New filter
Dec 14, 2023 17:14:45 #
Hip Coyote wrote:
And yet you did. Maybe fire up a convo on raw vs jpeg; Subscription based software vs free vs buy once; Nikon vs Canon, SOOC vs processing and Trump v Biden!
Who among us are good enough for any of this to matter? Few.
Who among us are good enough for any of this to matter? Few.
Deleted
Dec 14, 2023 17:31:41 #
Dec 14, 2023 17:47:37 #
The protective filter discussion has been around since the last millennium.
I don't personally subscribe to it but there are times when I have used a filter (or at least a piece of glass to cover a lens) to protect the lens from flying crud in the environment.
My view of the protective filter position is that a person (who might or might not have been a photographer) was involved in an event where some accident befell a lens they were using and they had a filter or other covering over the lens. After the accident the lens was inspected and found to be undamaged. The person involved now assumes cause and effect: that the covering protected the lens from damage.
I deny that that sequence of events constitutes proof.
This is a one-time event. In order to produce a reasonable level of confidence that the covering is responsible for the lack of damage, the event would have to be repeated a large number of times with consistent results. One event does not constitute a reliable proof.
Further, it is not intuitively obvious how breaking a 1mm thick piece of glass would provide protection that would otherwise fracture a 2cm thick piece of glass.
I DO believe that a filter can protect a lens from low-level events involving flying crud (salt, sand, mud, jelly-covered fingers, wet dog noses, etc.) And I have used such coverings to protect my lenses from such events when necessary. But I do not believe the materials used in filters are strong enough to protect my lenses from damage in most cases.
PS: I did not really see much point to your announcement. So you have a new filter. It was made in another country. I did not see a conclusion as to why you want people to know this. Does it lend credence to your anti-damage beliefs? Is there some other reason you have posted this (since you claim it was not to bump the protective filter discussion)?
I don't personally subscribe to it but there are times when I have used a filter (or at least a piece of glass to cover a lens) to protect the lens from flying crud in the environment.
My view of the protective filter position is that a person (who might or might not have been a photographer) was involved in an event where some accident befell a lens they were using and they had a filter or other covering over the lens. After the accident the lens was inspected and found to be undamaged. The person involved now assumes cause and effect: that the covering protected the lens from damage.
I deny that that sequence of events constitutes proof.
This is a one-time event. In order to produce a reasonable level of confidence that the covering is responsible for the lack of damage, the event would have to be repeated a large number of times with consistent results. One event does not constitute a reliable proof.
Further, it is not intuitively obvious how breaking a 1mm thick piece of glass would provide protection that would otherwise fracture a 2cm thick piece of glass.
I DO believe that a filter can protect a lens from low-level events involving flying crud (salt, sand, mud, jelly-covered fingers, wet dog noses, etc.) And I have used such coverings to protect my lenses from such events when necessary. But I do not believe the materials used in filters are strong enough to protect my lenses from damage in most cases.
PS: I did not really see much point to your announcement. So you have a new filter. It was made in another country. I did not see a conclusion as to why you want people to know this. Does it lend credence to your anti-damage beliefs? Is there some other reason you have posted this (since you claim it was not to bump the protective filter discussion)?
Dec 14, 2023 17:51:21 #
If you'd rather clean the fingerprints, dust, and miscellaneous gunk off the filter glass instead of the lens surface, use a high-quality Clear or UV filter. If you don't care, don't use a filter. It's your lens; it's your decision how you treat it and whether you protect it. 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?
Dec 14, 2023 18:19:14 #
Dec 14, 2023 20:05:21 #
billnikon
Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont
CHG_CANON wrote:
If you'd rather clean the fingerprints, dust, and miscellaneous gunk off the filter glass instead of the lens surface, use a high-quality Clear or UV filter. If you don't care, don't use a filter. It's your lens; it's your decision how you treat it and whether you protect it. 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?
Nonsense.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P0CLPTd6Bds
Dec 14, 2023 20:07:18 #
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.
Dec 14, 2023 20:50:17 #
None of my glass would still be pristine if filters did not protect them. I've never had images "degrade" as a result of filters. The best reasonably priced new filters I've bought are Lenskins.
Dec 14, 2023 20:51:46 #
Dec 15, 2023 00:03:12 #
billnikon wrote:
You really need to watch this, UV filters are NOT necessary to protect your front element.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P0CLPTd6Bds
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P0CLPTd6Bds
Most of the video is dumb to stupid. Which I presume the poster knew considering his comments at the end that the Filter protects the lens from everyday handling.
When I was in the military and stationed in Key West, FL, I used filters for protection. Always!!
Now that I am a landlubber in the midwest, I use filters sparingly, for their special effects. Because I do not care if I damage the zoom lenses I use daily. They are tools, easily replaced since DSLRs went out of style.
All my other lens are babied with cases, socks, lens covers, and lens shades, and once in a while a filter.
Boris
Dec 15, 2023 07:22:41 #
billnikon
Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont
CHG_CANON wrote:
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.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P0CLPTd6Bds
Dec 15, 2023 07:22:52 #
billnikon
Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont
CHG_CANON wrote:
Lens hoods are for Disneyland, filters are for life.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P0CLPTd6Bds
Dec 15, 2023 07:54:16 #
Other people’s ideas about your lenses and your money, sometimes their thoughts seem to be more about making themselves feel better than any concern about you.
Dec 15, 2023 08:40:57 #
billnikon
Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont
CHG_CANON wrote:
Other people’s ideas about your lenses and your money, sometimes their thoughts seem to be more about making themselves feel better than any concern about you.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P0CLPTd6Bds
Dec 15, 2023 08:50:20 #
You've got to go with what feels instinctive and true to your heart, and filter out all of the other stuff.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.