Discussion in 'Beyond the Basics' started by smoke665, Oct 23, 2018.
And then theres:
Sent from my SM-J737T using Tapatalk
The filters I use most often are my over-sized Nikon circular polarizers...they are larger in diameter than the filter thread size. I do not use these except for landscape/seascape uses...I don't shoot that much landscape stuff any more, but when I'm feeling "serious" about it, I like to have the CPL on there. I've given away most of my graduated filters. Ehhh...I guess I'm too lazy, and besides, the newer digital cameras I have offer so much wider latitude than the color slide film that I originally bought the filters for...
So are you going to pound the front element of an expensive lens with a hammer? If you are trying to tell me that front elements are indestructible, I have a bridge for you. They are GLASS. The protective filters sit about a quarter of an inch from the front element and as I watched the camera swing into the corner of a table and break the filter, what makes you think the front element wouldn't be impacted and break either? Is your proof some hooky video? Or at minimum sustain a serious scratch or damage to the coating? What does that do to the value of you lens? Oh, there are two broken filters on my desk because the camera repair guy I had to use to get the THIRD off a lens tossed it.
mrca watch the video Sparky links and watch it all the way through, it gives a great summary about the practical protective nature of the UV filter. About the only thing it misses is that with the UV filter there's an increased chance of more stratches on the front element with a UV filter as a result of a break because you're shattering glass which is highly abrasive. So a lighter bump, that wouldn't break or damage the front element, could easily break the filter and then go on to scratch up the lens front element.
The point is the UV filter is mostly going to protect against things like water, dust, sand etc... Ergo light material and low levels of liquids (eg spray). Where those materials are abrasive (eg salt water or sand) it does indeed give you a nice safe surface that you can wipe clean without worry about scratches appearing on your lens. In that case the filter (UV/Clear glass) is giving you a real protection.
But it can't protect against impacts - it shatters far earlier than the front element would which increase damage potential, whilst also not really offering any practical protection against any impact that would otherwise damage the lens elsewhere.
They are not useless, but they are not offering much if any real protection against any serious impacts.
As for myself and filters I use a circular polarizer as the effect of cutting out reflections can't be mirrored in editing. I'd also use Neutral Density filters and Graduated ND filters if I had them. Whilst some of the effects those filters make can be mirrored in editing and some can be superior*, there are cases (eg blurry water) where you cannot get the effect without the filter (blurry water being a case where an ND filter cuts light entering the lens, letting you use a slower shutter speed - esp if you wanted to use a wider aperture for creative reasons and/or the ambient light is still too high even if you choose a smaller aperture)
*eg an ND Grad can be great at exposing sea and sky in a single frame with both properly exposed, which can be very pleasing to achieve. However two photos and software combining the exposure of both can be superior if you were doing the same type of photo (ergo two differently lit subjects) where the meeting line between the two is very jagged and irregular (eg a landscape with lots of tall and short terrain features at random)
Other then ND and CPL any one else with experience using both CPL and warming/cooling filters. After surgery, I've found the light outside really bright. On the suggestion of a friend I bought some of the "As seen on TV" amber tactical glasses. They took care of the brightness, but the biggest shocker was the difference in details in the shadows, I could now see. I'm wondering if a stacked CPL and warming filter would do the same to a digital sensor.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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)
Separate names with a comma.