| Sign in: |
| Members log in here with your user name and password to access the your admin page and other special features. |
|
|
|
|
|| SportsShooter.com: Member Message Board
Protective filter on lens
Gary Mills, Photographer
 |
Culver | IN | USA | Posted: 8:32 AM on 07.24.09 |
->> They may protect lens from dust but not if lens is dropped.
Does it make sense to put an inexpensive piece of glass in front of an expensive lens?
Are there any filters that have the same optical resolution as a lens?
I'd like to hear pluses and minuses.
Thanks, |
|
Alan Look, Photographer
|
Bloomington | IL | United States | Posted: 8:49 AM on 07.24.09 |
->> Gary, search the forums for protective filters and you will find all kinds of opins.
Personally, I use a filter on every lens I have. Keeps them from getting scratched and aside from a little occasional lens flare, I can't see a difference in my image quality. For the flare, I use a lens shade.
No, they won't help you much if you drop it on concrete, but you brush up against stuff much more often than you drop a lens. |
|
Bob Ford, Photographer
|
Lehighton | Pa | USA | Posted: 9:01 AM on 07.24.09 |
| ->> Sometimes the will protect the front element if the lens drops. I witnessed several examples of filters saving lenses that were dropped when I used to work in camera stores. |
|
Eric Canha, Photographer
|
Brockton | MA | United States | Posted: 9:13 AM on 07.24.09 |
->> Gary the most common damage a dropped lens suffers is dented or damaged filter threads. By placing a filter on the lens in the first place the filter ring will suffer the damage and not the lens barrel.
Dust is the least of the dangers that the front element of any lens faces. Depending on what and where you shoot, your lens is more likely to encounter things like beer spray, salt spray, grit and grime from tracks, and contact from subjects that are wearing all manner of abrasive gloves, pads, etc.
With the exception of the REALLY REALLY cheap filters on the market I don't know of any that inject any appreciable degradation. You can always buy a filter from the lens manufacturer, at least you can from Nikon. If that gives you the peace of mind that the filter element has been approved by the same people that made the optics. |
|
Jason Joseph, Photographer
|
Dublin | OH | USA | Posted: 9:18 AM on 07.24.09 |
->> "Does it make sense to put an inexpensive piece of glass in front of an expensive lens?"
Maybe I am way off here, but this is my take on it all. What makes the lens's glass expensive is the fact that it is ground and shaped and "worked" into it's current shape to correct distortion and to provide optical quality at in different situations (i.e. zoom and focus). The glass in a filter is perfectly flat, with no need for shaping it, thus making it less expensive. It doesn't mean that it is a "cheap" piece of glass, it just means it has been worked less. You also have to consider that those curved pieces of glass that are in lenses, start off as thick pieces that are reduced to their current state. |
|
Jason Hunter, Photographer, Assistant
|
Potsdam | NY | United States | Posted: 9:29 AM on 07.24.09 |
| ->> I know that the Canon Rep. advised not using a filter over an expensive lens because of degraded quality. I go back and forth over the issue, right now I'm not using them, but I probably will again, especially when entering a real dusty nasty area. |
|
Brian Blanco, Photographer
|
Tampa / Sarasota | FL | USA | Posted: 9:43 AM on 07.24.09 |
| ->> The most common lens damage I get is when the front element bangs up against my other cameras or other shooters' cameras when we're working in a scrum. Filters have saved my front elements many times from this type of damage. As far as I'm concerned (aside from 300s and 400s) a filter is placed on lenses the moment they are pulled from their boxes after the nice UPS driver delivers them. |
|
Will Powers, Photographer
|
Denver | CO | USA | Posted: 9:44 AM on 07.24.09 |
| ->> And I'll disagree about a filter protecting glass if it hits concrete. Unfortunately I've had glass fall out of pouches onto hard surfaces. The filter cracked but not the lens, saving a huge repair or replacement cost, simply replace the filter. |
|
Jonathan Castner, Photographer, Assistant
|
Longmont | CO | USA | Posted: 11:06 AM on 07.24.09 |
->> Jason's rep is correct: anything that light has to pass through to get to your film or sensor effects/degrades image quality. Thus using a "cheap" filter is a horrible idea. No only can they reduce contrast and resolution but can dramatically increase flair as well as in some cases effect focusing at infinity. Therefor you should only use filters that are as well built/corrected as the lenses that you are using. I recommend B+W, Heilopan, Nikon as they are built like tanks, the glass is as good as in any of your lenses and their anti-reflective coatings are the best out there. They are expensive but worth it. I've read some excellent reviews of the Hoya HMC UV-0 filters that puts it up there with the big 3 and they are about 2/3 the cost. That would be as "cheap" as I would go.
Now I do have a Nikon UV filter on every lens and I'm grateful for it. I have had a number of lenses saved by the filter that were hit by flying sand, gravel, cow snot, salt water spray, the occasional bub and whatnot. A filter also prevents you from directly cleaning your front element - slowly wearing away your delicate lens coatings. |
|
William Maner, Photographer
|
Biloxi | MS | USA | Posted: 11:15 AM on 07.24.09 |
->> The only filter I use is a B+W UV filter on my 17-40 Canon EF zoom. Easy to get all sorts of junk on the front element of that lens. I haven't noticed any difference in image quality--plus I prefer wiping fingerprints and smudges off a filter than the front element..
I don't use filters on my longer glass because the front element is somewhat protected by the hood. |
|
Jim Colburn, Photo Editor, Photographer
|
McAllen | TX | USA | Posted: 11:34 AM on 07.24.09 |
->> "Does it make sense to put an inexpensive piece of glass in front of an expensive lens?"
How about an expensive piece of glass in front of that expensive lens? I've used good quality UV filters (currently B+W) on all my lenses for decades and have had three broken by rocks etc. I think that it's way better to spend $70 to replace a filter than $300 to replace a front element. |
|
Jeff Mills, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Columbus | OH | USA | Posted: 11:39 AM on 07.24.09 |
->> The cost of a quality filter can often be up there with the cost of repairing a lens element in many cases, especially if your buy filters for all your lenses. I've seen folks drop a few hundred dollars on a few filters and that same money could pay for insurance premiums or repairs if something does happen.
Damages I've seen from drops or impacts always damage not only the filter but the front element or the lens mount. If its an impact thats only going to damage a filter, then its an impact that probably, repeat, probably wont hurt the front element in the first place. Lens elements and modern multicoatings are incredibily durable and tough these days.
I can easily clean my front elements nanocoatings with some hot breath, but my Hoya filters always smear and streak and need some special fluids. I find them a pain.
Do I still own some filters though ? Yes I do because there are some situations where it does make sense to use them, such as dealing with salt spray, flying mud at a motocross event where if you do get hit it would be easy to take off the filter and keep shooting and so forth.
Does a filter make sense to me though shooting indoors something like basketball ? No, because its just something else in front of my lens and it can cause flare issues/lack of contrast from the overhead lighting.Filters just not providing any useful protection is that case because its of no benifit if a 6 foot 9 guy dives into me on the baseline or I get hit by a ball etc.
So simply use a filter as a tool when the conditions make sense to do so, and when they don't, why not take it off ? It doesn't have to be one way or the other all the time. Theres no commitment. They do unscrew after all and are easy to carry. Its a photo accessory not a lifestyle choice. |
|
Tommy Metthe, Photographer
|
Abilene | TX | | Posted: 2:28 PM on 07.24.09 |
->> I can attest to filters saving a lens that was dropped, I've actually had 2 or 3 filters save lenses that were dropped.
I'll admit, I use the cheap filters, mostly because they don't usually last very long on my lenses. I go through about 3 or 4 a year (on multiple lenses) that get cracked from drops, smashing into stairways, doorknobs, railings and god knows how many other things that I don't even notice. Besides, I doubt the overall quality is degraded anymore than the newsprint actually degrades the picture anyway. |
|
Jeff Mills, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Columbus | OH | USA | Posted: 2:38 PM on 07.24.09 |
->> I really dont understand how a metal screw in filter ring is going to provide any cushioning to protect a lens if its dropped ?
The filter glass will most likley shatter from the shock as its so thin and weak, but did it really protect anything ? The g-shock from the deacceleration isn't reduced with a filter ring really. The likelyhood of internal damage, element decentering et al is still a concern.
What does provide some actual protection is a lenshood though. When the lens hits, the lenshood will crack off and in doing some, reduce the shock to the lens.
Ive dropped lens in such a fashion and the hood gets destroyed but took the intitial impact. I just dont understand how a filter is going to do that.
If its an issue of something like a stone flying at the lens from motorbike etc, then yes, the stone hitting a filter and cracking it instead of impacting the front element and chipping it makes sense but how a thin aluminum ring and wafer thin peice of glass provides any real impact protection to a lens I just can't understand. |
|
Andrew Spear, Student/Intern, Photographer
|
Athens | OH | United States | Posted: 3:51 PM on 07.24.09 |
| ->> I've always looked at filters as a good excuse to not have lens caps. |
|
N. Scott Trimble, Photographer
|
Lake Oswego | OR | USA | Posted: 4:32 PM on 07.24.09 |
->> Sorry, but I have had at least three lens drops that WERE saved by the filter. If you picture force as a wave, then you can see if it hits right, the transmitting power of the wave is redirected out instead of through the barrel. I believe in it as I have yet to replace a lens that was dropped, only the filter.
Now, according to Seth Resnick, he doesn't like filters, and says that especially the UV ones, cause color and sharpness irregularities because the UV filter on the sensor is doing that already. I don't know, but I do take the filter off when I am shooting infinity distance objects, and I do notice a slight sharpness distance. But I don't know |
|
Tim Snow, Photographer
|
Montreal | Qc | Canada | Posted: 5:09 PM on 07.24.09 |
->> I use 'em and love 'em, I honed my skills in punk rock clubs where spit, snot and blood routinely found it's way onto my filters. Some lenses (Canon 16-35 and 17-40 for example) are not water resistant without a filer as the barrel movement can pull water in the lens, whereas a filter "seals" off the front of the lens.
Also, I am pretty sure many of us buy and sell lenses for specific assignments or projects, a filter is a simple way of helping the resale value. If you buy a 85mm 1.2 for 3 shoots for example (and the cost is factored into your quote of course), it would really suck to go to wipe it off and grind a very small unnoticed piece of sand into the front coating. When you go to sell it, you just reduced the asking price by $300 or $400.
Get a top quality filter and put it on your lens the second it comes out of the box...you will never shoot without it, therefore never see the loss of quality! |
|
Nick Morris, Photographer
|
San Marcos | CA | United States | Posted: 1:33 AM on 07.25.09 |
->> one $89.00 UV Filter, one pedestrian cross walk, one pedestrian and one Jeep doing 45 mph. Brake, skid, crack! Had I not had the filter... one $1800 70-200 2.8 IS Canon.
I was the driver and my camera flew off the seat and connected with something on the floor. |
|
Mike Stone, Photographer
|
Dallas | TX | USA | Posted: 9:22 AM on 07.25.09 |
| ->> Not only will the filter protect your lens, it will allow you to continue the assignment. Took a hockey puck to my 70-200, shattered the filter. Removed the filter and finished my assignment. No filter and I would have been screwed. |
|
Chuck Steenburgh, Photographer
|
Lexington | VA | USA | Posted: 9:30 AM on 07.25.09 |
->> Ummm...sorry JJ, but glass is not glass. Ask any chemist. What's in your window pane is different from what's in your lens, even before all the grinding and "working."
Also, I once spoke to a salesman at a Brooklyn camera store who assured me that a $200 Crystal Optics UV filter was absolutely essential to eliminate all the distortion that I'd find in my new Nikon lens. |
|
William Maner, Photographer
|
Biloxi | MS | USA | Posted: 10:28 AM on 07.25.09 |
->> Chuck S..
You mean the $400 Clear Ultima UV filter was a rip-off?? I heard part of the appeal was the ability to help stabilize images...
Geee, I better do something to avoid looking like an ol' country boy in the big city... |
|
Darren Whitley, Photographer
|
Maryville | MO | USA | Posted: 4:32 PM on 07.25.09 |
| ->> In 20 years of shooting, I've broken very few of them. The most recent breakage was walking through the parking lot at Arrowhead a car mirror reached out and smacked the front of my wide-angle lens, which was hanging from my neck, as I passed by. No doubt, it saved the lens. |
|
Jim Colburn, Photo Editor, Photographer
|
McAllen | TX | USA | Posted: 5:13 PM on 07.25.09 |
->> "glass is not glass"
That's just silly. |
|
Chuck Steenburgh, Photographer
|
Lexington | VA | USA | Posted: 5:31 PM on 07.25.09 |
| ->> Yes, I guess I sounded a bit glasinine. Let's just say "not all glass is created equal." |
|
Jason Joseph, Photographer
|
Dublin | OH | USA | Posted: 7:15 AM on 07.27.09 |
| ->> Thanks for "clarifying" that for me Chuck. I can see clearly now:) I must have had a filter on when I came up with that thought. |
|
Eric Canha, Photographer
|
Brockton | MA | United States | Posted: 7:24 PM on 11.08.09 |
->> This morning while getting ready to shoot football I dropped my 70-200 VR from 4-5 feet onto a concrete floor. No carpet, no mats, nothing but a solid raw concrete. The lens hit front first sending out a puff of glass dust. The his was so hard that I had to pry the cap off the front of the lens. As I pried the lens cap off I could hear the glass crunching and rattling. Once the cap came off I poured out a small pool of glass and realized that the ONLY damage to the lens was a 1/8 scratch from having a shard of filter pressed into the front element by the cap.
There is NO DOUBT that a simple filter just saved me a $1600 lens, or whatever the cost of the repair would have been.
The one thing that I really am wondering is whether the glass used in Nikon brand filters is thicker that other filters. Some of the shards were thick enough to make me think that is was part of the lens and not the filter. |
|
Mark Peters, Photographer
|
Highland | IL | USA | Posted: 7:33 PM on 11.08.09 |
| ->> Note to self - don't buy used 70-200 VR from Eric..... |
|
Doug Holleman, Photographer
|
Temple | TX | USA | Posted: 7:38 PM on 11.08.09 |
->> "A filter also prevents you from directly cleaning your front element - slowly wearing away your delicate lens coatings."
I think it's pretty much a wash until you throw in that aspect of it. I keep filters on all of my lenses. I'm pretty rough on my stuff and if I didn't have a filter on my lenses the glass and coatings would be pretty scratched up by now.
I've had lenses saved by filters before. I've also busted filters, but not knowing if it really saved the lens or not. Just a couple of days ago I dropped my 20mm/f2.8 from about 5 feet on flat pavement, it rolled about 10 feet, and there wasn't a scratch or any sign of damage on it except for a chip in the edge of the filter. I was amazed. It really hit hard.
But there are also times when I take the filter off, like shooting into stage lights where they are causing extra flare, and for times when I want to assure ultra-sharpness of a close-up subject. |
|
Eric Canha, Photographer
|
Brockton | MA | United States | Posted: 7:50 PM on 11.08.09 |
->> Doug I thought that I was the only one who took filters off to shoot stage shows. I totally agree that stage lights play funny with filters. Nice to know it isn't just me.
Mark I'll send it off to NPS before it hits the classifieds :) Mixed blessing having the filter on it, I really want the new 70-200 that is coming out. |
|
Steven E. Frischling, Photographer
 |
102 Yards From The Beach | CT | | Posted: 9:02 PM on 11.08.09 |
| ->> Someone here needs to ask SS member Neil Turner why he does not use filters...its a pretty funny story. |
|
David Harpe, Photographer
|
Louisville | KY | USA | Posted: 12:48 AM on 11.09.09 |
| ->> For me it really all depends on the situation. Night spot news in good weather and I do no filter. Point light sources bring out the worst in filters no matter how good they are. Weather or general stuff without point light sources and I use a filter. |
|
N. Scott Trimble, Photographer
|
Lake Oswego | OR | USA | Posted: 1:40 AM on 11.09.09 |
| ->> Ummm...they have protected every drop I ever had. They are so worth it. |
|
Return to --> Message Board Main Index
|