Protection Filters - To Use or Not to Use

gpa said:
Been lucky for 10 years :thumbs: and if it ever happened that's what insurance is for :thumbs:
Click to expand...

A guy on another forum had a good take on this. Every time he buys a new lens, he puts the $50 cost of a protection filter in a jar. He's got a few hundred dollars in there now - enough to pay for any repairs, to the front element or otherwise, if disaster strikes :)
 
HoppyUK said:
A guy on another forum had a good take on this. Every time he buys a new lens, he puts the $50 cost of a protection filter in a jar. He's got a few hundred dollars in there now - enough to pay for any repairs, to the front element or otherwise, if disaster strikes :)
Click to expand...

Well, how stupid is he going to feel the next time he leaves his bag open, with all his lenses in there, with no lens caps, during the next meteor shower?
 
hollis_f said:
Well, how stupid is he going to feel the next time he leaves his bag open, with all his lenses in there, with no lens caps, during the next meteor shower?
Click to expand...

Or some brandishing an ice pic point down falls on his bag.
 
HoppyUK said:
A guy on another forum had a good take on this. Every time he buys a new lens, he puts the $50 cost of a protection filter in a jar. He's got a few hundred dollars in there now - enough to pay for any repairs, to the front element or otherwise, if disaster strikes :)
Click to expand...

B-gger I should have done that :D
 
odd jim said:
I shot at Silverstone yesterday in appalling rain conditions and i only used a hood. This was good enough and I'm talking driving rain here (no pun intended). Not once did the rain compromise the lens and when little drops did get on there you couldn't see them. I have however used a polariser in the rain and you could see every little drop on the lens, as it sits a few mm from the front of the element - that makes a big difference.

Use ANY filter in the rain and you'll cause problems. And to be honest I've shot unsealed bodies and lenses in the rain without issue so I don't even see the argument for weather sealing.
Click to expand...

STAFF EDIT: Comment removed and infraction given.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
STAFF EDIT: DELETED QUOTE OF OFFENSIVE REMARK

What a classy guy you are.
 
STAFF EDIT: Just because you are loosing an argument does not give you the right to be deeply offensive.
 
I just use a hood too, why stick another piece of glass in front of an expensive front element!

The front piece of glass in most quality lenses costs as much to replace as a top quality plain filter!
 
As the many threads on here have proved, some use protection filters some don`t. There are times when a filter is a good idea and some where they are unnecessary.

I see bornshooter is having a small break, his choice of words was a tad harsh...........:D
 
fracster said:
I see bornshooter is having a small break, his choice of words was a tad harsh...........:D
Click to expand...

Don't suppose you would mind giving me numbers for the euro millions? Your last 'prediction' was remarkably accurate... :D
 
Ah, too late, the mods got there before me!

I missed bornshooters words of wisdom. Oh well :lol:
 
Well, I have to be honest, I'm not bringing anything revolutionary to the conversation... Sorry about that!

I personally never use filters as A) I'm carefull with my kit, B) I use a hood at all times where possible (excusing when using grads etc) and C) I am a subscriber to the Filters ruin IQ side of things... well... because I dont even need to see test images personally... The physics behind the argument is simple.

Oh yes, and total lulz to born shooter. Another member that will go places* on this forum! Keep it up! We all love the comedians in these ere' parts!



*And by go places, I mean some other site with their account in the bin :D


I have an idea. One day, can we not ban one these sorts, and keep them on as the comedy member? Only, upon not banning, have their name changed to 'FACEPALM'?

Pwetty pwease? :D
 
I keep a cheapie Jessops UV (second hand cost me about £1) filter on the front of each of my lenses. I take them off if I don't need them for protection, but more often than not my lenses are knocked about, having dust thrown at them, dog spit, grease, grime, I should try not photographing cars or animals... I've also lost the caps, so don't use them. I keep a small lens hood on my analog/manual lens as it came with it and I like it.

I recently dropped my 70-300mm Canon lens, and am convinced that if I didn't have that cheap filter on, I would have lost my front element. It landed face down and after a string of swearwords I picked it up to find a crack accross the front of the filter, and the lens beneath untouched.

Another setback is if you're going for the sneaky street shot and you have a large hood on the end, more often than not people assume you're a pro trying to get a shot of the landscape etc and move out of the way.

Quality wise, I generally use my images for fun, and haven't noticed much difference between with and without filter.
 
^ thats all well and good, but most front elements would survive intact from a normal fall onto a hard surface. Lens glass, particuarly front element glass, is very, very hard.

Filters commonly crack from this sort of impact due to the structure that they are built around - the ring itself. All this needs to do is fall slightly out of alignment (even by hundredths of a mm), and this will happen on impact, and the glasss will crack as its not designed to flex.

In addition to the hardness of the front element, lenses are clearly not designed as such and the glass wont break if the outer structure receives a bang. Even more so with stabilised lenses.

However, theres nothing saying the internals wont suffer from the impact!

I think camera companies are laughing at the amount of defunct UV filters they still sell! I do however respect peoples decisions to use them if they want to, but I had to put an engineering slant on the subject!
 
RichardtheSane said:
Don't suppose you would mind giving me numbers for the euro millions? Your last 'prediction' was remarkably accurate... :D
Click to expand...

Nah, I got up early today, earlier than the mods and saw what was posted.
 
im not usinga filter and just use a lens hood. so far so good but i may buy a filter purely for effects not protection.

Like a man says, wearing no protection feels better ;)
 
The pessimist in me insist on using a filter.

With my initial kit when I started, 1000D + kit lens. I used no protection. However when I got a 17-85mm, I slapped on a Hoya Pro 1D UV filter. When I get my 24-105mm I will use Hoya HD protection filter.

And yes, if I see flare in the photo. I will remove it, take the photo and put it back on.
 
People who believe that filters are going to provide any significant protection against impact simply do not know how pieces of glass act in an impact.

Energy is mostly absorbed in a collision by plastic deformation (bending and staying bent). When was the last time anyone saw a piece of glass bent by an impact? Thought not.

What is more likely to hapen is that the filter shatters and razor sharp shards are driven into the objective lens.

I agree that it is the individual's choice as to whether you use a filter for protection, but please do not try to bend the facts to support your viewpoint.

Pint Mr Hollis?
 
I think the best use of a protective filter is to prevent scratches to the front lens element. Can't envisage how a thin sheet of glass in a thin metal ring will protect anything in a hard impact.

I started using a protective filter but gave up. Outdoors I'll often have a CPL on which does the same thing plus actually does something optically useful, and indoors I just pop the hood or cap on if I'm somewhere crowded where it might get scratched. No damage yet, and I'm a clumsy person!
 
Oh mighty ones, thanks again for all your comments, I've decided to go without protection until I realy need to use it :D Cheers...
 
But I hope you're getting a lens hood?!
 
cowasaki said:
The front piece of glass in most quality lenses costs as much to replace as a top quality plain filter!
Click to expand...

That's surprised me. Can anyone tell me @ what the front glass in my 24-105L and 70-200L 2.8 IS would cost to replace please? I would have expected it would be more than the cost of a filter.
 
magirus said:
That's surprised me. Can anyone tell me @ what the front glass in my 24-105L and 70-200L 2.8 IS would cost to replace please? I would have expected it would be more than the cost of a filter.
Click to expand...

I have not got the actual price in front of me because despite not using filters unless there is a genuine need or artistic reason I have not damaged any. A friend of mine told me that it cost him about £180 for a new front glass in his 24-70. Now that is less than some quality filters (ok not exactly cheap but neither is the lens!). Alright you can use filters on more than one lens but serious quality filters are not cheap and why would you spend £1500 on a decent lens then stick £30 worth of glass in front of it :shrug: Also a direct impact on the filter glass can smash the filter which will then scratch the front element anyway.
 
You choice is all that matters.

Every lens I have that has a filter ring has a filter fitted at all times for protection. If there was a truly significant difference, there would be no argument - the answer would be obvious. But the debate continues.

It's a bit like the Canon/Nikon thing. If one make was significantly better than the other, professionals, who depend on using the best, most reliable equipment to earn their living, would tend to use the better make. But the split is pretty even.

Using a filter is a personal choice. I think the protection is worth it, and can't see any significant deterioration in image quality. More to the point, I get no complaints from my clients and don't seem to be short of work.
 
Last edited:
What fails me is why do people think the thin piece of glass is going to offer any protection at all in the first place??

It doesnt, and I'll reiterate, it takes a LOT to even make a scratch in a front element, far, far more than it would take to destroy the paper thin sheet of cheap glass on the filter.

If it makes people feel better then ok, it serves a purpose even if it is a placebo. But they don't offer protection.
 
the use of a cheap non coated filters will reduce contrast. however the use if a thin filter is not going to protect the lens element from any damage as it will break fairly easy.

filters that degrade the image the most are the cokin, Lee etc type filters an stacking then will make it worse.

using a filter around clubs the sea etc dies make sense
 
POAH said:
the use of a cheap non coated filters will reduce contrast. however the use if a thin filter is not going to protect the lens element from any damage as it will break fairly easy.

filters that degrade the image the most are the cokin, Lee etc type filters an stacking then will make it worse.

using a filter around clubs the sea etc dies make sense
Click to expand...

I shoot a lot of sea scapes and one of the worst things you can do is use a filter! Quite often it's hazy due to a number of environmental issues so you actually need improved contrast. Also, believe it or not the few salt deposits you might get on the lens (and that's actually fairly rare unless you are sat by ASEAN defence wall in a thunderstorm!) do not show on the element by they are clear to see on a filter (in my case a polariser) as it sits a few mm from the element.

Best never to use "protection" or uv filters* at all IMO but we've been there and done that on TP!

* Unless you are shooting film
 
whats wrong with using a lens hood for protection? seriously guys UV and protecttion dont go together but if people must insist then so be it
 
None of my lenses are allowed out to play unless they are wearing a hood. I love my lenses. ;)
 
I use filters all the time. Motocross can throw up a lot of small bits of grit which hit and degrade the filter. Mine need to be replaced every 4-6 months or so. I know it's a "hostile" environment but for me it's a classic case of better safe than sorry.
 
Dod:
I use filters all the time. Motocross can throw up a lot of small bits of grit which hit and degrade the filter. Mine need to be replaced every 4-6 months or so. I know it's a "hostile" environment but for me it's a classic case of better safe than sorry.
Click to expand...


Odd Jim:
What fails me is why do people think the thin piece of glass is going to offer any protection at all in the first place??

It doesnt, and I'll reiterate, it takes a LOT to even make a scratch in a front element, far, far more than it would take to destroy the paper thin sheet of cheap glass on the filter.

If it makes people feel better then ok, it serves a purpose even if it is a placebo. But they don't offer protection.
Click to expand...

Whew! Glad that's cleared up, then. :clap::shrug::bang::bonk::bat::suspect::eek::D
 
jon ryan said:
Dod:

Odd Jim:

Whew! Glad that's cleared up, then. :clap::shrug::bang::bonk::bat::suspect::eek::D
Click to expand...

Not really! A stone will smash a filter but probably not the element. The filter won't protect against that as if a big stone comes through fast enough to damage the element then a thin filter won't make any difference.

But as stated, individual choice.
 
I think it depends what you want to protect against.

The chances of a stone big enough to break the filter getting past the lens hood while possible, is remote. But I would like to think a filter in front of my lens element would go a fair way in protecting it from the soil and gravel that is kicked up at - say - a stage rally.
 
RichardtheSane said:
But I would like to think a filter in front of my lens element would go a fair way in protecting it from the soil and gravel that is kicked up at - say - a stage rally.
Click to expand...

That sounds quite dangerous. What do you use to protect your face? I'll bet it's not a wafer-thin sheet of glass!
 
hollis_f said:
That sounds quite dangerous. What do you use to protect your face?
Click to expand...
A camera? :D

Who do some people get so worked up over other people using or not using filters for whatever reason? If people are happy let 'em get on with doing things their way instead of trying to make out like they're stupid.

Live and let live. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top