Using filters for lens protection ?

Moonrakerz said:
Thank you for your rude and ignorant remarks !!!!!!!!!

I have been taking photographs for over 40 years (35mm and medium format) and have never suffered lens damage in that time. If you have, could I suggest that you are NOT handling your equipment properly ?

I did suffer a broken UV filter once - when the thing unscrewed itself and self-destructed on the ground.

In my experience the UV filters "thing" is an "old-wives" tale/urban myth - and I will stick with that opinion. If you wish to disagree some evidence to support your claim would be useful rather than sinking to swear words !

Perhaps when you grow up you will learn some 5 letter words..........
Click to expand...


calm%2Bdown.jpg
 
Does it have to be a UV filter that you use ????

I read somewhere that the sensor has a built in UV filter on a DSLR, so in effect you are "doubling up" on UV protection for your shots.

Incidentally I subscribe to the filter protects your glass theory, but I have DHG Filters on my lenses, these ones in particular (Marumi) , not expensive as some but probably better than a fleabay cheapy.
 
Last edited:
UV is usually a wee bit cheaper than the 'Protection' (plain but coated optical glass) filter.
makes no real difference as long as it's a good one - i.e. expensive, relatively speaking.

Hoya Pro, Hoya HMC and B+W are good - others I've not bothered trying so can't say with any degree of authority.
 
I've not yet bothered with a protective filter on any lenses, I'll use a hood if I'm out and about and I've never marked a lens yet. Of course now I've said that...! I'm going to try and get to some rally events this year so I'll probably be looking something then because of the dust\mud etc.
 
Arkady2 said:
My response was neither rude nor ignorant. I gave examples of why I think they're a good idea based on personal experience.
You say you've been taking photos for 40 years? Where are they then? I did a quick sweep and cannot find any images of yours posted here for us to see - at least I take photos rather than just collect camera kit and spout [PLEASE DON'T TRY TO BYPASS THE SWEAR FILTER] on the internet.

Your comments, however were rude and offensive and have been reported as such.

Next time you get on your high horse you might take care to look at someone's pedigree - as others have pointed out, my line of work involves more than mincing about taking happy-snaps in the back garden.
Maybe when you start taking photos outside your plushly carpeted living room you may find you re-evaluate your position.

:
Click to expand...

Spot on Rob, as always!
Well worth waiting for! :thumbs:
Although I did have to buy another box of popcorn and refill my flask!
 
ive removed some of the more colourful bits, please try and be a bit more calm, that goes for everyone, the antagonist and the responders...

thanks!
 
andy700 said:
So, by that reasoning, we should all buy lenses with as few elements as possible, because lenses with lots of elements, absorb too much light and increase flare and decrease contrast?
Click to expand...

The main reason that 'protective' filters have problems with flare and reduced contrast is because of their flat rear surface. This results in mirror-like behaviour with reflections of bright parts of the image causing unwanted artefacts.

The only lens I have with a protective filter on the front is my 300 f2.8 which, like all of Canon's big telephotos, has a front element that is designed to be cheaply replaced in case of damage. But that front element is designed to avoid flare, mainly by not being flat.


Oh, and one of the reasons for the superiority of prime lenses is because they can contain fewer elements.
 
matty said:
ive removed some of the more colourful bits, please try and be a bit more calm, that goes for everyone, the antagonist and the responders...
Click to expand...

:lol:

That was the third draft - you should have see the first two...lol
 
I'm pretty sure I can guess!
 
UV filters are the new religion.
Use them if you feel you need them, don't use them if you don't. Simple.
 
mid_gen said:
If you're shooting in a warzone, I'm sure filters for protection is a no-brainer.

If you're just walking the streets in the UK, perhaps not so much?

Just a thought.
Click to expand...

At one very recent party I had to clean off tomatoes and pepper of the UV filter. I am glad I didn't have to clean expensive 24-70L front element. After a few drinks people can get fairly dangerous here in the UK:lol:.

Another very dangerous place is in fact a camera bag. All you need to do is forget a lens cap and put something else nearby :thumbsdown:.

Then we can talk about moisture damage while shooting on the stormy beach or in the heavy rain, dust in some places, chemistry lab, etc - I do all of that every now and then, but can't quite justify trashing my equipment vs cheap filter.
 
When I came out of hospital I was a little wobbly and while out togging I fell straight over on my face. I knew the camera was going to get it full on but there was nothing I could do. I ended up with a broken filter and a bent outer rim. My £300 lens was perfect and has another new filter on the front ready for my next stumble. :thumbs:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top