jwilliams wrote:
I never use a protective filter on any lens. Ever. In fact my 50 1.2 is the last lens I'd ever do that to if somehow I was forced to start the practice. It has the best optics of any lens I have ever owned. Why would I want to screw that up by adding something else to the front of it that the only possible effect would be to degrade the image quality of such a fine lens?
Lens hoods and lens caps are for protection. Filters are for changing the way the image is recorded.
In 30+ years of photography I've never used any sort of protective filter. I've never managed to damage any lens, but once did load a camera/lens to someone and it came back with a chip in the front lens element. Lesson learned, don't lend your camera gear out to others.
People worry way too much about something happening to the front of their lenses when in fact it is actually very hard to do something to a lens that actually produces a noticeable effect on the image recorded. In my case of the lent lens I was never able to detect any effect on the images taken with that lens and it actually had a chunk of glass missing from the front element.
The most likely way to do something to a lens that would actually impact the images taken with it is by being aggressive and zealous in cleaning the front lens element. Enough small scratches will eventually have an effect, but a single mark, scratch, chip will generally not be detectable.
Save your filter money and go buy something that actually helps you with your photography.
No offense, what you said totally makes sense and I agree wholeheartedly 100%. Just that it feels like a generic response to "should I use filters to protect my lens's front element from scratches". In this case I'm asking specifically for protection from tiny dust entering the crack of the lens (this 50 1.2 has an open barrel that provides access to the exposed moving front element). For most lenses where the front element stays in place I have no such worries. Thanks anyway.