Do You Use Filters?

[480sparky]

So are you going to pound the front element of an expensive lens with a hammer?.............

Yes. I have. And it took a LOT of pounding before it finally succumbed.

Yes. This is a true story. I probably struck the lens 400-500 times during the day. And with a 24-oz. hammer. It was during an event where there were thousands of photographers milling around. Most were mostly horrified, at least until they looked at the lens and saw it was unscathed.

And no lens on the planet is going to receive that sort of torture during it's life no matter what. But I can guarantee that the first strike I took would have shattered any filter you want to put on it.

 

[mrca]

In the video above he admits it isn't scientific. Really? The fact that one lens withstood abuse without breaking is a stretch to extrapolate to all lenses from this limited sample. Also, with the first strike, are you saying glass didn't scratch, chip or spall? I wonder how many people who read this post went out and took a hammer to their most expensive lens because they believed this. Next I'll watch a video of people walking over hot coals. Hey, they don't burn your feet. You ask for proof that the impact to my filters would have broken the front element. A test with a single lens is not proof it would not. Damage to the front element detracts from the value of my lens and could degrade my image quality. I also shoot around sand and salt water and spray. The filter isnt only for impact damage. Was the lens tested to see if impact to a filter breaking absorbed impact and allowed the lens to function while an impact to the front element transmitted the full shock to the lens and resulted in internal damage or rendering the lens unusable. Or do we only speculate about things that support this bs. And as for more damage resulting from broken glass hitting the front element, I can speak for 3 filters not having done that. Sure, it could happen. But I'm not going to stop wearing safety glasses when flying objects could cause them to strike me in the eye. If one of the three filters breaking prevented damage to my front elements, I am still ahead of the game. I use Nikon clear and see no degradation of the image and have never had any flare issues, they are coated filters. With all the professional use my lenses get, they all look pristine with one of a couple dozen having some scratches to the hood from banging into things. I also keep a hood on as added protection but the last breakage took place with a hood on. Keeping a filter on them is part of the care they get. If someone thinks they are unnecessary, go for it. But those scratches on used lenses you see for sale came from something and probably not from a breaking filter... or a hammer.

 

[Braineack]

safety glasses are made of plastic that doesnt shatter.

UV filters are made of hardened glass that shatters when you look at it funny... it's not going to do much to absorb impact.

what we want are filters that DON'T shatter on impact to actually protect the front element.

 

[480sparky]

........You ask for proof that the impact to my filters would have broken the front element. A test with a single lens is not proof it would not. .............

And that is exactly the point you're missing.

In order to make a valid claim that the filter 'saved' your lens, you would have to subject the lens to the exact same incidence. Lacking that, 'filters save lenses' claims are statistically meaningless.

 

[mrca]

I looked at the first video lens. That front element is only about an inch and a half across. I have few lenses with such a small front element. The one on my 70-200 2.8 is nearly twice as wide. That is the lens that has encountered the fractured 77 mm filters as did the 24-70 with a wide front element as well. I doubt a piece of glass twice as wide is as resistant to a blow as one half it's size. I find it hard to believe the glass of a front element has a higher hardness than steel or stone and cannot be scratched. In one of the posts someone says the coating on a modern lens isn't going to scratch but there is a better chance of scratching a lens due to the filter glass shards. Exactly how does the lens get scratched without the coating being scratched or etched? I also shoot outside of the studio where blowing sand, dust, moisture, flying alcoholic beverages or rain are a common hazard. Are lens coating impervious to those agents? Also the blows in the video seem to be directed to the center, the thickest part of the lens and at ninety degrees to the lens. What happens if the metal corner of a table comes in at an angle closer to the edge of the lens. That gets past some hoods, I watched it happen. Sorry, I just don't buy it. Perhaps someone can explain how a piece of glass won't be scratched by metal. I know some folks think their gear is a jewel, but glass doesn't have the hardness of diamond or steel.

 

[Overread]

mrca the point isn't that metal won't scratch your lens, but that if your lens smashes into the side of a metal table corner, the filter in front of the lens will 100% shatter and that will mean that not only will the table corner continue on to hit your lens anyway, but that you've also then sent a load of additional shattered glass from the filter right back all over your front element. So you've not actually saved it from that kind of impact, its still damaged and still likely would want to be repaired ideally (you might not actually notice image quality loss, you have to seriously mess up a front element to notice in most typical shooting - Lens Rentals did a neat test on this Front Element Scratches


So against major impacts your filter isn't saving your lens and might only add to the damage caused. The video also shows that impact damage to the lens can be enough to break internals before the front element. Though that kind of impact is way beyond a filter.

A thin filter sheet of glass is not bulletproof glass; its not toughened glass nor is it safety glass. It's not made to save your lens in the least. It's made to filter out UV rays and as a bonus will shield your front element from light damage. Heck the Canon supertelephoto L lenses (300mm and longer) don't even have front filter threads on them, instead the filter slides into a slot on the mid rear of the lens (which holds a clear glass filter if you don't have any filter fitted). Those are the top brand top end with the biggest front elements. If UV filters were active serious protection you can bet those lenses would have them (in fact some did have fairly clear glass or simplistic/easy to replace front elements)

 

[mrca]

In my cases, the filter remained intact and no pieces came out til I removed it from the lens. So that premise is just part of a lot of speculation. My impacts have come from leaning over and the lens swinging into something. I have a 400mm 2.8 that accepts the clear or polarizing filter near the back of the lens And the front element is huge. I don't expect the filter to be bullet proof, but in my case, neither the object nor any glass got back to the front element and went no further than the filter. Since there was enough force to shatter the filter, it is logical that that is enough force to scratch the front element even if it doesn't break it. I shoot a 46 mp camera, and don't want a scratch on the front element to degrade my image or reduce the value of my lens.

 

[Derrel]

In my cases, the filter remained intact and no pieces came out til I removed it from the lens. So that premise is just part of a lot of speculation. My impacts have come from leaning over and the lens swinging into something. I have a 400mm 2.8 that accepts the clear or polarizing filter near the back of the lens And the front element is huge. I don't expect the filter to be bullet proof, but in my case, neither the object nor any glass got back to the front element and went no further than the filter. Since there was enough force to shatter the filter, it is logical that that is enough force to scratch the front element even if it doesn't break it. I shoot a 46 mp camera, and don't want a scratch on the front element to degrade my image or reduce the value of my lens.

A front element scratch does almost nothing to the quality of the image; it's the _REAR_ element where minor imperfections have horrible consequences. I had an 08-200 f/2.8 one-ring Nikkor that I bought second hand for $300 about 17 years ago...it had a dime-sized, white, (frosty-colored white) impact crater on the front element...one word...."motocross"....it also had five or six rock chips that looked like BB-shot impacts (again, "motocross"). This was a professional sports shooter's old lens, and it was THRASHED....and you know what? The front element's impact crater, literally the size of a 10-cent coin, made no visible impact on the images shot under normal circumstances.

Again...check the Lensrentals.com's article...a scratch on the front of a lens? The light rays hitting the FRONT of a lens are coming in in a somewhat random pattern...making front element defects almost a non-issue....but once the light is aligned (collimated?) and is exiting the lens and headed toward the film plane, defects on the rear element play a HUGE part in image problems....a slight smudge of finger oils on the rear element creates a major softness issue...a POSTAGE stamp half licked and stuck on the front element of a lens does almost nothing.

 

[480sparky]

............. I also shoot outside of the studio where blowing sand, dust, moisture, flying alcoholic beverages or rain are a common hazard. ....

Wow. Sand..... dust..... moisture.... flying booze. Those certainly will shatter any front lens element.

............. Also the blows in the video seem to be directed to the center, the thickest part of the lens and at ninety degrees to the lens. What happens if the metal corner of a table comes in at an angle closer to the edge of the lens. That gets past some hoods, I watched it happen. Sorry, I just don't buy it.......

Yet you use the exact same argument to claim filters protect lenses.

 

[tirediron]

Based on that video, I've learned that my filters are wayyyyyyyyyyy more fragile than I thought, therefore I'm going to start putting lenses in front of them as protection for the filters!

 

[smoke665]

Just based on the dome shape of the lens versus the flat glass of the filter, it would automatically be stronger. However I see nothing wrong with using a UV filter if it makes you feel better. I still use them when I want to add an effect that involves smearing stuff on or pasting a cutout over the lens for a shaped Bokeh.

 

[TreeofLifeStairs]

Since buying my new lenses I’ve not bought any filters. I did previously own a CP, and a couple ND filters which I may buy again. I also had an orange filter that I used to take pictures of my reef tank.


Sent from my iPhone using ThePhotoForum.com mobile app

 

[Derrel]

When one shoots directly toward bright light sources, or light sources in front of a dark field [classic example: birthday cake candles in front of a darkened room as the background], even a high-quality B+W 010 filter can give ghost spots; I know, since I used a $110 B+W filter in a candle-lighted scenario with my wife and young son, and it _RUINED_ an entire sequence of irreplaceable photos.

I used Nikon L37c filters for over 20 years, then switched to B+W filters....and then several hundred dollars later in 77mm filters, I realized...these filter are not doing $Hi+ for me....just NOT doing _anything_ of real value. All of the two-plus decades of anal-retentive filter use...went right out the window. I stopped using "protective filters"...and the sun came up the following day, and has for 18 years since.

There are _ONLY_ two times during which I will use a "protective" filter.The first time is during the spring time, when deciduous and coniferous trees frill the air with millions of minute sap particles. That environmental condition lasts only a short while. The second time is when I am at the Oregon coast, right down on beach level, and there's a lot of sea-spray coming in. The filter is easy to wipe clean--provided you use a filter that cleans well. Some older filters, like the Hoya HMC (Hoya Multi Coated) were VERY difficult to clear. I used to joke that Hoya HMC meant "Hoya Messy Coating", because almost all cleaning the filter did was to smear things around and around and around. Does a smeary,dirty filter help or hinder?

NEW filters of high grade, some of them I should say, have been coated with new-era coatings that resist water and other droplets, and clan much more-easily than old-tech filters.


Again...many people are sold on the idea of filters. Whatever. I used to be one of them. Now that I no longer bother with them, I rest easier. I don't worry about imagined boogeymen scratching my front element ,and am happier and less-stressed now that I'm out there, filter-less.

 

[DaveAllen]

I use CPLs and Grad NDs when necessary, but that's about it. I agree with the folks that no UV filter is needed for protection and has more downsides than upsides IMO...

 

[petrochemist]

I sometimes use a CPL, or a denisity filter (most of my stronger ones are far from neutral!)
More common than either are a whole host of infra red filters 720nm, 650nm, 590nm, BG3, UG11 & U340 are probably the most common.
Very occasionally a starburst or diffraction or multi-image or softening filter... More for the fun of playing with them than for the result.

I've even found UV filters useful - take the glass out of them & glue the thread on a projector lenses to mount it on my helicoid or simply use them to hold a bokeh mask in place.