---

I suppose you are right about those "clicks" adding up but there is so much more to photography than protracted arguments about filters, lens hoods, Nikon v. Canon vs. whatever, and posts and threads that usually end up with a couple of folks sniping at each other, name-calling and trying to outdo each other's sarcasm.

I guess the advertisers look at quantity, not quality. The funny thing is all the ads that pop up on UHH are for non-photograhic gadgets, all kinds of bogus pills and remedies, and other useless merchandise. Mabe the folks who specialize in selling filters and lens shades should advertise here!

It seems that so many folks on this forum are constantly dissatisfied with their cameras' and lenses' performance and always worry about upgrading and trading. They spent endless hours testing, counting pixcels, worrying about aberrations and other image degrading issues, and tampering with their gear. It reminds me of back in the day as a teenager, the guys would buy cars in the junkyard and build "hot-rods". They spent so much time taking the engines apart and putting them back together again that they didn't have any time to DRIVE.

dandev Loc: Enumclaw, WA

My own (unintended) experiment.

KindaSpikey Loc: English living in San Diego

What does YMMV mean? So many posts on here with these abbreviations, I lose track trying to remember them all!

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

KarenKaptures wrote:

Happened once with this lens, twice with another. Both lived 😊

WOW! Thanks for posting that image- I almost lost my breakfast- not a pretty sight! My question is, what are y'all doing with your equipment, fending off muggers or marauding wild animals?

Besides the specialized gear issued by the army, I dragged a Leica M-3 and 3 lenses through a war zone for 2 years and never cracked a lens. The M-3- body did, however, come to its untimely demise when it took a bullet- but that's another story. A 50 lb. specialized aerographic camera I was operating dislodged from its gyroscopic mount and fell from the door of a gunship. It was later recovered- totally demolished but the lens and IR filter were still intact. I guess I was lucky! Well- I was smart enough not to jump out after it. The altitude was too low and the repelling gear was not onboard.

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

KindaSpikey wrote:

What does YMMV mean? So many posts on here with these abbreviations, I lose track trying to remember them all!

It stands for Your Mileage May Vary. It is intended to suggest that someone else's experience may differ from the person who uses that acronym.