Play it safe, put a filter on your lens!

[Michel Bricteux]

The debate over whether or not to put a filter on your lens is not new. When you spend a lot of money on expensive glass, is it advisable to cover it with good or decent quality neutral filters?

My answer has always been a resounding YES! And gosh, am I glad I did! As I was walking on the street the other day carrying my Nikon body on my shoulder, I heard a horrible bang. I turned around to watch my recently acquired Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8 VRII lying on the pavement, surrounded by broken glass.... The camera's body was still hanging on its strap, missing something. Lens hadn't been properly locked, I guess. Looking closer, I realized that the filter had taken the brunt of the shock, leaving the heavy lens intact, save one slight cosmetic dent. Optics and mechanical parts are working fine, despite a 3ft free fall on a concrete pavement. When I consider the hypothetical and still to be proven disadvantage of having a filter versus the protection it provides, it's a no-brainer to me : a filter is an essential part in the investment. You've been warned.

Regards
--
Michel Bricteux

 

[exit here]

putting filters on a cheap lens because this is what you did when you had your spotmatic and again on the expensive lenses because you dont care if the IQ is affected is called an ...oximoron.

Dont incorrectly mount your lens, check the lens like you check the front door before retiring to bed.

and put the hood on ....for pete's (Hello Pete) sake.

My favourite is seeing all those lenses on the bay with filters on deep front element lenses. Reminds me, can you still buy those garters that hold your socks up?

 

[ajmeeker]

You've got to watch out for those shards and the gunk from the filter shattering getting everywhere. Most of the time when those filters break, they do more harm than good when they break.

 

[Michel Bricteux]

Thanks for your advice.

I did carefully check for any loose piece of glass an blew them all before cleaning the front element. Probably got lucky as there does not seem to be any visible impact. Problem was to remove the filter frame as it was deformed upon impact and impossible to screw off. I protected the front element with a cardboard cutout and bent the filter's steel frame until it could be extracted.

Quite frankly, I'll buy myself a good quality filter (B&W makes very decent ones) again, as I prefer to protect my lens when operating in less controleable environment

Regards

You've got to watch out for those shards and the gunk from the filter shattering getting everywhere. Most of the time when those filters break, they do more harm than good when they break.

--
Michel Bricteux

 

[gmosc]

My take on this story is that one should check to see if a lens is firmly attached. That's a good reminder. I'm not sure if there is any proof here that the filter protected anything. Everyone would be guessing either way.

If it was provable that filters protect in cases like these, I'm sure there would be nice videos tests provided by the makers. All they would need to do is use old lenses to test different kind of drops. The fact that they haven't and only use word of mouth is disheartening for their claim. They earned another customer here (or continued customer) whether the filter helped or not. The only way they would have lost a customer is if the front element got scratched, but even then, there could be the argument that maybe it would have been even worse without it. So it's actually quite a good win win advertising claim the manufacturers make, without any proof on their part.

I'm not convinced by this incident.

Guy Moscoso

 

[Michel Bricteux]

Thank you for your input. You are entirely right when you state that one should ALWAYS make sure the lens is properly locked on the camera. There are circumstances, though, where time is of the essence and things get ...out of control. I consider myself an experienced photographer and take no pride in what happened, to the contrary. Had I not been in a rush that day, maybe things would have turned otherwise. As to the detrimental effect good quality filters can have, I am not convinced.
--
Michel Bricteux

 

[perpetua]

Thank you for your input. You are entirely right when you state that one should ALWAYS make sure the lens is properly locked on the camera. There are circumstances, though, where time is of the essence and things get ...out of control. I consider myself an experienced photographer and take no pride in what happened, to the contrary. Had I not been in a rush that day, maybe things would have turned otherwise. As to the detrimental effect good quality filters can have, I am not convinced.
--
Michel Bricteux

Even the more experienced people make mistakes. They make even more stupid mistakes because they don't pay attention anymore about the basic things.

My father once said: 'someone who doesn't know how to swim will never drown'. In this case, he would be right again.

 

[Anthony Medici]

I'd think having the hood on in shooting position would have done a lot more to "protect" the lens in this situation. So you didn't have your hood on, did you?

--
Tony

http://www.pbase.com/a5m/ http://AnthonyMedici.naturescapes.net/

 

[Robin Casady]

I'd think having the hood on in shooting position would have done a lot more to "protect" the lens in this situation.

I agree. The hood would have taken the blow and your lens would probably have been undamaged.

I think the filter was more of a hazard to the lens than a protection. If there had been no filter (and no hood) you would have had a dent on the filter ring, but the front element would probably have remained intact. The filter probably shattered because its metal mount distorted. If the impact had directly hit the glass by striking a rock or something, the blow would have probably forced the filter shards into the lens element.

That said, I often use UV filters for protection. I use them at the beach, or wherever water spray or mist is likely. I use them in dusty environments. I use them were children's fingers can become a lens hazard... I don't expect filters to protect a lens from impact. You'd need a Lexan filter for that.
--
Robin Casady
http://www.robincasady.com/Photo/index.html

 

[nick_webster]

You would need to drop a statistically significant number of lenses with and without filters under controlled conditions and then determine whether the filter had afforded any protection.

As to the degradation of image quality I've seen a couple of tests done under controlled conditions which show a definite change in IQ and not for the better. A web search engine is your friend if you want to view those results as I don't remember them off hand.

So we have an anecdotal piece of evidence which may or may not show any benefit and we have some actual tests which show a detrimental effect and you choose to believe the former ?

Nick

 

[James Sherman]

As to the detrimental effect good quality filters can have, I am not convinced.

Do a careful test under controlled conditions then. The effect is obvious under many conditions, less so under others.

I can tell you that, under impact front element down, the hood will supply far more protection than a filter and can break off its' bayonet, acting like a crushable front end on an auto. I "tested" that when I fell on my 18-105 (on concrete) and wound up with the hood cracked off its' mount and jammed down half way over the zoom ring. The front element survived just fine (other parts inside did not).

 

[Patrick McMahon]

Every "You should use a filter - You've been warned" story I have read is a story of neglect and carelessness.

I am begining to think that the people who use filters feel they have enough added protection to allow for this behavior...

 

[hoof]

Here we go again ...

What I find ironic is that so many people who disagree with filters for protection are stating "this is one sample case, it doesn't prove anything", yet when there's an example of a filter shattering and damaging the lens element, that's definitive proof that filters are bad. Or that if the filter damaged the lens that it's further proof that filters as protection are bad, but if it saved the lens, then "you should have checked the lens was secure" or "You should have had a hood on". Note that when the lens is scratched, many anti-filter types often don't mention the lack of a hood.

Like most things, if you have a belief, cases that support your belief are taken as great examples, while cases that don't are immediately suspect, or there are extenuating circumstances.

Anyway, going to grab my popcorn as the anti-filter and pro-filter factions go at it again!

 

[hoof]

Every "You should use a filter - You've been warned" story I have read is a story of neglect and carelessness.

I am begining to think that the people who use filters feel they have enough added protection to allow for this behavior...

And every "the filter scratched the lens" example brought up on the forum is always definitive proof of how filters are bad, and shouldn't be used as protection.

Like I mentioned elsewhere in the thread, "neglect and carelessness" is never brought up as an issue when the shattered filter scratches the front lens surface, at least by people who don't like filters as protection ...

 

[James Sherman]

There are times (blowing sand or dust, sleet, hail, frogs) when a filter is called for for protection. There are times (CPL, or other) when a filter is called for temporarily. Then, there's all the remaining time, when it's likely a detriment to your images and hold be removed. You have to judge.

 

[zoomring]

I agree that a lens hood would have provided significant better protection, but even if the front glass is not scratched in a 3ft drop, a hard impact like that can misalign any of the 17 lens elements, or several of them by even the smallest degrees which would cause softer images, decentering or focus problems. So no filter or lens hood can help you there, trying to avoid carelessness is the best protection.

 

[nick_webster]

To support either faction in the filter/no filter debate there should be proof as you suggest. The reason these threads go on is that there is no evidence either way. There are some anecdotal stories that may show support for one theory or another but there has never been any controlled experiments that can be called evidence or proof.

Since it now boils down to a matter of faith, you end up with exactly the same arguments you would get if 2 religions decided to convince the other side of how they are right and the others are wrong

For the record I'm in the "don't buy filters as I would rather spend the money on something else" camp. And also for the record I've shot in hail, snow, rain and dust and I don't even clean my lenses. How's that for heresy !

Nick

 

[mmalkin15]

I stopped putting protective filters on most of my lenses but find that some lenses that have zoom type mechanisms can be protected from dirt entering the lens mechanism due to the air movement caused by zooming or focusing if they have filters in front. My 70-200 and my 200/4 micro have filters for this reason, other lenses do not. Lens hoods are always in place unless there is an important reason to leave them off temporarily. If shooting conditions are tough - blowing sand or salt spray from the ocean filters may be added for protection.

here is no one plan fits all for my application - filters certainly can degrade the image a bit so use good ones if you must.

 

[Michel Bricteux]

Every "You should use a filter - You've been warned" story I have read is a story of neglect and carelessness.

I am begining to think that the people who use filters feel they have enough added protection to allow for this behavior...

As far as quality loss is concerned, I am ready to listen (and learn by the same token) and express my thanks to the constructive - and often useful - contributors. When some get judgmental, I suddenly feel deaf. Wonder why ;-)

--
Michel Bricteux

 

[edwardaneal]

I will never understand how anyone could consider a thin piece of glass as being protection from anything other than extremely minor issues.

it's not as if filters are made out of safety glass or something strong they are no stronger than single pane window glass.

would you hold a piece of window glass in front of your face for protection from anything other than perhaps water? Or would you be afraid the glass could break and cut you?

there is a reason why safety glasses are not made out of this kind of glass.

for me - - lens caps & hoods = protection

--
Primary kit - D200, 10.5mm f/2.8D, 35mm f/1.8G, 50mm f/1.4G & 70-300VR
Backup kit – D80, 18-105VR
SB800, SB600 and other misc lighting equipment

Lenses worth mentioning owned and sold– 12-24 f/4, 17-55 f/2.8, 35-70 f/2.8, 80-200 f/2.8, 20mm f/2.8, 35mm f/2, 50mm f/1.8, 50mm f/1.4D, 60mm f/2.8, 85mm, f/1.8. 105mm f/2D-DC, 180mm f/2.8, 300mm f/4D-ED