Reading mode: Light Dark

What do you think about using a protective filter on a premium lens?

Go to last post
Skeeterbytes said:
Yikes!

On a ride once my front tire got caught in a gap between the bike trail and shoulder, sending me over the bar and down to the pavement. While I didn't smack my noggin on the ground the bike arced around the front axle and smacked me on the back of the (helmetless) head hard enough to bend a seat stay. Don't actually know if a helmet would have stopped that but probably would have at least deflected it.

At least we're around to tell our tales!

Rick
Click to expand...
I was out of work for a week (left shoulder) per doctor's orders. ER nurse was giving me hell for not wearing a helmet until I told my story. Bicycle was totaled as the frame was bent. When I went back to work my supervisor had to do a fact finder on my accident. He asked me why I wasn't wearing an accident. I told him there were three answers.

A. None of your business.

B. Not required by law.

C. I was stupid.

I told him the answer was C, I was stupid. :-)
 
Carlos U said:
Nature photographer John Shaw, quoted from one of his books:

"Some photographers leave UV or haze filters permanently mounted on their lenses, saying that doing so offers protection for the lenses. I've often wondered what they are protecting against. If it is dirt, moist and fingerprints, then the filter should be taken off before every shot, otherwise, they are shooting through all that dirt. Of course, they could keep the filter clean, but why not then just keep the lens clean?"
Click to expand...
And I agree, although, if you take the filter off to shoot, leaving fingerprints, moisture and dirt on it, you won't have to clean them up from the surface of the front element. My point is, if dirt, moisture and fingerprints fall in the filter, is easier, faster (and safer) to clean them up with a rocket blower, a brush or simply the edge of your shirt, than having to do the clean-room procedure to clean the front element, without risking scratching it.
Carlos U said:
Obviously, if you are shooting near the sea where there's water spray or wind and sand, or shooting a bike race where there could be mud splash, or any other circumstance that could harm the lens coatings or even the glass itself, it's a good practice to put a protective filter in front of the lens. But other than that, which in my case is most of the time, i take Mr. Shaw's advice.

I only use filters for the specific effect provided, which most of the time is a polarizer or ND. Almost never for protection, and never regretted.
Click to expand...
 
I just put a decent filter on every lens, to protect the front element. I never noticed any picture quality issues.
 
Lens cap and a lens hood are all you need. In 40 years I have never damaged the front of a lens. I have saved enough money to buy several high end lenses by not wasting money on 'protective' filters.

--
Jonathan
 
Last edited:
The only right answer is......... if you're going to use a filter, then use a good one.

I use filters for protection. That is against minor knocks to the front element and because the filter is easier to clean than the actual front element. It will not make any difference to your images that amounts to anything (if you use a good filter).

Use a filter or don't use a filter, its up to you.

--
https://www.mgiddings.com
 
Last edited:
glassoholic said:
..how many anti protective filter people are happy to use a polariser or ND which are amongst the worst for reflections and other aberrations. Only recently have decent multi coatings and optical clarity come to polarisers... if you know what you are looking for. I have seen uncoated or single coated polarisers and even worse ND filters being put on very expensive lenses for commissioned work and the photographer having no concerns and then removing it and no protective filter being put on because that will degrade his lens!
Click to expand...
 
garykpdx said:
I guess I subscribe to the notion that if I drop my PL 100-400 such that the filter breaks, I'm gonna have an expensive problem anyway. Beast weighs 985 grams sans camera body.
Click to expand...
I have had one instance of scraping a filter rather than the lens, so one "whew" moment at least. Not every accident is a crash to the ground.

The other avoided damage I've seen is the filter ring taking the blow instead of denting the lens's filter mount. Also worth noting a couple anecdotes here of Panasonic declaring a damaged 100-400 not repairable, which would be especially galling considering the big investment. I frankly don't understand why they won't work on them or know whether there's a list of fixable/not fixable failures.

I keep them on my Pro teles and see no evidence of lost resolution.

Cheers,

Rick
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

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