Reading mode: Light Dark

For people who use protective lens filters

Go to last post
stevo23 said:
...
Click to expand...
stevo23 said:
I love infinity mirrors! The article reminds me of several of my course in fibre optics.

I'm still not sure how the focal length contributes to this effect. I guess the distance between two the reflective surfaces increases the offset? Hopefully modern coatings such as those on Exus filters get rid of this issue.
Click to expand...
My understanding is that light rays that are close to the centerline are more likely to be the ones that bounce back and forth. With a telephoto lens, those rays constitute a much higher percentage of the image.
stevo23 said:
As far as curves - I'm not aware of any filters that are curved.
Click to expand...
Nor am I, which is why I am concerned about image quality issues when I have a filter on the lens.

However, the article does suggest that at least with the listed Canon super telephoto lenses, there is no need for an external "protective" filter, as there is a built-in protective element (which is curved to minimize flare/ghosting issues).
 
Michael Fryd said:
stevo23 said:
...

I love infinity mirrors! The article reminds me of several of my course in fibre optics.

I'm still not sure how the focal length contributes to this effect. I guess the distance between two the reflective surfaces increases the offset? Hopefully modern coatings such as those on Exus filters get rid of this issue.
Click to expand...
My understanding is that light rays that are close to the centerline are more likely to be the ones that bounce back and forth. With a telephoto lens, those rays constitute a much higher percentage of the image.
Michael Fryd said:
As far as curves - I'm not aware of any filters that are curved.
Click to expand...
Nor am I, which is why I am concerned about image quality issues when I have a filter on the lens.

However, the article does suggest that at least with the listed Canon super telephoto lenses, there is no need for an external "protective" filter, as there is a built-in protective element (which is curved to minimize flare/ghosting issues).
Click to expand...
Good if you have one for sure.
 
Mackiesback said:
tbcass said:
Never in a million years did I expect my post to trigger so much debate on whether to use a protective filter or not. Why do people care what other people do?

--
Tom
Look at the picture, not the pixels
Click to expand...
Seriously? Are you new to forums? LOL. This topic is always one of "those", and it was predicted early in this thread because this is the result every time.

Personally, I don't care what other people do. I never use clear filters of any kind. I have bought used lenses with filters on them and the filters caused issues in some cases. One case I thought I had a dud lens and forgot that it arrived with a filter on it. I removed it and viola, no lens problem at all.

So, my stance on filters if that I have no use for clear ones, but when I am buying used lenses, I like buying ones from people that have always used them. To each his own.
Click to expand...
True story i bought a used lens recently that had 2 filters on it. Not sure if the person shot with it or just needed a place to park the spare filter.
 
stevo23 said:
Michael Fryd said:
stevo23 said:
...

I love infinity mirrors! The article reminds me of several of my course in fibre optics.

I'm still not sure how the focal length contributes to this effect. I guess the distance between two the reflective surfaces increases the offset? Hopefully modern coatings such as those on Exus filters get rid of this issue.
Click to expand...
My understanding is that light rays that are close to the centerline are more likely to be the ones that bounce back and forth. With a telephoto lens, those rays constitute a much higher percentage of the image.
stevo23 said:
As far as curves - I'm not aware of any filters that are curved.
Click to expand...
Nor am I, which is why I am concerned about image quality issues when I have a filter on the lens.

However, the article does suggest that at least with the listed Canon super telephoto lenses, there is no need for an external "protective" filter, as there is a built-in protective element (which is curved to minimize flare/ghosting issues).
Click to expand...
Good if you have one for sure.
Click to expand...
The economics of protective filters varies with the cost of the front element repair.

The economics of spending $50 in an attempt to protect a $500 front element are not the same as spending $50 to protect the front element of a lens that costs $49 new.
 
Michael Fryd said:
stevo23 said:
Michael Fryd said:
stevo23 said:
...

I love infinity mirrors! The article reminds me of several of my course in fibre optics.

I'm still not sure how the focal length contributes to this effect. I guess the distance between two the reflective surfaces increases the offset? Hopefully modern coatings such as those on Exus filters get rid of this issue.
Click to expand...
My understanding is that light rays that are close to the centerline are more likely to be the ones that bounce back and forth. With a telephoto lens, those rays constitute a much higher percentage of the image.
Michael Fryd said:
As far as curves - I'm not aware of any filters that are curved.
Click to expand...
Nor am I, which is why I am concerned about image quality issues when I have a filter on the lens.

However, the article does suggest that at least with the listed Canon super telephoto lenses, there is no need for an external "protective" filter, as there is a built-in protective element (which is curved to minimize flare/ghosting issues).
Click to expand...
Good if you have one for sure.
Click to expand...
The economics of protective filters varies with the cost of the front element repair.

The economics of spending $50 in an attempt to protect a $500 front element are not the same as spending $50 to protect the front element of a lens that costs $49 new.
Click to expand...
Yes, this is true.
 
Michael Fryd said:
stevo23 said:
Michael Fryd said:
stevo23 said:
...

I love infinity mirrors! The article reminds me of several of my course in fibre optics.

I'm still not sure how the focal length contributes to this effect. I guess the distance between two the reflective surfaces increases the offset? Hopefully modern coatings such as those on Exus filters get rid of this issue.
Click to expand...
My understanding is that light rays that are close to the centerline are more likely to be the ones that bounce back and forth. With a telephoto lens, those rays constitute a much higher percentage of the image.
Michael Fryd said:
As far as curves - I'm not aware of any filters that are curved.
Click to expand...
Nor am I, which is why I am concerned about image quality issues when I have a filter on the lens.

However, the article does suggest that at least with the listed Canon super telephoto lenses, there is no need for an external "protective" filter, as there is a built-in protective element (which is curved to minimize flare/ghosting issues).
Click to expand...
Good if you have one for sure.
Click to expand...
The economics of protective filters varies with the cost of the front element repair.

The economics of spending $50 in an attempt to protect a $500 front element are not the same as spending $50 to protect the front element of a lens that costs $49 new.
Click to expand...
True, and it depends on your own personal track record. in 30 years of shooting, I have never scratched the lens and only once dropped the whole assembly. I never even get fingerprints on the element.
 
Mackiesback said:
Michael Fryd said:
stevo23 said:
Michael Fryd said:
stevo23 said:
...

I love infinity mirrors! The article reminds me of several of my course in fibre optics.

I'm still not sure how the focal length contributes to this effect. I guess the distance between two the reflective surfaces increases the offset? Hopefully modern coatings such as those on Exus filters get rid of this issue.
Click to expand...
My understanding is that light rays that are close to the centerline are more likely to be the ones that bounce back and forth. With a telephoto lens, those rays constitute a much higher percentage of the image.
Mackiesback said:
As far as curves - I'm not aware of any filters that are curved.
Click to expand...
Nor am I, which is why I am concerned about image quality issues when I have a filter on the lens.

However, the article does suggest that at least with the listed Canon super telephoto lenses, there is no need for an external "protective" filter, as there is a built-in protective element (which is curved to minimize flare/ghosting issues).
Click to expand...
Good if you have one for sure.
Click to expand...
The economics of protective filters varies with the cost of the front element repair.

The economics of spending $50 in an attempt to protect a $500 front element are not the same as spending $50 to protect the front element of a lens that costs $49 new.
Click to expand...
True, and it depends on your own personal track record. in 30 years of shooting, I have never scratched the lens and only once dropped the whole assembly. I never even get fingerprints on the element.
Click to expand...
I'm pretty hard on my gear and I'm just a hobbyist. Every lens I've had in the past got chips on the front element, were always getting smudged and scratched. So I started putting the filters on.
 
stevo23 said:
Mackiesback said:
stevo23 said:
....
Click to expand...
True, and it depends on your own personal track record. in 30 years of shooting, I have never scratched the lens and only once dropped the whole assembly. I never even get fingerprints on the element.
Click to expand...
I'm pretty hard on my gear and I'm just a hobbyist. Every lens I've had in the past got chips on the front element, were always getting smudged and scratched. So I started putting the filters on.
Click to expand...
This suggests that the work habits of the individual photographer is an important factor.

Yet another reason to believe that the solution that is best for one person, may not be best for someone else.

====

However, if we know whether damaging the front elements is common or rare, we can make general recommendations. These can be a starting point for making an individual recommendation.

I don't have any scientific data, but my informal polling suggests that damaging a front element is rare. Unfortunately this was not a scientific survey, and has a rather large margin of error.
 
Mackiesback said:
True, and it depends on your own personal track record. in 30 years of shooting, I have never scratched the lens and only once dropped the whole assembly. I never even get fingerprints on the element.
Click to expand...
I am the same, though only 17 years.

I once opened the door to my car and the camera which was sitting on the seat, its strap was tangled in the door so as I opened the door my camera and lens were ejected from the car to land on the tarmac at my feet. Minor damage only luckily. The lens hood was on, I doubt a filter would have helped.

Mark_A

Thread for Sunrise & Sunset pictures (part 2!)
 
Michael Fryd said:
stevo23 said:
Mackiesback said:
Michael Fryd said:
....
Click to expand...
True, and it depends on your own personal track record. in 30 years of shooting, I have never scratched the lens and only once dropped the whole assembly. I never even get fingerprints on the element.
Click to expand...
I'm pretty hard on my gear and I'm just a hobbyist. Every lens I've had in the past got chips on the front element, were always getting smudged and scratched. So I started putting the filters on.
Click to expand...
This suggests that the work habits of the individual photographer is an important factor.

Yet another reason to believe that the solution that is best for one person, may not be best for someone else.
Click to expand...
I'm the guy who used to toss my Nikon FM into the floor of my '79 Ford Galaxie and drive off. I don't cherish cameras like they are some kind of jeweled decoration. They're a tool. I don't treat my screwdrivers and sockets that way either. They get an occasional coat of oil and get tossed back into the toolbox from whence they came. Unfortunately, my cameras have glass that doesn't stand up quite as well to that kind of treatment. Even if I were never to chip a front element again, I would much rather clean, smudge and otherwise get sand on a filter than a front element.
 
Mark_A said:
Mackiesback said:
True, and it depends on your own personal track record. in 30 years of shooting, I have never scratched the lens and only once dropped the whole assembly. I never even get fingerprints on the element.
Click to expand...
I am the same, though only 17 years.

I once opened the door to my car and the camera which was sitting on the seat, its strap was tangled in the door so as I opened the door my camera and lens were ejected from the car to land on the tarmac at my feet. Minor damage only luckily. The lens hood was on, I doubt a filter would have helped.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately, this kind of experience is only "if, maybe" and anecdotal. I saw an article where a Nikon 24-70 fell off a table and literally cracked in two. So the severity of the fall doesn't seem to have a direct correlation to damage sustained.

Keep in mind, very few would be under the illusion that a filter would help such a situation as yours. What the protector crowd is about is keeping sand, grit, grime, pebbles and other contaminants off the front element. Like the time I was suddenly in the middle of a little dust devil that whipped up near Phantom Ranch in the grand Canyon - a little rock must have hit the front of my camera as I had a chip in the filter. Not that I mind a chipped lens for myself, but it's difficult to sell for much.
 
stevo23 said:
stevo23 said:
...
Click to expand...
I'm the guy who used to toss my Nikon FM into the floor of my '79 Ford Galaxie and drive off. I don't cherish cameras like they are some kind of jeweled decoration. They're a tool. I don't treat my screwdrivers and sockets that way either. They get an occasional coat of oil and get tossed back into the toolbox from whence they came. Unfortunately, my cameras have glass that doesn't stand up quite as well to that kind of treatment. Even if I were never to chip a front element again, I would much rather clean, smudge and otherwise get sand on a filter than a front element.
Click to expand...
If you prefer to clean a filter than a front element, then that's what you should do. There's nothing wrong with spending a little more money if it makes you happy.

However, these are your personal preferences. Another person may not have a preference as to whether to clean a filter or a lens. Some people worry about image quality, and would rather shoot without a filter.

It's differences like this that make it important to separate out the various issues.
  • We have image quality concerns
  • We have damage concerns
  • We have financial concerns
How relevant these are will vary from individual to individual and situation to situation.
 
stevo23 said:
...
Keep in mind, very few would be under the illusion that a filter would help such a situation as yours. What the protector crowd is about is keeping sand, grit, grime, pebbles and other contaminants off the front element. Like the time I was suddenly in the middle of a little dust devil that whipped up near Phantom Ranch in the grand Canyon - a little rock must have hit the front of my camera as I had a chip in the filter. Not that I mind a chipped lens for myself, but it's difficult to sell for much.
Click to expand...
You are implying that a bare front element would have been damaged. Front elements tend to be made from much thicker glass than filters. It's possible that the pebble that damaged your filter, would not have damaged a bare front element.
 
stevo23 said:
Michael Fryd said:
stevo23 said:
Mackiesback said:
stevo23 said:
....
Click to expand...
True, and it depends on your own personal track record. in 30 years of shooting, I have never scratched the lens and only once dropped the whole assembly. I never even get fingerprints on the element.
Click to expand...
I'm pretty hard on my gear and I'm just a hobbyist. Every lens I've had in the past got chips on the front element, were always getting smudged and scratched. So I started putting the filters on.
Click to expand...
This suggests that the work habits of the individual photographer is an important factor.

Yet another reason to believe that the solution that is best for one person, may not be best for someone else.
Click to expand...
I'm the guy who used to toss my Nikon FM into the floor of my '79 Ford Galaxie and drive off. I don't cherish cameras like they are some kind of jeweled decoration. They're a tool. I don't treat my screwdrivers and sockets that way either. They get an occasional coat of oil and get tossed back into the toolbox from whence they came. Unfortunately, my cameras have glass that doesn't stand up quite as well to that kind of treatment. Even if I were never to chip a front element again, I would much rather clean, smudge and otherwise get sand on a filter than a front element.
Click to expand...
I should mention if you knock around a lens hard enough you could throw the elements out of collimation and lose sharpness.
 
Michael Fryd said:
stevo23 said:
Michael Fryd said:
...
Click to expand...
I'm the guy who used to toss my Nikon FM into the floor of my '79 Ford Galaxie and drive off. I don't cherish cameras like they are some kind of jeweled decoration. They're a tool. I don't treat my screwdrivers and sockets that way either. They get an occasional coat of oil and get tossed back into the toolbox from whence they came. Unfortunately, my cameras have glass that doesn't stand up quite as well to that kind of treatment. Even if I were never to chip a front element again, I would much rather clean, smudge and otherwise get sand on a filter than a front element.
Click to expand...
If you prefer to clean a filter than a front element, then that's what you should do. There's nothing wrong with spending a little more money if it makes you happy.

However, these are your personal preferences. Another person may not have a preference as to whether to clean a filter or a lens. Some people worry about image quality, and would rather shoot without a filter.

It's differences like this that make it important to separate out the various issues.
  • We have image quality concerns
  • We have damage concerns
  • We have financial concerns
How relevant these are will vary from individual to individual and situation to situation.
Click to expand...
Exactly. And to be sure, there are many times when image quality isn't an issue. And to be clear, I generally only get a filter if I have a large front element that is fairly exposed.
 
Last edited:
Michael Fryd said:
stevo23 said:
...

Keep in mind, very few would be under the illusion that a filter would help such a situation as yours. What the protector crowd is about is keeping sand, grit, grime, pebbles and other contaminants off the front element. Like the time I was suddenly in the middle of a little dust devil that whipped up near Phantom Ranch in the grand Canyon - a little rock must have hit the front of my camera as I had a chip in the filter. Not that I mind a chipped lens for myself, but it's difficult to sell for much.
Click to expand...
You are implying that a bare front element would have been damaged.
Click to expand...
An "if, maybe" situation. Not a chance worth taking for me.
Michael Fryd said:
Front elements tend to be made from much thicker glass than filters. It's possible that the pebble that damaged your filter, would not have damaged a bare front element.
Click to expand...
Exactly. And there are multiple examples the other way.
 
BattleBrat said:
stevo23 said:
Michael Fryd said:
stevo23 said:
Mackiesback said:
BattleBrat said:
....
Click to expand...
True, and it depends on your own personal track record. in 30 years of shooting, I have never scratched the lens and only once dropped the whole assembly. I never even get fingerprints on the element.
Click to expand...
I'm pretty hard on my gear and I'm just a hobbyist. Every lens I've had in the past got chips on the front element, were always getting smudged and scratched. So I started putting the filters on.
Click to expand...
This suggests that the work habits of the individual photographer is an important factor.

Yet another reason to believe that the solution that is best for one person, may not be best for someone else.
Click to expand...
I'm the guy who used to toss my Nikon FM into the floor of my '79 Ford Galaxie and drive off. I don't cherish cameras like they are some kind of jeweled decoration. They're a tool. I don't treat my screwdrivers and sockets that way either. They get an occasional coat of oil and get tossed back into the toolbox from whence they came. Unfortunately, my cameras have glass that doesn't stand up quite as well to that kind of treatment. Even if I were never to chip a front element again, I would much rather clean, smudge and otherwise get sand on a filter than a front element.
Click to expand...
I should mention if you knock around a lens hard enough you could throw the elements out of collimation and lose sharpness.
Click to expand...
Not the old Nikon baby. Beat the crap out of it and it still performed superbly.
 
stevo23 said:
Michael Fryd said:
stevo23 said:
...

Keep in mind, very few would be under the illusion that a filter would help such a situation as yours. What the protector crowd is about is keeping sand, grit, grime, pebbles and other contaminants off the front element. Like the time I was suddenly in the middle of a little dust devil that whipped up near Phantom Ranch in the grand Canyon - a little rock must have hit the front of my camera as I had a chip in the filter. Not that I mind a chipped lens for myself, but it's difficult to sell for much.
Click to expand...
You are implying that a bare front element would have been damaged.
Click to expand...
An "if, maybe" situation. Not a chance worth taking for me.
stevo23 said:
Front elements tend to be made from much thicker glass than filters. It's possible that the pebble that damaged your filter, would not have damaged a bare front element.
Click to expand...
Exactly. And there are multiple examples the other way.
Click to expand...
That's an emotional answer, and that's OK.

Some people will always buy lottery tickets, because there's a chance that's it's a winning ticket.

With lottery tickets, the odds are almost always against you. Over the long run, the cost of the lottery tickets will likely exceed your winnings.

With filters it can vary. For some people the cost of the filters exceeds any savings from reduced repairs, for some some the filters cost less.

From a financial standpoint, it doesn't make sense to consider the magnitude of a result, without also considering the likelihood of that result. That's true for lottery tickets and filters.

This is not to say you shouldn't buy lottery tickets. it can be fun to imaging what life would be like if you won a $400 million jackpot. If you can afford them, and they make you happy, go ahead and buy a few lottery tickets. On the other hand, if your goal is maximizing your retirement savings, you are better off not buying those tickets.
 
Michael Fryd said:
stevo23 said:
Michael Fryd said:
stevo23 said:
...

Keep in mind, very few would be under the illusion that a filter would help such a situation as yours. What the protector crowd is about is keeping sand, grit, grime, pebbles and other contaminants off the front element. Like the time I was suddenly in the middle of a little dust devil that whipped up near Phantom Ranch in the grand Canyon - a little rock must have hit the front of my camera as I had a chip in the filter. Not that I mind a chipped lens for myself, but it's difficult to sell for much.
Click to expand...
You are implying that a bare front element would have been damaged.
Click to expand...
An "if, maybe" situation. Not a chance worth taking for me.
Michael Fryd said:
Front elements tend to be made from much thicker glass than filters. It's possible that the pebble that damaged your filter, would not have damaged a bare front element.
Click to expand...
Exactly. And there are multiple examples the other way.
Click to expand...
That's an emotional answer, and that's OK.
Click to expand...
Not emotional, it was a statement of fact. People state it in both directions was my meaning. IE, "if my filter hadn't been there, I would have damaged my lens" with the corollary, "I doubt a filter would have protected my lens in that situation." These are anecdotal answers, assumptive. I was stating the fact that these answers exist in both directions.
Michael Fryd said:
Some people will always buy lottery tickets, because there's a chance that's it's a winning ticket.
Click to expand...
Except that the chances are different here.
 
I remember photographing waterfalls in Wales, must of been something in the mist droplets of water which coated the element, it took a lot of cleaning.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

L
  • Solved
Do you use K&F UV for your MF lens?
Replies
11
Views
10K
GeoffHarris
G
W
  • Poll Poll
On your 14-30mm f/4, how often have you used filters between 14-23mm?
2
Replies
24
Views
96K
PIOT
P
S
Leave filters on the lens, yes or no? Afraid of get stuck!
3 4 5
Replies
84
Views
8K
Mako2011
Mako2011
B
Advice on lens protection in sand ME trip
Replies
19
Views
11K
Dick Dastardly
Dick Dastardly
P
Sony 4/16-35 PZ G and magnetiv CPL
Replies
10
Views
6K
Impulses
I

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top