One of the primary these threads never end is that
both sides can make some rather outlandish statements and ones that simply are not factual. Plus the use of verbiage guaranteed to be insulting doesn't help. These just fan the flames and make the "other side" fire off a new volley. The truth is somewhere in the middle and we keep overshooting that!
Your damage scenario is worthless though.
"Worthless" is guaranteed to inflame! Can't you find a better word? It's obvious that some people agree with the OPs statements re damage.
Yes, maybe the word is harsh, but I'm pretty sure of my case. I think that the only people who are contra-filters have nothing more than good experience in not-using filters. And their "bad stories" about filters are mostly made up stories which sound a little logical.
So sorry for being harsh and arogant, but please argue with good argument instead of sticking into some words that someone misuses sometimes.
If a lens falls on the cap, the only solid contact of the cap with the filter are the edges (which are made from metal on non-crappy filters). Simple physics say that the "arm"there is 0, so that's the most difficult part to break.
Physics isn't simple anymore. Some people think it never was. ;-) Are you a Physicist? I am... If you
are a Physicist, it's sad to see the education only prepared you for repairing cameras...at least you're not flipping burgers. ;-)
Haha, you shouldn't have said that! I'm actually studying for a master Applied Physics, and the store is where I work during holidays/weekends/days off. So please challange me! Shall I design a prime for you, and write the long matrices out? Or don't you know anything about physics and just pretend to?
(I know my story is pretty unbelievable - salesman at the biggest camera store of the country and physician - but I really enjoy it being true in this case!)
My biggest gripe about this text is that you assume that the surface which the lens falls onto is always flat. If there is some small object, like a rock or a tree branch, then it's possible for the lens cap to hit that object in the middle and push it into the glass part of the filter, breaking it.
Yes, I assume that 95% of the surface a lens falls to is flat, and my experience verfies that. Examine every square decimeter you are now, and you'll see that most of the surface is flat or flat enough to hit the edges of the lens and not the glass.
Moreover, I did say pretty clearly that the filter will break instead of your front element (now I'm assuming the surface is not flat), and therefore it saves your lens. I also said that if the filter breakes, and the pieces of glass would damage the lens, that that would be better than having your front element totally broken instead of a filter (and that your front element's glass would damage the next element in the same way as the filter would).
If the cap can break the filter's glass in the middle, than it could also break the lens' glass if there was no filter.
Do you know how thick the front element of a lens is? I'm sure you do, so why draw an obviously incorrect conclusion? It might scratch it, but "breaking" is a very remote possibility.
That totally depends on the lens, but yes most of the front elements are pretty thick. But are you suggesting that it can't break? Also, we are talking here about protection, scratches included. A filter would save your unbreakable front element from scratches too.
I'd rather have my filter broken and have the filter's glass floating between my lens and cap, than having my lens broken.
Most people agree with that.
BUT there are more than just the two options you mention. I, personally, would not like to have a lens glass "broken", but know enough to understand that isn't really a likely outcome. As other, more honest, people have said, a thin clear filter is
not protection from flying missiles, but rather protection from scratches and a means to keep smudges on something easier to clean and cheaper to replace when the cleaning scratches something.
I agree. But what I said referred to the "breaking-scenario". So if something brakes, I'd rather have my filter broken. You're right that it isn't a likely outcome. With a lens cap attached, it's pretty impossible outcome.
If you are suggesting that the cap could break two layers of glass, well, than the cap must break too in order to go that deep.
I assume you are saying the 1st layer of glass is the filter and the 2nd layer of glass is the front lens element? A plastic cap is quite flexible. Some lenses have front elements very near the filter plane. It's hard and wrong to make generalizations.
If you'd read my post thoroughly, you'd seen that I mentioned your exceptional lenses, and even warned about them! I said that if you have such a front element, you should test the filter, because different filters have a different space between them and the front element, and if the front element touches the filter, you'll get scratches. And yes, in that case the the protection from great impact is also minimal.
And then it is a question between having a filter and the front element broken, or more elements on the lens.
You are just trying to get a "rise" out of the other team. Sheesh! Why not have the projectile go
all the way through the lens and destroy the sensor? Go a bit farther and it kills the photographer!
What did you say in the beginning about "inflaming"?
Anyway, I'm justing going through all the scenarios. You, as a true physician should be used to such a procedure! Moreover, it wasn't my idea of two broken layers. The OP was talking how a broken filter would damage the lens, and I just replied to his thought.
