DPReview TV: How to clean your camera lens (hint: not like this)

Vampires don't show up in pictures so generally they're not documenting the good times with family and thus don't generally have cameras. In a pinch though...child's blood.

Mr. Half, I believe that the buildup, even from the beginning, on a tele or even standard and W/A, shows degradation the further the subject is from the camera.
I may get good sharp images in the closer range, but softer at their full range. Have noticed it mainly with my 150-600.

Like I said, it doesn’t matter as much on a non wide angle lens, also lensrentals only tests wide open sharpness. they don’t look a flares, ghosting, stopped down iq etc

Good luck.

I scratched a favourite lens when the cap slipped off in my bag and the front element obviously got dug with something. I had only taken the UV off because I couldn't clean it and forgot to buy another.

@Boss of Sony You are obviously joking, right? ;-)

Picture Leica RF with Fujifilm AF convenience. You want RF focusing, switch off AF, set it to MF. You need AF, you have the ultra modern fast and accurate focus. Wouldn't it be nice to have that in one body? Obviously, you would need an RF lens with an AF motor. Or reinventing Fuji's hybrid VF to offer a truer RF experience, since it's not a true RF.

The problem is that the smooth, precise MF of Leica lenses is achieved with traditional focusing helicoids, which are anathema to autofocus motors (they require constant force to move, are slow, and have strong inertia). The next best thing are lenses with slip focusing clutches, like I said, and those have their fare share of detractors. I don't think it's likely, or even feasible with a high degree of customer satisfaction.

UV filters are a mostly unnecessary expense in the digital age. They don't protect lenses from impact damage and they don't prevent the dreaded blue haze; an issue from the film era. Use of a lens hood is much more effective.

@MyReality
That's why I said, "What's the point?" in an earlier post.

However, your logic fails me though. The best lenses are often better than the second or the third lens of its class just 2-5% in some aspects at most. A best filter moots the difference easily. Put 5-10% extra on a filter to render your expensive lens to an above average lens? Have your filter investment ever saved any of your lenses? Why bother?

@adegroot
"Filters protect, and good filters do not degrade image quality."

Roger Cicala from the respectable Lens Rentals disagree.
https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2017/05/yet-another-post-about-my-issues-with-uv-filters/
https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2017/06/the-comprehensive-ranking-of-the-major-uv-filters-on-the-market/

And the million dollar question:
https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2016/12/front-element-lens-protection-revisited/
"So Do I Recommend Filters Now?
Not necessarily, no. I support common sense and looking at the cost-to-benefit ratio. But if you have one of the newer lenses, especially if you know the front element has Nano-coating, is aspherical, or is just expensive to replace, then I’d certainly at least have a filter available. I’d especially recommend it if you expect you might sell that lens someday; even a minor scratch is probably a 10% price reduction on the retail market. If you say they’ll pry that lens out of your cold, dead fingers, then I wouldn’t worry so much."

I won't call a strategy of "paying 5-10% of the new price upfront that may or may not increase 10% on the used price when sell it" a wise investment or a wise insurance, especially when it degrades every image you take with the investment on.

@MyReality

I always put a hood on the lens when the cap is off. I understand about the environment effect. Like you, I am just an amateur. I am not going to put a $2000 lens to those extreme environment. That's why I brought a Pany 100-300/4-5.6 to Tanzania. I wouldn't have a heart attack if I lost it to thieves or the environment.

I did put a lens protector on the lens while I was in there filming wild animals. Yeah, there are sands in the wind. And that's the only time I preferred a filter. The sand did much more damage to the equipment than scratching the front element though. The zoom and focus rings became rough even I have warped it with a cloth whole time while I was there. There are much more things you need to consider in a harsh environment besides a filter. I ended up sold it anyway. The filter did not make it worth any more at the end. I should not bother with the filter to begin with.

On the other hand, you know how much degrading a filter does once you have taken a city night scene with neon lights. Ghosting everywhere. The reflections and refractions are there in the day time as well. They are just much more noticeable on a dark scene. It hurts everything from MTF to flare to transmission to bokeh. If you care enough to buy an expensive lens for the few percentages improvement over a cheaper lens, why do you null it with a filter? Why don't you buy a cheaper lens to begin with? Like you said, a filter on cheap lens does not make sense. Roger Cicala agrees.

Unless you are spending someone else money like a pro. Then who cares?

@ entomb, ok, I knew that. So semantics aside, I'll just say "A filter and a lens are both made of clear glass"

Baron Karza. You let yourself down when you used an infantile aberration of my username. Time to grow up.

entoman. You'll change your mind after a sit down conversation at Baskin Robbins. My treat ;)

Baron Karza - thank you for using my correct username.

You may have regarded me as being a little pedantic which is fine. There are some stores that incorrectly refer to close-up lenses as "filters" and when you added to people's confusion by stating that a filter was a "lens", I felt it that the difference between them needed to be explained.

I have no idea who or what a "Baskin Robbins" is.....

entoman, I did not realize that I misspelled your user name incorrectly. But just now, in this reply where I typed it, I noticed that spell checker changed my correct spelling of your id. So I am pretty sure where you see me posting it incorrectly that it was not me doing that. So when you told me to "grow up" I was not sure why, if at all, you were upset. So I did a search on your id to see what it means. After reading about it at wiki, I concluded you were not upset but were instead thinking that both you and I have childlike user names. Mine being an action figure from the 70s. And yours: "He is an anthropomorphic duck with superhuman powers...According to his creator, Entoman is the incarnation of Siegmund Freud's id[1], which means that he does everything he wants without being bound by his conscience. Furthermore, Entoman often shows very crude forms of brutality but also high intelligence and even childish behavior. His only weakness may be his desire for ice cream."

You really never heard of "Baskin Robbins"? It's an ice cream chain store restaurant.

Baron Karza - I've never heard of the character "Entoman" that you speak of. He doesn't sound much like me. My username is based simply on the fact that I'm male and an entomologist...

Nope, I've never heard of "Baskin Robbins" either. I'm guessing you are American and that it is an American chain. I'm from the UK, and I spend as little time as I possibly can in towns or cities. That may expain it 😊

@Fungshui - I can understand looking at very small differences in IQ caused by a filter, like seeing differences in sensor performance at 100 or 200%. That is the realm of this forum and tech nerds looking for perfection.
I am coming at it from a practical point of view. I make prints from 8x12 to 24x36. At those print sizes, a filter will make no difference. Even a high end filter might make a difference in print sizes I saw in Peter Lik's gallery.
A high end filter on an expensive lens, even if it degrades the image a small amount, will leave enough IQ for a large print, because of the quality of the lens.
I use hoods on all my lenses, regardless of what people say about flare and improved contrast on newer lenses.
One of my zooms was ruined by sand and the AF motor stopped after 6 years and about 30,000+ shots.
The hood on my unsealed Canon zoom kept the front element from getting wet in Vietnam and California in light drizzle. The barrel got a little wet but still worked fine.

@MyReality
Just take a shot of cityscape full of neon signs. You'll know it is not about print size, resolution or quality of the filter.

They were broken to begin with, so nothing of value and use lost.

Tom, was it a Leica Summar 50mm f/2? I've seen many of those in deplorable condition, but they apparently make good photos nonetheless.