19104 Loc: Philadelphia

[quote=Gene51]Good response!

I have a few lenses that have no filters - and I just know that should something happen to the front element, it will cost me. This I know from experience. The cost to replace a front element on a 14-24mm is almost $400, and on a 24-70mm is $300. While I have no choice on the 14-24, I keep a clear filter on the 24-70. Much cheaper to replace that.

Check out this link on Ebay, there are a few aftermarket filter options for the 14 24 http://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_odkw=fi%3Bter+Nikkor+14+24&_osacat=0&_from=R40&_trksid=p2045573.m570.l1313.TR0.TRC0.H0.Xfilter+Nikkor+14+24.TRS0&_nkw=filter+Nikkor+14+24&_sacat=0

speters Loc: Grangeville/Idaho

That is not correct, digital sensors do not eliminate UV light!!!!

wdross Loc: Castle Rock, Colorado

I have to agree with you on this one. There are times that the filter will prevent something from hitting the lens, but almost no protection from drops. Even my fall experience in Crete showed that even though the glass didn't break (a glancing blow to the lense hood and the filter edge during the fall), the filter was put just enough out of round that the filter could no longer be removed by hand. Once back to the ship, I was able to get enough materials and "equipment" to get the filter off. If it had been anything more than a glancing blow, the filter would have broken and both the filter ring and lense threads would have been bent.

georgevedwards Loc: Essex, Maryland.

I am astonished an argument has broken out by some members maintaining that the uv filter is of no use as a shield. I would say that scientifically it would be hard to prove one way or another, but science would also say if something is able to crack or damage a UV filter ($2) it MAY also crack a $2000 lens, and it MAY save you $1998 by having the UV filter take damage instead of the lens. Now those are odds only a fool would refuse. I know I dropped my $500 Telephoto once and it suffered some minor damage just on the outer ring, but the lens shortly had to be replaced. Now I always have a UV lens for a shied. I may not be 100% foolproof, but it MAY save me some big bucks. I am not rich like many photographers. It is the sport of kings among the arts! You can buy a canvas for a couple of bucks and paint a masterpiece, but an average camera setup is a grand.

pmackd Loc: Alameda CA

Despite the over confident opinions expressed here by some, the analysis of whether damage to a filter results in impact protection to the lens (and camera) is complex. My personal experience is three drops of the same D750 24-120 f4 lens combo, with the same B&W clear filter on. One drop was on tile (VERY hard) from 18 inches, and two nasty falls (of myself) on gravel/earth. The filter was impossible to remove non-destructively after the first impact (which caused a visible dent in the lower part of the metal ring). The second and third drops produced dings in nearby places. There is no apparent damage to lens or camera which seem to work perfectly with no edge to edge de-focusing etc. The filter is still on and I still undecided whether to have it taken off. Not only that but there is considerable dust under the filter and the glass rotates. Now as to whether the absorption of energy in creating the dents reduced the energy that could have damaged the lens, here's where it gets complicated. When the lens-camera combo hit the ground, some of the potential energy of the fall was used to make it rotate. What it settled to the ground, the impact was absorbed over a much larger area, making damage less likely. How much energy went to making dents and how much to producing rotation? I have a physics PhD and have taught mechanics at the calculus based level including rotation and I have no friggin idea! I have a vague idea how to analyze this but someone would have to pay me big bucks to do it. And then I would consult colleagues. Maybe someone with more physics and engineering knowledge than I have can chime in.

houdel Loc: Chase, Michigan USA

A totally snide remark which contributes nothing to the discussion.


Completely false. In my many years of collecting and trading SLR lenses I have encountered many lenses with damaged filters attached, mostly with the filter ring so damaged that the filter could not be removed in one piece and I had to slit the filter ring with a hacksaw and take the filter ring out in pieces. In almost all cases, after removing the damaged filter the lens filter ring was in perfect condition and would readily accept new filters.

That said I do agree that filters provide very little if any impact protection to a lens. They can protect the lens filter ring from damage as well as protect the lens coating from scratches and/or deleterious affects of over exuberant or improper cleaning. And naysayers to the contrary, UV filters are effective at high elevations (5000+ feet) where UV radiation is much more intense than at lower elevations.

normpel Loc: Mass, R.I., Maryland

I dropped my Canon that had a UV filter on it. The UV filter got smashed.....but also the lens got damaged. I had to buy a new 18-55 mm lens. Fortunately it was just a kit lens---not a prime lens.

Chuck_893 Loc: Lincoln, Nebraska, USA

Before you ask, yes, I've read all the replies. 😄 I have seen this angels-head-of-a-pin argument sooooo many times. 😂 It has much in common with the jpeg vs. Raw argument, and to an extent the Trump vs. Hillary, the Br-exit vs. Not, and any number of other my-thing-can-beat-up-your-thing arguments. People do get incredibly passionate about their favorite, um, passions.

I never put a filter on my lens unless there's a reason for the filter, and any more the only one I ever use is a circular polarizer, and that only rarely. The never-'protective'-filter thing was drummed into me in school, about glass-to-air surfaces and flare and yada yada yada. That said, I would never tell someone they were silly or foolish or even (gasp) stupid to think that a filter would protect their lens from damage. Why in the world would I tell anyone that? I happen not to think it does much good and may cause flare and/or loss of acutance, but if you want a filter for protection, swing. It's simply none of my business, nor is it any of my business if you are a never-filter guy, although I actually agree with you.

It happens that my personal reliance is on plastic lens hoods. I have never but never had a lens that did not have a plastic hood, of the proper length and from the lens manufacturer, on it at all times. I like the plastic ones because they bend and flex. They absorb some shock, like if you have a long lens on and it accidentally smacks a wall (had it happen). If I did drop a lens the hood might afford some shock absorption. When I was working I had rear caps epoxied back-to-back. I'd take a lens off, bayonet it into the cap already on the back of the next lens, un-bayonet the new lens and couple it to the body. Then I'd drop the old lens hood-end down into its preferred spot in the bag with the double-rear-cap up. It was a trick I got from a press photographer. I never scratched or broke a lens, ever. I cleaned them occasionally with a microfiber cloth. That said, I would never tell someone they were silly or foolish or even (gasp) stupid to not use my own personal pet method to protect their lens from damage. Why in the world would I tell anyone that? I used to be a 100% jpeg guy. Today I am a 100% Raw guy. If you are in agreement with me, yay. If you are not in agreement with me, that's fine too.

JimKing Loc: Salisbury, Maryland USA

I think Chuck 893 (just above here unless someone beats my post) had some great ideas and a great attitude. Like the Canon vs. Nikon arguments this one is more like religion not science. I loved the post from the PhD physicist saying "I have no friggin idea" and I would hope this would cause the "it's obvious" crowd to slack off. As I mentioned earlier I'm in the crowd that does not use filters for protection. I teach photography and I tell my classes about the arguments and I say I personally don't use them and that's it.

papakatz45 Loc: South Florida-West Palm Beach

How can you make that statement?

papakatz45 Loc: South Florida-West Palm Beach

He clearly states, "in most cases" which means in some cases it does.

forjava Loc: Half Moon Bay, CA

Interesting remark. The screw-in frame of the filter ought to make a metal lens barrel's metal filter thread more resistant to deformation; I see a lot of lenses on eBay that cannot host filters, due to being out-of-true. But, I dunno.

Dunno if fluorite lens elements inside the lens barrel of older lenses are less impact-resistant than the latest using synthetic fluorite crystals, as at Canon. Seems possible, given the known earlier avoidance of fluorite as soft.

I have the impression that shocks can mis-align lens elements. Likely less so today? Again, dunno. I dropped a naked 105mm G onto my concrete floor from waist level with no ill effects except for my $20 cost for rubberized flooring in the studio (Love it!!).

ralfstinson Loc: SF Bay Area

Lets put this to rest with listing some facts and let individual make their own choice! First - a safe subject, construction site hard hats. I have warn them and I can recall walking down a passageway and going Thunk on an overhead object and first thinking, the hard hat saved me. Then thinking, I have walked here before w/out the hardhat, and did not hit that object! The hard hat adds 1 1/2 inches to my height, so I would have missed that object if I did not wear the hard had. So it did not save me! Second, the visor obscured my view of the overhead, so I did not duck and would have ducked it I did not have my vision blocked! Two very clear cases that the hard had was the problem, not the solution. However, over a longer period if time, the odds are much greater that the hardhat will save you, or significantly reduce injury!

For lens protection, you can use a lens hood, protective filter, careful behavior while holding/using the camera or put it in a container. Forget the container, that is a special case. The lens hood will protect the lens, but it also like the hardhat, sticks out. So items you would normally miss, may hit the lens hood. It gives protection and also protection from side lights. It also makes the lens 'longer' so that my be a problem. Because the light is not effected by the lens hood, there can't be any degrading (unless you get the wrong lens hood!).

I can not see how a lens filter which only adds a few millimeters to the lens's length would make the lens more likely to hit something like a lens hood. But if the light must pass through another piece of glass, it will be degraded. That is a fact! The amount of how much degraded depends on the filter's quality, and the demands/expectations of the photographer. Put your value on this, it is personal. Except for some really rare and strange possibility, the filter will not endanger the lens, and give some to possible significant protection to the lens. Look at your normal photographic environment and put a value on this. The third item is your behavior and environment. Again, a person item. In a studio, I can't see a reason for a protection filter. Shooting the Aurora Borealis or special lighting conditions, the filter can cause an interference pattern and should not be used. In brush/wooded areas, sandy/dusty conditions, balancing on rocks, etc I feel there is plenty of danger to the lens and the lens hood may not give the protection you would like. Again, your value.

So make your test pictures and see how much the filter degrades the image. Look at the environment and your behavior. Then plan your lens protection strategy. As the environment changes, so should your plan.

Lucasdv123

I you accidentally pop a bubble at a wedding with the front of your lens,it would take a good while to clean it and continue shooting,but if you had a filter in front of it,you could remove that filter in a snap and continue shooting.not to mention little brats at a party coming around grabbing or touching the front of your lens.

pmackd Loc: Alameda CA

I wouldn't bother making my own test pictures unless using a very cheap filter. There have been a number of very sophisticated studies on this and the main conclusion was that if using a high quality filter image degradation is all but impossible to detect in picture taking. Beware: high quality filters are expensive. You can find the studies doing an Internet search. The most thorough was by a group in Poland.