RF 50mm f1.2 users (and probably EF version as well), do you use a protective filter on it?

highdesertmesa wrote:

jwilliams wrote:

highdesertmesa wrote:

I always say there are two kinds of photographers: photographers who don’t use protective filters and photographers who have been sh!t on by a bird.

Quit taking pictures of birds asses and your problem will be solved

Somehow I've managed 30+ years of photography without ever getting bird sh!t on my lens.

Lol. Well, insert whatever experience made you realize Murphy's Law is real.

Best thing about a nano-coated filter like the B+W clear is mist/rain/dust/birdsh!t can be cleaned off with a t-shirt. The filterless crowd gotta get their Zeiss buttwipes and microfiber cloths out and have a major production.

So your gonna ruin a $100 filter with your T shirt?

I think the only $100 protective filter I've had was the 95mm for the RF 28-70, and I've since sold both in perfect condition. Some bottled water and a soft t-shirt don't seem to have any ill effect on the B+W nano coating.

If it doesn't have effect on $100 filter why should it have effect on $2000+ L lens with the latest coatings available on the front element?

I think the sunscreen or other oil example above is rather extreme, but sure, buy filter if you walk on a hot beach on sweaty shirt full of sunscreen. I manage just fine without filters, using just lens hoods and caps, sometimes cleaning by water and paper tissues too, without negative effects. Yesterday I did first cleaning of my RF 28-70 with compressed air to get out the accumulated dust and it's doing fine. It has been in mountains and on beaches. I'm more concerned with the extending plastic barrel when zooming and I clean it more often to minimize any dust ingression.