interesting articles.
Yep. Because any damage to the surface of the actual lens elements will have a far greater effect than to a filter, as the lens elements are the bits that do the actual fucissing of light rays...So the filter is far enough away so as not to effect sharpness, yet micro-abrasions are an issue?A 'window' that is fractions of a millimetre thick. Compared to the glass elements inside the lens, which are several mm thick. And the filter is sufficiently far enough from the point of any sharp focus as to not matter. The only time you'd perhaps have any genuine issue, is if you stopped right down to tiny apertures. Even then, probably unlikely to cause any visibly significant problems.But it would never face the scene unobstructed… It would always see the world through a window. If it could talk, it would beg you: “Set me free, please, please!”So you've tested ALL filters available?
Another aspect to consider is the fact that lens elements will be susceptible to damage over time, if they are exposed to the elements. Perhaps not an issue if you work in an absolutely 100% sterile dust free laboratory environment, but let's face it you don't. In real world use, those elements will be exposed to all sorts of airborne dust and various chemicals, which can abrade and degrade the lens surface. For eg; if you shoot anywhere near the sea, the salt and moisture in the air can and will adhere to your camera and your lens. This is corrosive; see what happens to anything steel if left outside near the sea for any length of time. Microscopic particles of sand, which is ground up rock, will be carried by the wind, and these will cause microscopic scratches to the lens. In urban environments all sorts of nasty chemicals and oils will be floating around. At some point, you have to clean your lens. The cleaning process itself will be abrasive on a microscopic level, regardless of how careful you are. Those nasty chemicals will attack your lens coatings and degrade them. And then your lenses won't be as sharp. Ever again.
Use a filter however, and you simply swap it for a new one if it gets damaged. Ta-daaa! Lens surface still perfect.
You might not be able to see the damage, but it's there. Plus I'm backed up by science:
Not that you know of. Your images have suffered from that damage for 40+ years. you just don't know about it. Because ultimately, the effect is so minimal that you cannot see it. Bit like using filters...
...and after years of use (20+ for some lenses) I've yet to see visible damage on any of my lenses using only hoods for protection.
Focusing and defocusing of rays is done by the whole ensemble, the filter included. Even a perfectly flat filter (none is) defocuses rays falling at some angle.Yep. Because any damage to the surface of the actual lens elements will have a far greater effect than to a filter, as the lens elements are the bits that do the actual fucissing of light rays...So the filter is far enough away so as not to effect sharpness, yet micro-abrasions are an issue?A 'window' that is fractions of a millimetre thick. Compared to the glass elements inside the lens, which are several mm thick. And the filter is sufficiently far enough from the point of any sharp focus as to not matter. The only time you'd perhaps have any genuine issue, is if you stopped right down to tiny apertures. Even then, probably unlikely to cause any visibly significant problems.But it would never face the scene unobstructed… It would always see the world through a window. If it could talk, it would beg you: “Set me free, please, please!”So you've tested ALL filters available?
Another aspect to consider is the fact that lens elements will be susceptible to damage over time, if they are exposed to the elements. Perhaps not an issue if you work in an absolutely 100% sterile dust free laboratory environment, but let's face it you don't. In real world use, those elements will be exposed to all sorts of airborne dust and various chemicals, which can abrade and degrade the lens surface. For eg; if you shoot anywhere near the sea, the salt and moisture in the air can and will adhere to your camera and your lens. This is corrosive; see what happens to anything steel if left outside near the sea for any length of time. Microscopic particles of sand, which is ground up rock, will be carried by the wind, and these will cause microscopic scratches to the lens. In urban environments all sorts of nasty chemicals and oils will be floating around. At some point, you have to clean your lens. The cleaning process itself will be abrasive on a microscopic level, regardless of how careful you are. Those nasty chemicals will attack your lens coatings and degrade them. And then your lenses won't be as sharp. Ever again.
Use a filter however, and you simply swap it for a new one if it gets damaged. Ta-daaa! Lens surface still perfect.
Very far from it. Besides, you ignore evidence of exactly the opposite from the same site posted right above your post.
The 'Science' bit is about dust and airborne moisture etc adhering to the front lens element. So not very far from it at all.
Do you mean this bit?
The second sentence in the article you linked, the author states it is his opinion. Ynow, like.….opinion. Not once when selling a lens, has anybody asked about filter use.Yep. Because any damage to the surface of the actual lens elements will have a far greater effect than to a filter, as the lens elements are the bits that do the actual fucissing of light rays...So the filter is far enough away so as not to effect sharpness, yet micro-abrasions are an issue?A 'window' that is fractions of a millimetre thick. Compared to the glass elements inside the lens, which are several mm thick. And the filter is sufficiently far enough from the point of any sharp focus as to not matter. The only time you'd perhaps have any genuine issue, is if you stopped right down to tiny apertures. Even then, probably unlikely to cause any visibly significant problems.But it would never face the scene unobstructed… It would always see the world through a window. If it could talk, it would beg you: “Set me free, please, please!”So you've tested ALL filters available?
Another aspect to consider is the fact that lens elements will be susceptible to damage over time, if they are exposed to the elements. Perhaps not an issue if you work in an absolutely 100% sterile dust free laboratory environment, but let's face it you don't. In real world use, those elements will be exposed to all sorts of airborne dust and various chemicals, which can abrade and degrade the lens surface. For eg; if you shoot anywhere near the sea, the salt and moisture in the air can and will adhere to your camera and your lens. This is corrosive; see what happens to anything steel if left outside near the sea for any length of time. Microscopic particles of sand, which is ground up rock, will be carried by the wind, and these will cause microscopic scratches to the lens. In urban environments all sorts of nasty chemicals and oils will be floating around. At some point, you have to clean your lens. The cleaning process itself will be abrasive on a microscopic level, regardless of how careful you are. Those nasty chemicals will attack your lens coatings and degrade them. And then your lenses won't be as sharp. Ever again.
Use a filter however, and you simply swap it for a new one if it gets damaged. Ta-daaa! Lens surface still perfect.
You might not be able to see the damage, but it's there. Plus I'm backed up by science:
https://clarkvision.com/articles/protection_filters/
Soz, but Science is Science. Y'know, like, fact.
Not that you know of. Your images have suffered from that damage for 40+ years. you just don't know about it. Because ultimately, the effect is so minimal that you cannot see it. Bit like using filters...
Oh, and your lenses have lower resale value too.
First, science is not a fact. Second, dust and all that is adhering to the filter as well. Unless you put a second filter, and a third one, etc.
And on the filter surface, plus the additional degradation effects.
But it's really not difficult to prove protective benefit. If you look at the surface of lenses under a microsope/appopriate imaging device, you'd soon see that lenses that have been used without filters would show degradation someway beyond that of lenses that had always been used with filters. I've bought and sold a lot of lenses in my time, and you can tell which ones have been used without filters, easily. I reject any that have been used without filters. These have degraded image quality and lower value.
What scientific research?
i use both on some lens.
Hi! No! Go figure. Weight of evidence.So you've tested ALL filters available?
Another aspect to consider is the fact that lens elements will be susceptible to damage over time, if they are exposed to the elements. Perhaps not an issue if you work in an absolutely 100% sterile dust free laboratory environment, but let's face it you don't. In real world use, those elements will be exposed to all sorts of airborne dust and various chemicals, which can abrade and degrade the lens surface. For eg; if you shoot anywhere near the sea, the salt and moisture in the air can and will adhere to your camera and your lens. This is corrosive; see what happens to anything steel if left outside near the sea for any length of time. Microscopic particles of sand, which is ground up rock, will be carried by the wind, and these will cause microscopic scratches to the lens. In urban environments all sorts of nasty chemicals and oils will be floating around. At some point, you have to clean your lens. The cleaning process itself will be abrasive on a microscopic level, regardless of how careful you are. Those nasty chemicals will attack your lens coatings and degrade them. And then your lenses won't be as sharp. Ever again.
Use a filter however, and you simply swap it for a new one if it gets damaged. Ta-daaa! Lens surface still perfect.
Don't own a microscope. I guess lots of people do. I'll bet you reject lots.
The problem for me with rubber hoods is that they don't have the right size & shape. Also, because they do simply collapse I'm not sure how much impact damage they're actually preventing. Many years ago I had an 80-400mm zoom attached to my lens with just the plastic lens hood it came with protecting it. I made a rookie mistake when attaching it to the monopod in not ensuring it was completely attached. On hoisting it to my shoulder, it went crashing down to the blacktop; fortunately it landed lens hood first. The hood absorbed the impact; the only visible damage on the lens end was a broken rib on on of the hood mounts. The camera had some new abrasions, but everything worked as it should.
A wrist strap would have helped me, but overall it would have been more of a hinderance as I would have had to detach the camera from the monopod every time I moved about.
always works for me, nothing is perfect.
great some people like plastic, others like me prefer rubber to fit back easily in the case.
nothing is perfect that is for sure.
I think we should all just agree that filters are great in every respect. No discussion and no contrarian comments needed nor accepted.
You can't fit lens hoods to most fisheye lenses either. So, no protection at all. Although I think some fisheye lenses come with a protective front domed glass 'filter', replaceable by the manufacturer. As do a number of fast tele lenses too.
