a protection filter just saved my lens

Started May 15, 2010 | Discussions
ericBlair Senior Member • Posts: 1,354
a protection filter just saved my lens

today it paid off. i was bending down to photograph my 4yo son standing on a gravel path at a country show when i heard (and felt) something sharply impact my camera -- a pebble inadvertently kicked up by a passer-by which had impacted my UV filter, without breaking it but leaving a prominent scratchmark. incidentally, i also had a lens hood on at the time.
--
my web albums:
http://picasaweb.google.co.uk/theabsurdman
http://www.flickr.com/photos/74185915@N00/

pluton Veteran Member • Posts: 3,635
Re: a protection filter just saved my lens

Flying projectiles make clear filters a good idea.
--
-KB-

mrbr Veteran Member • Posts: 4,110
Re: a protection filter just saved my lens

Hi,

Thanks for your information , this proves that using a filter to protect a lens really works and that there are situations where a lens can be damaged no matter how carefull the photographer handles his camera equipment !!

 mrbr's gear list:mrbr's gear list
Nikon D7200 Nikon Z6 Nikon Z50 Nikon 10-20mm F4.5-5.6 VR Nikon AP-F 70-300mm F4.5-5.6E +10 more
prmass1 Contributing Member • Posts: 858
Re: a protection filter just saved my lens

I am not getting a promotional fee for this but thats why I use pro1 clear filters. The check is in the mail.

rapick
rapick Veteran Member • Posts: 5,476
Re: So, why not...

pluton wrote:

Flying projectiles make clear filters a good idea.
--
-KB-

... a bullet-proof filter? Just in case someone who doesn't like to be photographed gets angry with the 'Paparazzo' and targets him with a .45.
--
Rapick
PBase & Jalbum supporter
http://www.pbase.com/rapick - http://rapick.jalbum.net/

 rapick's gear list:rapick's gear list
Samsung NX3000 Nikon Coolpix 995 Nikon D200 Nikon D700 Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G IF-ED VR +6 more
Leonard Shepherd Forum Pro • Posts: 25,660
Re: Fact - or myth?

Many filters are soft glass and much more easily scratched than a front element.
Sometimes a front filter can cost as much as a replacement front element.

A front filter ALWAYS costs much more than a years insurance (typically 7 times more) for damage and theft.

The cost of one filter might have been as much as one years insurance on 4 lenses and a decent DSLR - it is a "no brainer" to work out which option gives much more "protection" for much less money - and it is not the filter.
--
Leonard Shepherd

Practicing and thinking can do more for good photography than buying or consuming.

 Leonard Shepherd's gear list:Leonard Shepherd's gear list
Nikon Z9 Nikon Z8 Nikon AF-S Micro-Nikkor 60mm F2.8G ED Nikon AF Micro-Nikkor 200mm f/4D ED-IF Nikon AF-S Teleconverter TC-17E II +18 more
OP ericBlair Senior Member • Posts: 1,354
Re: Fact - or myth?

Leonard Shepherd wrote:

A front filter ALWAYS costs much more than a years insurance (typically 7 times more) for damage and theft.

??? you're either paying way too much for your filters or too little for your insurance.
and would you really rather pursue an insurance claim than toss a filter?

ps. not trying to start an argument, just reporting my experience today. i'd have been really unchuffed if that pebble had struck my front element. and if the lens had been my new tamron 180/2.5 "anniversary" (

zoomring Regular Member • Posts: 342
Re: a protection filter just saved my lens

ericBlair wrote:

today it paid off. i was bending down to photograph my 4yo son standing on a gravel path at a country show when i heard (and felt) something sharply impact my camera -- a pebble inadvertently kicked up by a passer-by which had impacted my UV filter, without breaking it but leaving a prominent scratchmark. incidentally, i also had a lens hood on at the time.

While you were bending down on the gravel path, were you wearing any kind of eye protection? If a pebble caused that damage to your filter, it would certainly cause severe damage to one of your eyes.

If you feel that this freak occurance is proof positive that you need a filter 100% of the time, on all of your lenses, then you should also wear eye protection 100% of the time, after all an eye is more expensive than any lens.

tyb Senior Member • Posts: 2,620
Re: a protection filter just saved my lens

A good story, people can post another 20 or 50 but the filter will degrade my IQ fanatics will be unconvinced. FWIW I have filters, expensive ones on expensive lense and cheaper ones on my cheap ones. To this day any problem with the picture themselves has been mostly the monkey behind the vewfinder versus something in the optical path.

The amateur hobby crowd is extreme one. Debating merits of the equipment and IQ is far more important the the image itself.

ericBlair wrote:

today it paid off. i was bending down to photograph my 4yo son standing on a gravel path at a country show when i heard (and felt) something sharply impact my camera -- a pebble inadvertently kicked up by a passer-by which had impacted my UV filter, without breaking it but leaving a prominent scratchmark. incidentally, i also had a lens hood on at the time.
--
my web albums:
http://picasaweb.google.co.uk/theabsurdman
http://www.flickr.com/photos/74185915@N00/

 tyb's gear list:tyb's gear list
Nikon D3S Nikon 1 J1 Nikon D4 Nikon D800 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 16-35mm F4G ED VR +13 more
OP ericBlair Senior Member • Posts: 1,354
Re: a protection filter just saved my lens

good perspective. looking at it that way, i probably had a lucky escape. it all comes down to cost vs benefit and the cost (in quality of life) of wearing safety-specs 24/7 would for me outweigh the benefit.

i suppose i just haven't yet seen the "cost" side to the lens filter question.

incidentally, my primary rationale for the filters is not preventing projectile-accidents but avoiding the necessity for lens-cleaning, which i find stressful.

zoomring wrote:

While you were bending down on the gravel path, were you wearing any kind of eye protection? If a pebble caused that damage to your filter, it would certainly cause severe damage to one of your eyes.

If you feel that this freak occurance is proof positive that you need a filter 100% of the time, on all of your lenses, then you should also wear eye protection 100% of the time, after all an eye is more expensive than any lens.

G4orce Studios Senior Member • Posts: 1,284
Re: a protection filter just saved my lens

Shooting mainly in concert halls, I always use clear filters for all my lenses.

I shot a few shows without a filter and there was just a very very small fraction of a difference in IQ.

My lenses are insured anyway, for theft, damage, loss, etc.

Hmmm. What is easier? Paying $60-100 for a filter, or sending a lens back for warranty, paying shipping, waiting a few weeks and get another back, only to find the insurance premium "adjusted." On the flip side, I could simply drive down the street and buy a new filter.

I'll stick with filters.

Leonard Shepherd Forum Pro • Posts: 25,660
Re: Fact - or myth?

ericBlair wrote:

??? you're either paying way too much for your filters or too little for your insurance.
and would you really rather pursue an insurance claim than toss a filter?

Well - you could use a cheap filter - but
http://nikoneurope-en.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/21074

With insurance costing many amateurs no more than 1% of equipment value, at least in UK most claims being paid out within a week, and insurance providing for damage other than to the front element or theft good filters often cost way too much.
--
Leonard Shepherd

Practicing and thinking can do more for good photography than buying or consuming.

 Leonard Shepherd's gear list:Leonard Shepherd's gear list
Nikon Z9 Nikon Z8 Nikon AF-S Micro-Nikkor 60mm F2.8G ED Nikon AF Micro-Nikkor 200mm f/4D ED-IF Nikon AF-S Teleconverter TC-17E II +18 more
oz7fp New Member • Posts: 18
Re: a protection filter just saved my lens

zoomring wrote:

ericBlair wrote:

today it paid off. i was bending down to photograph my 4yo son standing on a gravel path at a country show when i heard (and felt) something sharply impact my camera -- a pebble inadvertently kicked up by a passer-by which had impacted my UV filter, without breaking it but leaving a prominent scratchmark. incidentally, i also had a lens hood on at the time.

While you were bending down on the gravel path, were you wearing any kind of eye protection? If a pebble caused that damage to your filter, it would certainly cause severe damage to one of your eyes.

If you feel that this freak occurance is proof positive that you need a filter 100% of the time, on all of your lenses, then you should also wear eye protection 100% of the time, after all an eye is more expensive than any lens.

I agrre with this.

sworth Contributing Member • Posts: 937
Re: a protection filter just saved my lens

Eyelids make great protective filters for flying small objects. The eye has a bunch of protective mechanisms built in that cameras don't have.

John Szeto Senior Member • Posts: 1,921
Re: a protection filter just saved my lens

Shooting indoors may not require a protective filter, but if you shoot dusty sporting events or salt spray locations, a filter can be of value.

martinch Veteran Member • Posts: 3,054
Re: Fact - or myth?

Leonard Shepherd wrote:

With insurance costing many amateurs no more than 1% of equipment value, at least in UK most claims being paid out within a week, and insurance providing for damage other than to the front element or theft good filters often cost way too much.

When I looked at a separate insurance policy from the likes of Photoguard, Glover & Howe, etc, it worked out 4-5% of the insured sum per year. Having said that, household contents cover will, in a lot of cases, cover it for "free".

-- hide signature --

My gallery of so-so nature photos:
http://martinch.zenfolio.com/

zoomring Regular Member • Posts: 342
Re: a protection filter just saved my lens

sworth wrote:

Eyelids make great protective filters for flying small objects. The eye has a bunch of protective mechanisms built in that cameras don't have.

Really? would you care to demonstrate that. If someone fired off pebbles in your direction, would you be able to blink fast enough enough to stop them? Keep in mind you have a great advanatge since you know what's coming, the OP didn't, so this should be a pretty easy test for you.

jdrpc Contributing Member • Posts: 502
Re: Fact - or myth? Sometimes....

In some countries, Camera Insurance is not so easy as in the UK and USA.

Anyway, I have ALWAYS used protection filters, all the time, and just take them out when the light conditions are impossible, like sun straight to the lens...
Never noticed any image quality loss....

Leonard Shepherd wrote:

Many filters are soft glass and much more easily scratched than a front element.
Sometimes a front filter can cost as much as a replacement front element.

A front filter ALWAYS costs much more than a years insurance (typically 7 times more) for damage and theft.

The cost of one filter might have been as much as one years insurance on 4 lenses and a decent DSLR - it is a "no brainer" to work out which option gives much more "protection" for much less money - and it is not the filter.
--
Leonard Shepherd

Practicing and thinking can do more for good photography than buying or consuming.

 jdrpc's gear list:jdrpc's gear list
Fujifilm FinePix S2 Pro Nikon D300 Nikon D700 +1 more
slimandy Forum Pro • Posts: 17,161
Re: Fact - or myth?

Leonard Shepherd wrote:

The cost of one filter might have been as much as one years insurance on 4 lenses and a decent DSLR

Mine are covered by my house insurance. The extra cost is nil. However, I still use filters when in adverse conditions. You can swap them or remove them if you get crud on them, and they are easy to wash later.
--
http://www.andrewsandersphotography.co.uk

 slimandy's gear list:slimandy's gear list
Sony RX100 II Nikon D200 Nikon D700 Fujifilm X-E1 Fujifilm X-T1
aus4ever
aus4ever Forum Pro • Posts: 10,629
Always check Product Disclosure Statement

jdrpc wrote:

In some countries, Camera Insurance is not so easy as in the UK and USA.

jdrpc is right; it is not that simple. Here in Australia, NRMA for example, has divided optional cover into 3 categories and each has it own conditions and limit. (page 40).

Even if you are willing to pay extra to have your cameras and lenses insured as Specified Portable Valuables, full cover is limited to Australia and New Zealand only, and it does not cover 'loss or damage from scratching or denting an item ' (page 41).

http://www.nrma.com.au/documents/policy-booklets/home-policy.pdf

BTW, I don't work for NRMA. : )

-- hide signature --

Australia, home forever.

 aus4ever's gear list:aus4ever's gear list
Nikon D700 Nikon D750 Nikon Z6 II Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR Nikon AF-S Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8G ED +13 more
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads