Does a Protection Filter degrade Imagequalit much? [A test]

Zee Char said:

One. I slipped on some rocks two years ago and scratched it. I was exploring Indian Canyon near Palm Springs. Tried to save the cam and lens as best as I could but I clipped the filter on a protruding rock. Your body sure pays the price when you try to protect your cam instead of yourself

Click to expand...

I've done that. I wrecked my knee a few months back trying to not smash my Panny G1 into the ground. Years ago I did the same with my original canon digital rebel. I planted the camera into the ground. It came out fine. I didn't think the Panny could take that kind of abuse.

Of course in the film days I bounced my old minolta off a curb, picked it up and kept shooting. Actually I kicked my canon A2 down a flight of stairs and it came out fine. (Be careful if trying to catch a camera on your foot.) I don't think my digital stuff is that tough.

who cares? I've been using the same old Hoya UVs for years now (3 of em).

But when I look at them close, the surfaces don't look like new anymore, even after a decent clean up (due to all the rain spots, dirt, grease, and subsequent cleaning I've done over the years). Good job I don't have to worry what my lens elements would have looked like if I had treated them in the same way as the filters though.

Look - what's the problem. Just continue living your life on the edge and don't use a filter. I've got no problem with that! And just let me play it safe and use 'em.

Makinations said:

steve1984 said:

...spend £50 (less than 5% of the cost of the lens) to protect it from scratches, dirt, finger smudges? I know what I'd rather do.

I'm not a pro, so I don't get paid to take pictures and so I would like to take care of my expensive "hobby" gear. And everytime I clean the front element I don't have to worry how hard I have to rub to get any marks off. And for the rare occasions when a filter might affect the picture, I can just remove it.

So what's the big deal with me using a filter?

And no, I'm sure less than 1% of those google hits were actually about a scratched front element, but it was merely to make the point that sometimes front elements can get scratched, and if a filter had been fitted it would have probably stopped that from happening.

Makinations said:

I'm sure every one of those 400k hits is an individual example of a scratched lens and not just references to threads like this.

I've something like 12 canon lenses. I've never scratched one. Even the one I dropped and bent wasn't scratched. At $100 a filter (and some would be more) that is a fair amount of lens repair funds available to me. (Even the bent lens only cost me $150 to fix.) Now if I hadn't invested in that hedge fund I'd still have that money...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Makinations said:

Zee Char said:

One. I slipped on some rocks two years ago and scratched it. I was exploring Indian Canyon near Palm Springs. Tried to save the cam and lens as best as I could but I clipped the filter on a protruding rock. Your body sure pays the price when you try to protect your cam instead of yourself

Click to expand...

I've done that. I wrecked my knee a few months back trying to not smash my Panny G1 into the ground. Years ago I did the same with my original canon digital rebel. I planted the camera into the ground. It came out fine. I didn't think the Panny could take that kind of abuse.

Of course in the film days I bounced my old minolta off a curb, picked it up and kept shooting. Actually I kicked my canon A2 down a flight of stairs and it came out fine. (Be careful if trying to catch a camera on your foot.) I don't think my digital stuff is that tough.

Click to expand...

I'll agree the digital stuff is not that tough. I have only had two mishaps and they both happened on that trip. I forgot to zip up my backpack camera bag, picked it up and out flew my 3 week old 70-200 F4 onto concrete. No physical damage but it sure rattled inside. Sent to NJ and told them what happened. IS assembly was messed up and they only charged me for the parts. I was impressed.

--
The solution is always simple. Getting there is the hard part.

I added this text to my post after you had read it ...

steve1984 said:

And there is no issue with you using a filter. Just posting 400k hits is over stating it a bit. I'm trying (these days) to not over state the case against using them. I tend to use them when I think the lens will have a pretty good chance of being hit. Rally racing and stuff like that.

Click to expand...

It really pays to not take anything at face value and to test everything. I've gotten so many ugly surprises over the years. Who'd ever thnk that a dedicated Nikon hood would cause flare on the lens it was designed for? This same lens had higher resolution with a Nikon L37c filter than it did without - go figure.

So I test everything as well as I can; and hang out on forums to try and pick up more good ideas, and then test those. At this point, I believe that a multi-coated clear filter with well blackened frame and no bright edges has no effect on the image.
--
Jerry

"cleaning the lens will damage the front element" is one of the biggest bogus falsehoods out there. Using proper cleaning technique + proper solution + disposable optical tissue will keep your front lens element pristine and new. I have lenses which are over 25 years old, and the front element and coating are as good as day #1

Alll you need is this



Pack it in a zip lock bag during travel to avoid any sand adhering to the tissue and you are golden

Makinations said:

I already wear a UV filter body suit. It is called Coppertone SPF 30.

Click to expand...

Good For You!!

You'll be happy to learn that Sunscreens have to pass rigorous testing and receive seal of approvals from various dermatology and health government agencies.

Protection Filters? = -0- Nada

The testing performed on sunscreen follows a well established rigid protocol and all testing documentation is recorded and accessible, it includes specific methodology used, names of scientists who conducted it, their credentials, etc.

http://www.suncarelab.com/documents/InvitroEvaluationofSunscreenProtection.pdf

Protection Filters? -0-.....zero , their lone video trick is shrouded in mystery, they won't even acknowledge who their "scientists" were and their credentials.

Scientifically Tested Sunscreen, with seals of approval from the AAD (Amer. Association of Dermatology) costs = $10

Untested, unverified and unapproved "Protection Filters" cost: $50 -$100

But there is a sucker born every minute and a 77mm Protection filter waiting for him

Although I am not defending (or condoning for that matter) all of what VRII says, he does make some relevant points.

I agree that the "scientific" evidence - i.e. the results of controlled experiments regarding filters used for protection is simplly not there and all we get is advertising "hype". However, that doesn't completely invalidate the anecdotal evidence which shows that a lot of people are happy using good quality filters for protection. Indeed even though you pooh-pooh anecdotal evidence (fishing stories) as evidence you actually resorted to the same thing yourself in defence of no filter.

My take on all this, and I have been using filters for protection on most of my lenses, in no particular order, is this:

A filter will not protect a lens from breakage. A filter may or may not scratch the lens if it breaks. A filter will degrade the image (even if only slightly). A filter will protect the front element from scratches, dirt, finger prints, rain drops and other debris. Cleaning a filter is less problematic than cleaning the front element. Replacing a filter is cheaper than replacing a lens. Too many people are "anal" about their lenses and don't understand how to clean them properly and safely. Buying good filters for protection is expensive and just because you have pristine lenses after 30 years doesn't mean that it is because of the filters. Not using filters and not having any scratches after 30 years doesn't mean that filters are useless.

You can probably see that I am ambivalent about filters and I am not going to dictate to anyone about using or not using filters for protection. It does seem though that everyone is "ganging up" on VRII more because of his "manner" than the substance of what he is saying.

Bottom line, you can't scientifically quantify people's feelings about security when using protection filters and you can't dismiss the true protection a filter can provide simply because of lack of experimental proof. By the same token, it is true that filter advertisers play to (prey on?) photographers' fears (as does insurance or extended warranty, but they are other stories) and that most people fearful and careful enough to purchase filters in the first place are unlikely to ever need the protection provided by that very same filter.

Let us see less heat and more light on the subject as the OP has done and less invective from all sides.

I use lens cleaning fluid. My fisheye is scratched. In the real world scratches and finger prints happen to all my optics. So far 3 filters destroyed,all lenses saved.

One 82mm BW filter had to be cut off. My gear works for me not the other way round.
Filters more handy in my experience.

I don't claim filters are "useless" in fact they have many uses, but "protection" is not one of them. My contention is with the "bad science" , "FUD Marketing" "specious reasoning" and "false claims" made by the manufacturers. Whether they relate to filters, rust proof under coating, engine fix-it, scratch-b-gone, weight loss pills, the turbo cooker, etc. it doesn't matter, the infomercial world is filled with unsubstantiated wacky claims, and 30 minute T.V. infomercials which try to pass off as "evidence" or "science"

want to have a good laugh? check out infomercial-hell http://www.infomercial-hell.com/ when all these products are tested independently by companies like consumer reports, their claims are blown out of the water. I'm hoping that they test "protection" filters soon so we can see from an independent source what their "protective" virtues are.

What a timely topic. Just got back from vacation in Vietnam. I'd slipped, down on one knee, front of lens hit the concrete hard. Totally shattered the filter, and drove it so hard into the lens that the thread bound up and the filter couldn't be removed. I removed all the glass pieces in Vietnam using eyebrow tweezers, the lens tested fine, used it for the rest of the vacation with the filter ring still in place. Although the filter ring was badly bent, the lens appear to have no damage. I'm convinced I can saw the ring enough to remove it safety (but not while Jet lagged )

I'm also convinced that if the filter wasn't on, it would have been the edge of the lens that was bent, not the filter.

You can go ahead and do your own A/B test - drop your lens with and w/o a filter and see what happens. Me, I've hit the front element enough on vacation so that I'm convinced.

Did you have a lens hood on?

tko said:

What a timely topic. Just got back from vacation in Vietnam. I'd slipped, down on one knee, front of lens hit the concrete hard. Totally shattered the filter, and drove it so hard into the lens that the thread bound up and the filter couldn't be removed. I removed all the glass pieces in Vietnam using eyebrow tweezers, the lens tested fine, used it for the rest of the vacation with the filter ring still in place. Although the filter ring was badly bent, the lens appear to have no damage. I'm convinced I can saw the ring enough to remove it safety (but not while Jet lagged )

I'm also convinced that if the filter wasn't on, it would have been the edge of the lens that was bent, not the filter.

You can go ahead and do your own A/B test - drop your lens with and w/o a filter and see what happens. Me, I've hit the front element enough on vacation so that I'm convinced.

Click to expand...

VRII welcome to my block list (nt)

VRII said:

Just as the precursor against the infamous "unexpected flying debris" it has been proven that the front lens element it's significantly stronger than the thin glass filter and that a shattered glass filter is more likely to create significant damage by having hundreds of sharp jagged edges scratching the front lens element.

Click to expand...

Not sure I understand why you can make statements with no proof, but you want absurd specs on the filter toughness. Here's a simple test we can do: get a t-shirt, rub some sand and dirt on it, these use it for cleaning. I'll do my filter if you'll test your lens

Just my 2 cents...

Most "accidents" where people get their front element scratched would be prevented by using a lens hood...a lens hood can/does result in better pictures.

Also, the smallest distortion that any filter would introduce can only get "magnified" as it passes through the actual lens elements.

UV is the only reason I can see for using a filter and only when needed.
GaryM

Just want to thank all who stayed polite. I read some very interesting aspects and arguments. I just think it is important to with the facts, or the tests for that matter.

I will do another test this week, with two new Setups:

1) Bright small light sources. How much do they create ghosts?
2) AF Quality. I am planning to go to 300mm because the lens is sharper there.

I will open a new thread, else it will go unnoticed.
Any wishes?

Greetings,
nate
--
http://www.striking.ch

VRII said:

ladp said:

Now you are dodging a simple question like a politician. How do you know, as stated, that their test failed 99 times out of 100?

Click to expand...

OMG are you serious?

It's basic algebra, my 11 yr old daughter can show you how to figure it out in 2 minutes.

remember the old X + Y = Z , very simple bubba, we have the value for X and for Z, all we need to do is figure out Y

On the most basic level, if you have test results with a success rate of 60% , what is the failure rate? ....Excellent job Bubba, 40% (60+Y = 100 / y = 40)

Now I'd like to help validate your dreams and hopes, but Hoya refuses to release the specs, therefore each testing unit is give an equal distribution value of 1 or 1% .

Based on the information they provided, we know for a fact that their succes rate based on the video = 1 so here we go ( 1+Y= 100 / y =99) your failure rate is 99%

Click to expand...

Unfortunately, you are nothing more than a demagogue.

Where is your evidence that front elements are stronger (one of your other posts) ? There are 0 tests as far as I know, so, let's be generous and assign it a 0.01 (instead of 0). So, therefore the failure of a front element is 99.99%.... Not.

Regarding the Hoya HD, I can prove you wrong right here. Go to the Hoya test site, which you claim is just all snake-oil, you will find there are actually two tests. And yes, careful examination of the videos shows that it is two independent tests that show the HD not breaking. Clearly, you, the one so scientifically minded one, have not figured that out. So 2 out of 2 HD pass, and 2 out of 2 non-HD fail. It's not great statistics, but sure beats your demagogy. And there is nothing wrong with the test setup if you use the same one to compare different filter glass.

Of course, you also conveniently never replied to my answer that indeed it's very easy to get transmission data for filters, and in fact, these data are available.

So, coming back to filters, overall, I agree with the summary of the pros and cons of filters provided by Chris59, and we can look at the facts that are available, and then everyone can then make their own educated choice, depending on their own needs.

--
Life is short, time to zoom in ©

Wayndom said:

Obviously, Canon doesn't think they degrade IQ, since they've gone to the trouble of weatherproofing their L lenses in a way that REQUIRES a filter to complete the package...

Click to expand...

Out of curiosity: which of the weather sealed L lenses do need that? I am aware oft the 50 L only. But i might be wrong.....

Andy

--
whatever you do - do it with passion.

http://www.gefrorene-zeit.de

GaryM said:

Just my 2 cents...

Most "accidents" where people get their front element scratched would be prevented by using a lens hood...a lens hood can/does result in better pictures.

Also, the smallest distortion that any filter would introduce can only get "magnified" as it passes through the actual lens elements.

UV is the only reason I can see for using a filter and only when needed.

Click to expand...

And UV is the very last reason i see in using a filter. There is so much glas in modern lenses and a UV filter in the filtration pack on top of the sensor that actually only the minimalst ammount of UV light hits the sensor itself....

The flters which i see usefull in the digital aera are grad (or solid gray) and polarizer..... All of course just my opinion.

Andy

--
whatever you do - do it with passion.

http://www.gefrorene-zeit.de

The 17-40 does.