Protective filter… or not? I say beware of filter quality.

Started Apr 15, 2014 | Discussions thread
cplunk Senior Member • Posts: 1,834
Re: Protective filter… or not? I say beware of filter quality.

Looking at BH photo's website, it looks like a "high quality" UV / clear multi coated filter, 55mm is likely going to run $35 or up.

To protect a lens that's replaceable from multiple sources for around $120.

Those economics don't make a lot of sense to me. I'm also pretty sure the front of that lens is A LOT tougher than most of these filters, and that many drops cracking filters might do absolutely no damage to the lens.  I have at least one lens with a seriously bent filter ring (Minolta 85mm, the oldest original A mount 85mm) that I bought that way. I can only image what caused the damage, but I can't beleive a filter would have lived, the lens is fine, except for the bent ring that can no longer attach a filter. I seen similar on several lenses.

(most of my lenses are replaceable for under $300, I only use filters on a select few that don't fit hoods well, like the Minolta 28-135 f4-4.5 But even then, I don't use the lens much outside where I feel it's at risk and needs "protection" because I'd also be more worried about flare)

On much more expensive lenses, it makes more economic sense to spend the price for a good filter to protect that expensive lens. Of course, you spent all that much for the best possible image quality, and the filter ads potential for degrading that.

 cplunk's gear list:cplunk's gear list
Sony RX100 Sony Alpha DSLR-A900 Sony Alpha DSLR-A330 Sony Alpha a99 Sony a6300 +19 more
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow