Avoid uv filters

[pixmedic]

Not to side track us from picking sides and forming teams. But while it's a bummer that he dropped it and luckily he's not out any money, but isn't is an 18-55mm kit lens? Shouldn't we be debating that if he didn't have it on and it didn't work that he could get to upgrade to better glass?

(I fully realize that he may not want to upgrade or have the money to spend but it wouldn't have been all bad had it broken).

better glass aside, a kit lens is better than no lens, which is what he might have been left with.

 

[Buckster]

while it's a bummer that he dropped it and luckily he's not out any money, but isn't is an 18-55mm kit lens?

Yeah. So? Is that a problem?

Shouldn't we be debating that if he didn't have it on and it didn't work...

The assumption being that the filter "saved" the lens again, when the repeated calls for actual evidence that filters actually do save lenses remain unanswered by anything but gut feelings from those who "feel sure" that they do? This, despite actual evidence that they DO cause IQ problems in the form of reflections, Newton rings, flare and so on, and that there have ACTUALLY even been cases where the broken filter glass scratched the front element and CAUSED the damage on impact.

When someone invents "protection filters" that don't throw glass shards toward the front element on impact, cause zero reflections, Newton rings, flare or other assorted IQ issues, then we'll likely all join the protection crowd. Till then, it sort of reminds me of crossing ones' fingers in place of using a condom. Every time she doesn't get pregnant, you can say, "See? Crossing your fingers WORKS!!"

...that he could get to upgrade to better glass?

He can do that anyway, if he can afford it. And if he can't afford it, breaking his 18-55mm won't help him afford it any better, unless you know someone who likes to buy broken lenses.

(I fully realize that he may not want to upgrade or have the money to spend but it wouldn't have been all bad had it broken).

If he doesn't have the money to afford it, and the 18-55mm happens to be his only lens, then yes, it would be all bad, because he'd be all done using that camera until he COULD afford it.

 

[techniker]

I have personal experience of a uv filter protecting the lens (Lets just say, I love my grandmother but she's not allowed to hold my anymore). It didn't shatter, just cracked in a bunch of places. I don't have enough information to tell whether or not he objective lense would have broken, but i do know that it takes a considerable amount of force to break glass which would indicate that the filter absorbed a lot of energy.

I purchased a uv filter with my camera because I wanted to protect the lens and didn't know better at the time. Having a plastic hood makes much more sense, it would cushion the impact. The filter ring transfers the force into the lens and camera whether or not anything brakes. So I think it's in your best interest to use a lens hood, even though Its proven that a uv filter can protect a lense.

 

[amolitor]

It's a big old world. I can pretty much guarantee you that there are cases where the UV filter saved the lens, and others where it destroyed the lens.

Cases don't matter, statistics do. The fact that a few people are "thrown clear" in an automobile accident is not evidence that you should not wear a seatbelt. Proving that seatbelts save lives, or that UV filters save lenses, is a matter of performing a pretty detailed and subtle study. Doing something half-assed is easy, getting the study correct is not.

I can pretty much guarantee that nobody's done the study for UV filters, although it has been done for seat belts (pro-tip: wear your seatbelt).

 

[Buckster]

I can pretty much guarantee you that there are cases where the UV filter saved the lens

Prove it.

 

[amolitor]

I can pretty much guarantee you that there are cases where the UV filter saved the lens

Prove it.

Sure. As luck would have it:

I have personal experience of a uv filter protecting the lens (Lets just say, I love my grandmother but she's not allowed to hold my anymore). It didn't shatter, just cracked in a bunch of places. I don't have enough information to tell whether or not he objective lense would have broken, but i do know that it takes a considerable amount of force to break glass which would indicate that the filter absorbed a lot of energy.

I purchased a uv filter with my camera because I wanted to protect the lens and didn't know better at the time. Having a plastic hood makes much more sense, it would cushion the impact. The filter ring transfers the force into the lens and camera whether or not anything brakes. So I think it's in your best interest to use a lens hood, even though Its proven that a uv filter can protect a lense.

DONE!

 

[Buckster]

I can pretty much guarantee you that there are cases where the UV filter saved the lens

Prove it.

Sure. As luck would have it:

I have personal experience of a uv filter protecting the lens (Lets just say, I love my grandmother but she's not allowed to hold my anymore). It didn't shatter, just cracked in a bunch of places. I don't have enough information to tell whether or not he objective lense would have broken, but i do know that it takes a considerable amount of force to break glass which would indicate that the filter absorbed a lot of energy.

I purchased a uv filter with my camera because I wanted to protect the lens and didn't know better at the time. Having a plastic hood makes much more sense, it would cushion the impact. The filter ring transfers the force into the lens and camera whether or not anything brakes. So I think it's in your best interest to use a lens hood, even though Its proven that a uv filter can protect a lense.

DONE!

Sorry, I don't see any actual evidence or proof in that "personal story" that a lens was saved by a filter. In fact, I see an admission that the teller doesn't have enough information to know such a thing.

Here's one for you: "I crossed my fingers instead of using a condom, and she didn't get pregnant, which I can pretty much guarantee you proves that crossing one's fingers works to prevent some cases of pregnancy."

Do you buy that "proof"?

 

[pixmedic]

Prove it.

Sure. As luck would have it:

I have personal experience of a uv filter protecting the lens (Lets just say, I love my grandmother but she's not allowed to hold my anymore). It didn't shatter, just cracked in a bunch of places. I don't have enough information to tell whether or not he objective lense would have broken, but i do know that it takes a considerable amount of force to break glass which would indicate that the filter absorbed a lot of energy.

I purchased a uv filter with my camera because I wanted to protect the lens and didn't know better at the time. Having a plastic hood makes much more sense, it would cushion the impact. The filter ring transfers the force into the lens and camera whether or not anything brakes. So I think it's in your best interest to use a lens hood, even though Its proven that a uv filter can protect a lense.

DONE!

Sorry, I don't see any actual evidence or proof in that "personal story".

Here's one for you: "I crossed my fingers instead of using a condom, and she didn't get pregnant, which proves that crossing one's fingers works to prevent pregnancy."

Do you buy that "proof"?

I buy it...gonna save me a lot of money in condoms! im gonna try it tonight! thanks buckster!

i gotta get that vasectomy.

 

[Justman1020]

I didnt scratch his lens. Neither did the filter (fortunately, luckily) and when using the screw driver to remove the filter i was extremely careful with it as to not scratch it. I also had NOTHING to do with him mounting HIS camera on a cheap tripod. It wasn't me who dropped the camera. But thanks for your useless input. Come again soon.

My input was far from useless, you just took it as such because I pointed out that you damaged it. Sorry you're butthurt about it.

by lens I meant the thing as a whole...not the glass. All of those marks around the lip aren't from your screwdriver endeavor? Highly doubt it.

I simply meant you un needlessly scarred up the casing where you screw in filters. So get upset you like and reply like a child, it's ok, I'm simply stating the truth and allowing others to read that 1. your evidence, as you put it, is flawed in regards to your conclusion and 2, you can take off stuck/broken filters without harming any part of the lens (as a whole).

So thank you for your post and you sir, have a great day.

no. They weren't. That picture was taken before i attempted to remove the filter, otherwise the filter wouldn't be ON the lens anymore.

 

[Buckster]

I have personal experience of a uv filter protecting the lens (Lets just say, I love my grandmother but she's not allowed to hold my anymore). It didn't shatter, just cracked in a bunch of places. I don't have enough information to tell whether or not he objective lense would have broken, but i do know that it takes a considerable amount of force to break glass which would indicate that the filter absorbed a lot of energy.

 

[ronlane]

while it's a bummer that he dropped it and luckily he's not out any money, but isn't is an 18-55mm kit lens?

Yeah. So? Is that a problem?

Shouldn't we be debating that if he didn't have it on and it didn't work...

The assumption being that the filter "saved" the lens again, when the repeated calls for actual evidence that filters actually do save lenses remain unanswered by anything but gut feelings from those who "feel sure" that they do? This, despite actual evidence that they DO cause IQ problems in the form of reflections, Newton rings, flare and so on, and that there have ACTUALLY even been cases where the broken filter glass scratched the front element and CAUSED the damage on impact.

When someone invents "protection filters" that don't throw glass shards toward the front element on impact, cause zero reflections, Newton rings, flare or other assorted IQ issues, then we'll likely all join the protection crowd. Till then, it sort of reminds me of crossing ones' fingers in place of using a condom. Every time she doesn't get pregnant, you can say, "See? Crossing your fingers WORKS!!"

...that he could get to upgrade to better glass?

He can do that anyway, if he can afford it. And if he can't afford it, breaking his 18-55mm won't help him afford it any better, unless you know someone who likes to buy broken lenses.

(I fully realize that he may not want to upgrade or have the money to spend but it wouldn't have been all bad had it broken).

If he doesn't have the money to afford it, and the 18-55mm happens to be his only lens, then yes, it would be all bad, because he'd be all done using that camera until he COULD afford it.

No, it's not a problem at all, I had one with my kit too. But it's a less than $200 piece of glass, not a 400mm f2.8.

Both sides of the arguement can be made as to whether it saved it or it didn't. The FACT is that it was on there and broke and the lens is still working. That is the only thing anyone can prove.

Yes, he could upgrade glass anyway whenever he wants to. I don't know his situation but I know at my house, to upgrade now, I need for a lens to break.

Again, I don't know his situation but it wouldn't be all that bad for a $200 lens to break as opposed to $5,000 - $10,000 lens to break.

It's all perspective and guessing.

The fact as we know it now is that it is scuffed but is working.

 

[Justman1020]

Im gonna see him again a little later tonight. When I do im going to take pictures of the lens without the filter just to show that its not "damaged" from me removing the filter.

 

[amolitor]

Buckster, I'm not actually in a position to provide you with more than anecdotes. What sort of evidence, just out of curiosity, would you accept?

 

[Buckster]

while it's a bummer that he dropped it and luckily he's not out any money, but isn't is an 18-55mm kit lens?

Yeah. So? Is that a problem?

The assumption being that the filter "saved" the lens again, when the repeated calls for actual evidence that filters actually do save lenses remain unanswered by anything but gut feelings from those who "feel sure" that they do? This, despite actual evidence that they DO cause IQ problems in the form of reflections, Newton rings, flare and so on, and that there have ACTUALLY even been cases where the broken filter glass scratched the front element and CAUSED the damage on impact.

When someone invents "protection filters" that don't throw glass shards toward the front element on impact, cause zero reflections, Newton rings, flare or other assorted IQ issues, then we'll likely all join the protection crowd. Till then, it sort of reminds me of crossing ones' fingers in place of using a condom. Every time she doesn't get pregnant, you can say, "See? Crossing your fingers WORKS!!"

He can do that anyway, if he can afford it. And if he can't afford it, breaking his 18-55mm won't help him afford it any better, unless you know someone who likes to buy broken lenses.

(I fully realize that he may not want to upgrade or have the money to spend but it wouldn't have been all bad had it broken).

If he doesn't have the money to afford it, and the 18-55mm happens to be his only lens, then yes, it would be all bad, because he'd be all done using that camera until he COULD afford it.

No, it's not a problem at all, I had one with my kit too. But it's a less than $200 piece of glass, not a 400mm f2.8.

It wasn't built to be a 400mm f/2.8. The only point of ANY lens is that it can be used to take photographs. I've used an 18-55mm "kit" lens to take some pretty nice photographs, like these:

So, why would anyone want to smash a lens that can shoot those and say, "no big deal", even if it's only between $150-$200? To some, $150-$200 is a pretty big deal indeed, not something easily chucked in the garbage because it's not more expensive or, say, a 400mm f/2.8? Seems pretty wasteful, and some might even say stupid.

Both sides of the arguement can be made as to whether it saved it or it didn't.

One side can provide facts, the other can provide only speculation based on a gut feeling. I think there's a difference there, actually.

The FACT is that it was on there and broke and the lens is still working. That is the only thing anyone can prove.

No, actually there ARE other things that anyone can prove. Like, for example, the FACT is that lots of lenses suffer the same fate WITHOUT a filter and survive as well, unbelievable as that may seem. Also, there's the FACT is that some lenses suffer the same fate and get damaged BY the shards of glass from the filter hitting the front element, which NEVER happens if there's NO FILTER ON IT for that to happen. I know, also hard to believe, huh? Meanwhile, there's not one instance that we know of where a filter was on the lens and we KNOW that it saved the lens itself from damage, because it might just as easily survived WITHOUT the filter, like so many do.

Yes, he could upgrade glass anyway whenever he wants to. I don't know his situation but I know at my house, to upgrade now, I need for a lens to break.

Just curious how breaking a lens puts money in your budget?

Again, I don't know his situation but it wouldn't be all that bad for a $200 lens to break as opposed to $5,000 - $10,000 lens to break.

By the same logic, it wouldn't be bad for you to lose everything you own and become homeless, compared to someone who has a hundred times as much as you losing everything they own and becoming homeless, so you'd be okay with that too, right?

It's all perspective and guessing.

There ya go! It's all perspective! And that's what you'd be saying to yourself while rummaging for food in dumpsters as a homeless person, right?

The fact as we know it now is that it is scuffed but is working.

We know it's scuffed? Where did we get that bit of information? I don't recall seeing it. I recall somebody claiming it without evidence just before they ran away with their fingers in their ears and a fresh new blindfold in place, but don't recall actually seeing any evidence of it yet.

More to the point though: Is it POSSIBLE that it COULD BE "scuffed but is working" EVEN IF it hadn't had a filter on it?

 

[Awiserbud]

The front element in most lenses is extremely thick, you would indeed have a hard time shattering one by something contacting it face on like this, glass normally shatters from being flexed, hit it from the side and it will fracture a lot easier.
Personally i keep a UV filter on most of my glass, not to protect it, I use my own common sense to do that, I use them because they are easier to clean, they keep dust particles out, and they makes my lenses look more expensive than they are!