What do you use to protect the front of your lens?

[BobM43]

Decades ago, in college, I got tripped (unintentionally) coming out of a basketball game I was shooting, and actually chipped the front element of my FD 50mm f/1.4. I figured for sure the lens would be useless. But the only time I could see any different was when the light was coming in at just the right angle. And a lens hood solved that.

 

[bridge77]

Decades ago, in college, I got tripped (unintentionally) coming out of a basketball game I was shooting, and actually chipped the front element of my FD 50mm f/1.4. I figured for sure the lens would be useless. But the only time I could see any different was when the light was coming in at just the right angle. And a lens hood solved that.

usually when i am done shooting, the camera goes into a small bag over my shoulder. other than that, a wrist strap holds it on to me.

if i had a f1.4 lens, it probably would come with huge rubber bumpers and air bags. so that would not be a problem.

 

[MJ_Photo38]

Yes.

Your lens, your money. You do you.

I just happen to prefer getting the full image quality I can get for my money instead of intentionally reducing it with filters.

Nikon doesn't advise people to put a protection filter because it's "better" and has no effect on image quality. They do because that 300mm f/4D most likely doesn't have a front protective glass element, which mean that if you damage the fron element of it it's a much more expensive repair, and Nikon doesn't want to pay for it while the lens is still in the warranty period.

What that note is for is to reduce the number of lenses coming back. It saves them money. That's all it does.

 

[Jiyasharma]

Please adhere to the basic rules outlined for discussions on dpreview.com, which include being polite, civil, and refraining from offensive or antagonistic behavior.

 

[InkedMarie]

Please adhere to the basic rules outlined for discussions on dpreview.com, which include being polite, civil, and refraining from offensive or antagonistic behavior.

Who are you talking to? The OP, who you replied to, hasn’t said anything “wrong”.

Marie

 

[egk4260]

Perusing responses it appears we have all arrived with firmly established positions, anecdotes supporting our preferences, anecdotes of problems related to contrary positions, and for the most part no problems relating to our current positions.

Has anybody changed their practices? Discarded those filters, attached a hood, put those filters back on? Me neither.

I did dig out a sleeve with multiple filters and found it interesting that many were in ring sizes for DSLR lenses that I no longer own, and that many of the MILC lenses I have added have ring sizes for which I own no filters.

Here’s hoping all our hooded and unhooded, filtered and unfiltered lenses continue to give years of damage free pleasure.

 

[Mackiesback]

Yes.

Your lens, your money. You do you.

I just happen to prefer getting the full image quality I can get for my money instead of intentionally reducing it with filters.

Nikon doesn't advise people to put a protection filter because it's "better" and has no effect on image quality. They do because that 300mm f/4D most likely doesn't have a front protective glass element, which mean that if you damage the fron element of it it's a much more expensive repair, and Nikon doesn't want to pay for it while the lens is still in the warranty period.

What that note is for is to reduce the number of lenses coming back. It saves them money. That's all it does.

Is a scratched or damaged front element covered under the warranty? That would be a first.

 

[MJ_Photo38]

I don't see why it wouldn't.

Unless I didn't read this correctly?

 

[JustUs7]

Not from this thread specifically, but a clear or UV filter used to be an automatic buy for me. I find myself unscrewing it and shooting without more often than not these days. Definitely a practice change over the past couple years.



“Ghost” birthday candles is what did it for me.

 

[drynn]

I don't see why it wouldn't.

Unless I didn't read this correctly?

It's not that you haven't read correctly, it's that you haven't read enough i.e. "please read the warranty terms linked below". You will find damage is one of the exclusions.

 

[Mark B.]

Please adhere to the basic rules outlined for discussions on dpreview.com, which include being polite, civil, and refraining from offensive or antagonistic behavior.

You've responded directly to the OP, which as far as I can tell makes little sense since it was merely a poll asking how others protect their lens. My suggestion is that if you have an issue with a specific reply is to report it instead ('Complain' button bottom right under the reply).

 

[Mackiesback]

I don't see why it wouldn't.

Unless I didn't read this correctly?

It's not that you haven't read correctly, it's that you haven't read enough i.e. "please read the warranty terms linked below". You will find damage is one of the exclusions.

How many times have we seen people here complain about getting denied warranty coverage when Nikon Service claims "impact damage", often for just a de-centered lens.

 

[egk4260]

Not from this thread specifically, but a clear or UV filter used to be an automatic buy for me. I find myself unscrewing it and shooting without more often than not these days. Definitely a practice change over the past couple years.

“Ghost” birthday candles is what did it for me.

Back in the day of physical camera shops you would always get the high pressure push to purchase a filter when you got to the checkout with your new lens, usually a huge stock situated right behind the cashier. Pure profit. Now days everybody wants the freebie add ons with an online purchase, a cheapo UV filter that should be discarded as soon as it arrives with lenses or a camera bag three sizes too small with a camera body.

 

[egk4260]

So Nikon intentionally advised people to degrade their image quality.

Good to know.

No, they know filters rarely significantly affect IQ, but always represent big profit. Surprise! They sell filters too, and they always recommend genuine Nikon accessories to get the most out of your Nikon product and avoid voiding the warranty !

Lens tests to assess IQ would be done without the filters as in that case they are measuring resolved line pairs, light transmission, and flare, etc. rather than profit margin.

 

[bridge77]

So Nikon intentionally advised people to degrade their image quality.

Good to know.

No, they know filters rarely significantly affect IQ, but always represent big profit. Surprise! They sell filters too, and they always recommend genuine Nikon accessories to get the most out of your Nikon product and avoid voiding the warranty !

Lens tests to assess IQ would be done without the filters as in that case they are measuring resolved line pairs, light transmission, and flare, etc. rather than profit margin.

i use filters, but i don't see the 'big profit' in them. amazon sells UV filters cheap under 10 bucks and good enuf to protect a lens.

and yes i know, but if the shot needs extra help: just unscrew the filter.

most of my shooting does fine with just a Tiffen filter from amazon. of course a Pro will think different.

 

[Cultius Ponc]

Yes.

Your lens, your money. You do you.

I just happen to prefer getting the full image quality I can get for my money instead of intentionally reducing it with filters.

I also want to get the full image quality I can from my lenses, but also protect the front element and retain as much residual value in the lens if I choose to sell it on at some later stage. Everything's a compromise; unless you only ever shoot indoors in a very clean environment, and only use lenses very occasionally, the front elements are going to get scratched and/or smeared with all sorts of contaminants. Which you then have to clean off. The cleaning process can itself then damage the front element, by introducing micro scratches, and rubbing the coatings off. Which will degrade the performance of the lens far more than any filter will in normal circumstances. I have 'retired' multiple filters from a single lens; the front elements have remained spotless and the value much higher (even accounting for the cost of said filters). I have seen lenses used without filters, that are so damaged to be practically worthless. One particular case being a Canon 24-70 f2.8 L; a lens retailing at over £2000, with a s/h price of at least £400, with a significant scratch to the front element. Worthless. The scratch was bad enough to affect IQ far more than a a similar scratch on a filter would have been. Quite why the owner didn't use a filter I have no idea.

If you really want 'ultimate IQ', then simply remove the filter for the duration f the particular shoot. No biggie. The rest of the time, it sits there doing a great job of protecting your investment.

Nikon doesn't advise people to put a protection filter because it's "better" and has no effect on image quality. They do because that 300mm f/4D most likely doesn't have a front protective glass element, which mean that if you damage the fron element of it it's a much more expensive repair, and Nikon doesn't want to pay for it while the lens is still in the warranty period.

What that note is for is to reduce the number of lenses coming back. It saves them money. That's all it does.

Accidental (or even deliberate) damage of this nature isn't covered by any Nikon warranty. That's only for defective manufacture etc. Not user error.

 

[Mackiesback]

Yes.

Your lens, your money. You do you.

I just happen to prefer getting the full image quality I can get for my money instead of intentionally reducing it with filters.

I also want to get the full image quality I can from my lenses, but also protect the front element and retain as much residual value in the lens if I choose to sell it on at some later stage. Everything's a compromise; unless you only ever shoot indoors in a very clean environment, and only use lenses very occasionally, the front elements are going to get scratched and/or smeared with all sorts of contaminants. Which you then have to clean off. The cleaning process can itself then damage the front element, by introducing micro scratches, and rubbing the coatings off. Which will degrade the performance of the lens far more than any filter will in normal circumstances. I have 'retired' multiple filters from a single lens; the front elements have remained spotless and the value much higher (even accounting for the cost of said filters). I have seen lenses used without filters, that are so damaged to be practically worthless. One particular case being a Canon 24-70 f2.8 L; a lens retailing at over £2000, with a s/h price of at least £400, with a significant scratch to the front element. Worthless. The scratch was bad enough to affect IQ far more than a a similar scratch on a filter would have been. Quite why the owner didn't use a filter I have no idea.
If you really want 'ultimate IQ', then simply remove the filter for the duration f the particular shoot. No biggie. The rest of the time, it sits there doing a great job of protecting your investment.

Nikon doesn't advise people to put a protection filter because it's "better" and has no effect on image quality. They do because that 300mm f/4D most likely doesn't have a front protective glass element, which mean that if you damage the fron element of it it's a much more expensive repair, and Nikon doesn't want to pay for it while the lens is still in the warranty period.

What that note is for is to reduce the number of lenses coming back. It saves them money. That's all it does.

Accidental (or even deliberate) damage of this nature isn't covered by any Nikon warranty. That's only for defective manufacture etc. Not user error.

Sigh, being this is 2024, I kinda thought we were done with this topic, but here we are. For every anecdotal example of a damaged lens, there are other shooters like me who have managed over 4 decades to never drop or even nick a front element once. And if I do, the $300-$400 replacement cost would have been far less than 4 decades worth or filters. If I want a perfect image, just unscrew the filter? How about I just remove the lens cap instead and skip the filter.

Everybody has a different use case, for some filters are a necessity, for others a complete waste of money. Maybe we can take a break from trying to talk people into doing something they don't want to do and just let everybody stay in their happy place.

 

[bridge77]

Yes.

Your lens, your money. You do you.

I just happen to prefer getting the full image quality I can get for my money instead of intentionally reducing it with filters.

I also want to get the full image quality I can from my lenses, but also protect the front element and retain as much residual value in the lens if I choose to sell it on at some later stage. Everything's a compromise; unless you only ever shoot indoors in a very clean environment, and only use lenses very occasionally, the front elements are going to get scratched and/or smeared with all sorts of contaminants. Which you then have to clean off. The cleaning process can itself then damage the front element, by introducing micro scratches, and rubbing the coatings off. Which will degrade the performance of the lens far more than any filter will in normal circumstances. I have 'retired' multiple filters from a single lens; the front elements have remained spotless and the value much higher (even accounting for the cost of said filters). I have seen lenses used without filters, that are so damaged to be practically worthless. One particular case being a Canon 24-70 f2.8 L; a lens retailing at over £2000, with a s/h price of at least £400, with a significant scratch to the front element. Worthless. The scratch was bad enough to affect IQ far more than a a similar scratch on a filter would have been. Quite why the owner didn't use a filter I have no idea.
If you really want 'ultimate IQ', then simply remove the filter for the duration f the particular shoot. No biggie. The rest of the time, it sits there doing a great job of protecting your investment.

Nikon doesn't advise people to put a protection filter because it's "better" and has no effect on image quality. They do because that 300mm f/4D most likely doesn't have a front protective glass element, which mean that if you damage the fron element of it it's a much more expensive repair, and Nikon doesn't want to pay for it while the lens is still in the warranty period.

What that note is for is to reduce the number of lenses coming back. It saves them money. That's all it does.

Accidental (or even deliberate) damage of this nature isn't covered by any Nikon warranty. That's only for defective manufacture etc. Not user error.

Sigh, being this is 2024, I kinda thought we were done with this topic, but here we are. For every anecdotal example of a damaged lens, there are other shooters like me who have managed over 4 decades to never drop or even nick a front element once.

people are all Unique and different. i use mostly Bridge Cameras but those types of cameras are Fragile and should be treated that way.

some may not even consider that fact; others being wiser take care.

for the Rough Necks, a wrist strap/filter/bag should be Mandatory along with warnings that all types of lens et al have fine moving parts. advice like this is Quickly forgotten by those types, and then we have 'spares and repairs' in the Used Camera section.

not all bad because it creates employment for camera techs.

after dropping my camera once with no damage, it taught me to always be defensive with UV filters, hoods, camera bags, lens cap and wrist straps.

like you, after my incident there has been no problem.

And if I do, the $300-$400 replacement cost would have been far less than 4 decades worth or filters. If I want a perfect image, just unscrew the filter? How about I just remove the lens cap instead and skip the filter.

Everybody has a different use case, for some filters are a necessity, for others a complete waste of money. Maybe we can take a break from trying to talk people into doing something they don't want to do and just let everybody stay in their happy place.

we could do that, but the stories of how people smash their expensive cameras are interesting. that is why i prefer cheap used cameras.

 

[tbcass]

people are all Unique and different. i use mostly Bridge Cameras but those types of cameras are Fragile and should be treated that way.

I have used Bridge cameras for 20 years and have never found them to be the least bit fragile.

 

[space cap]

You know I used to like filters but lately I really don't want to use things like step up/down rings anymore ever I can help it lol I almost broke a lens trying to get a step down filter off last night... Actual filters like VNDs come off ok fortunately but if I can ever help it I'd like to not ever have to screw any rings (or perhaps and filters for that matter) onto my lens unless I'm confident it'll basically stay there.