Clear UV Lens Filters (lens protection): A real waste of money?

[amolitor]

I am baffled by the argument that the filter can shatter and increase damage to the lens.

Maybe if you're shattering the thing with a rubber mallet, that would have bounced harmlessly off the lens? Most things capable of shattering a filter are not going to be that great for the lens, though. The argument seems to ignore the fact that there is first something that's not the filter in play here.

 

[Overread]

Watch the hammer video
What might be a small bump or scrape on the thicker front element of the lens would be a shattered filter which then has the potential to spread those shards back onto the lens and cause multiple scrapes.
Also consider if the lens is dropped, the filter can shatter and spread those shards back onto the front element where normally without the filter the front element would have come to no harm.

 

[KmH]

I am baffled by the argument that the filter can shatter and increase damage to the lens.

Have you ever seen a lens front element with nice neat circular gouges/scratches after a broken filter was unscrewed from the front of a lens?

Have you ever seen a lens with filter threads that had to be replaced after removing a filter body that was badly bent in a drop?

 

[amolitor]

No, I have seen neither. I am suspicious of the hammer video, and I still am not really seeing how the filter can become a force multiplier. Yes, I get that it can scratch the lens, I get that, in general, when the filter breaks the lens can sustain damage.

None of this matters to what I am saying. The argument seems to be that there would somehow have been less damage to the lens without the filter.

You drop the lens face down on to some rocks, a canonical failure mode. With the filter on there, the filter smashes, absorbing a bunch of energy, and then the shards scratch the glass. The scenario that leaps to mind is definitely NOT "Oh damn it, if only I hadn't had the filter on there, my lens would have been unharmed by those rocks".

 

[robbins.photo]

Filters are no use at all and indeed offer increased damage potential when faced against things such as

stones
being dropped whilst on the lens
any large projectile

The thin glass will shatter easily and the shattered glass can blow back into the lens front element; scratching it up far worse. Being dropped can also run the risk that the filter thread will lock onto the lens thread and be a difficulty in being removed whilst at the same time often damaging the screw thread on the lens. It also offers no padding or breaking distance to really "take a fall" for the lens.

So wait, what your saying then is if I have a UV filter on and someone fires a shell from a 105 mm howitzer at me, the UV filter won't protect my lens? Oh man, I am so demanding a refund.. lol

 

[minicoop1985]

Remember how I said I don't use UV filters? I've somehow acquired 4 or 5 of them..... This is what happens when you buy old cameras that come with things like filters, lens papers, manuals for things that are nowhere to be found, receipts for KFC, etc. I still don't use them though.

 

[robbins.photo]

Ok, so to summarize so far:

If I'm on the beach and some bully kicks sand in my face, UV Filter is a good idea.

If I'm on the street and some hammer wielding lunatic who has an irrational hatred of cameras attacks, UV Filter is a bad idea.

So, as long as I know where Shaun Penn is.. hmm...

 

[Nervine]

I have recently started removing all UV filters.i am not sure what to do with them now apart from coasters?

 

[Tinderbox (UK)]

I use an uv filter on every lens simply for protection and an willing to loose a little bit of image quality for the peace of mind it gives me.

John.

 

[djacobox372]

Filters protect a lenses resale value, that's all. Scratches and dings don't hurt IQ but they do devalue your lens

 

[hamlet]

The lens hood is all you need to protect your glass and it doesn't get in the way