Throwing away lens caps?

Its utter tripe.
 
I wouldnt discard the lens cap or the Box it came in :-D seems crazy, what if you wanted to resell, and a filter is just as likely to get scratched and is more expensive to replace than a lens cap
 
hahah...what a c-unit...

Every Pro photographer I've EVER met uses lens-caps when carrying/transporting lenses in bags - yes of course they come off when in use...doh!

"...which will really improve your photography..." hahahahahahahaha Wayne-Kerr....
 
What I think is hilarious is this:

I want some protection on the exposed, vulnerable front element of my expensive piece of primo lens glass-you know, the one you paid all of that money for!
Click to expand...

Lately I’ve been buying Marumi filters for my lenses, an excellent Japanese brand, from my local supplier, Bennett’s Camera in New Orleans. These do a nice job and don’t break the bank. But I’m really not too concerned with the brand…just get something on there to protect your investment, and go ahead and toss those useless caps in the trash!
Click to expand...

So you spend all that money on an 'expensive piece of primo lens glass', yet don't care about what image degrading piece of tat you stick on the front of it?

I suppose you could unscrew it every time you take a picture, but need I point out the irony?
 
And the fact you paid all that money for the lens caps... so why chuck em? :thinking:
 
I use a lens cap with UV filter. I want to protect the filter in transit in my bag!! I have better things to spend my money on then keep replacing UV filters.

Seems a pretty dumb ass article too me, maybe he had nothing to write about.
 
He will probably write another article about placing cling film on the filter to protect the filter.

It's just stupid to throw away the lens cap. Maybe he was speaking metaphorically. Throwing it away just means don't use it as long as a filter is on there.
 
As I thought.. :)

I saw him taking lenses out of a hiking bag on one of the videos with no lens cap, thought that was odd then found that article! He says he's had his photos in Time, National Geographic etc..
 
matthew_rk said:
As I thought.. :)

I saw him taking lenses out of a hiking bag on one of the videos with no lens cap, thought that was odd then found that article! He says he's had his photos in Time, National Geographic etc..
Click to expand...

Ahhh...So he can afford new lenses every 6 months then...what a pillock!
 
Take the camera out of the bag... take the lens cap off.
Finish shooting, put the lens cap back on, put the camera back in the bag.

It's not rocket science!
 
It's as idiotic as using UV filters as "protection".
 
I wonder how that "Quick Tip"..."will improve your photography" :thinking:

That "tip" is utter nonsense. So, great, your UV filter protects your lens. And it's full of gunk, fingerprints and fluff from the camera bag. Hooray!

Every pro photographer I ever heard/read talking about the issue suggests the _exact_ opposite: get _additional_ lenscaps for your more popular thread sizes in case you lose one!

:bang:
 
Who needs tips like that? I can only assume it's a wind up to get a response, for what purpose I know not :thinking: (It's not April 1st aready is it?). If I'm out on a shoot the lens cap is off, at the end of the shoot the lens cap goes on, why would I want a scratched filter?

Nigel.
 
Is Andrew Boyd a pseudonym of Ken Rockwell's?
 
AlexW said:
Think it goes something like this: Why bother spending a small fortune on a lens capable of exceptional image quality when you are going to stick a relatively low quality, additional piece of glass on the end.
Click to expand...

ahhhhh...I see...

...alternatively why buy an expensive piece of glass and subject it to helicopter rotor-wash in the desert without a Nikon UV filter to protect the front element...

We use Nikon and Hoya filters and they impart a negligable loss of quality compared to the loss in image quality caused by scratched and sand-blasted front elements...

Plus I can swap a filter very easily...

Not using a UV filter might be fine for the studio, but outdoors, in wind, rain and flying rabbits? Nahhhh...
 
Rovers_Andy said:
you buy decent filters
Click to expand...

I don't really have an opinion either way, but I've heard the argument knocked about a bit. I tend to just rely on the lens hood for protection. Id certainly want a filter if I was shooting something that caused stuff to spray at the lens though. Like rallying.

Edit: posted this before your reply Arkady, my thoughts exactly.
 
Thanks Rob, it was worth waiting for :)

But flying rabbits? That's way beyond what could reasonably be expected!
 
For what I do, using a UV filter is pointless. But then I'm not in sandblasted deserts and thick muddy fields.

Here's one for you:

A man came into Jessops, some while ago, with a 70-200 IS f/2.8 that he borrowed from his buddy. He had dropped the camera, lens down, onto a rock. The UV filter smashed to pieces, and got wedged on the thread (cost a minimal amount to repair/take off) yet the lens was saved due to the fact it had a filter on.
 
maybe he's not aware that you can put a lens cap on a filter :shrug: that or he's just stoooopid

To improve my photography by chucking away my lens cap sounds like a fine idea to me :cuckoo:
 
foodpoison said:
A man came into Jessops, some while ago, with a 70-200 IS f/2.8 that he borrowed from his buddy. He had dropped the camera, lens down, onto a rock. The UV filter smashed to pieces, and got wedged on the thread (cost a minimal amount to repair/take off) yet the lens was saved due to the fact it had a filter on.
Click to expand...

I've read accounts where people dropped a lens and claim that the filter took the pain, but it's conjecture that it actually saved the lens. I find it very difficult to believe that a flimsy piece of glass would make any difference, and suspect that it's more down to the angle of impact/chance or fluke. Quite a few people have dropped lenses and expected them to be wrecked, and found that the damage was cosmetic or functional - a filter wouldn't have helped - or that the lens escaped unscathed.

I use the lens caps and a lens hood, but I don't use filters (apart from CPL and ND) unless I'm shooting in hostile conditions; and I've known a couple of PJs who just chucked the naked lenses in their bag while they were shooting. Their gear, and their choice.
 
Why don't lens manufacturers make a screw off front glass protector fitted as standard to all lenses?
 
parkmoy said:
Why don't lens manufacturers make a screw off front glass protector fitted as standard to all lenses?
Click to expand...

Most of them do it as an extra... called a filter I think :)


sorry just couldn't resist!
 
Throwing away all those lens caps - sounds like a good bit of advice!

Feel free to send all those lens caps on to me ill dispose of them propperly :D
 
Bill Roberts said:
Thanks Rob, it was worth waiting for :)

But flying rabbits? That's way beyond what could reasonably be expected!
Click to expand...

It happens...

1078723855_l.jpg
 
Wow, you guys are a rough crowd! :D

Seriously, the title of the post was a bit tongue-in-cheek. The idea behind the post (for those that haven't read it) is simply that relying on lens caps to protect your lenses is a bad idea. I know all about the arguments about putting "cheap" glass in front of a good element, but see for yourself if you can really see the difference in your photos. I can't. But I CAN see the difference once a front element has gotten scratched!
So I'm sticking with my UV filters, which I can afford to replace as needed....

Happy shooting!

Andrew
TheDiscerningPhotographer
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top