Filter Brands

[smithdan]

Almost every old lens I've found or scrounged had a UV filter cranked on the front. Necessary protection or store sell-up, (?). I mostly shoot BW film through them so they wear a yellow filter more often than not. For protection as well as the obvious I have a couple of cheap rubber lens hoods. No front element coverage but they block lots of thumps, raindrops and dirt.

 

[D-B-J]

Yeah. Protective filters are a waste of money. I have one 77mm UV filter that I use when I'm in extra adverse conditions (salt-spray maybe, blowing wind with sand, etc), but other than that I see no point in degrading IQ for no reason. ALWAYS keep a lens hood on and that'll protect your front element about 99.99% of the time. And use a lens cap when not shooting.

Jake

 

[Gary A.]

Cheap insurance.

 

[D-B-J]

Cheap insurance.

I have to ask when a lenses front element comes in contact with something anyway? Short of dropping the camera/lens on the ground lens-first, when is this really an issue? I've never ever had a moment where I was worried about the front element of ANY of my lenses....

 

[Gary A.]

Cheap insurance.

I have to ask when a lenses front element comes in contact with something anyway? Short of dropping the camera/lens on the ground lens-first, when is this really an issue? I've never ever had a moment where I was worried about the front element of ANY of my lenses....

I personally have lost/shattered/cracked a few filters. I know first-hand of many, many more 'accidents' where protective filters have been lost. Sometimes you can remove the offending glass and keep shooting and other times you're just screwed because the lens is gone. Just because you have experience the effect of a severe shock and/or abrasive materials/chemicals to a lenses, doesn't make you qualified to speak for all photographers and all lenses. When I was working, shooting every working day, I'd say that 30% of the time there were real and significant environmental hazards that would take out a lens. We all shoot differently and for many photographers a protective filter is cheap insurance, YMMV. (I also immunized my children.)

All my lenses are hooded and most of the photogs I had referenced above also sported hoods.

Gary

 

[D-B-J]

Cheap insurance.

I have to ask when a lenses front element comes in contact with something anyway? Short of dropping the camera/lens on the ground lens-first, when is this really an issue? I've never ever had a moment where I was worried about the front element of ANY of my lenses....

I personally have lost/shattered/cracked a few filters. I know first-hand of many, many more 'accidents' where protective filters have been lost. Sometimes you can remove the offending glass and keep shooting and other times you're just screwed because the lens is gone. Just because you have experience the effect of a severe shock and/or abrasive materials/chemicals to a lenses, doesn't make you qualified to speak for all photographers and all lenses. When I was working, shooting every working day, I'd say that 30% of the time there were real and significant environmental hazards that would take out a lens. We all shoot differently and for many photographers a protective filter is cheap insurance, YMMV. (I also immunized my children.)

When did I say I was speaking for all photographers and lenses? And I agree it's cheap insurance, and earlier explained when I use them. I'm just trying to point out that in many cases they are unnecessary and/or possibly degrading IQ for no reason (I don't have children).

 

[Gary A.]

Cheap insurance.

I have to ask when a lenses front element comes in contact with something anyway? Short of dropping the camera/lens on the ground lens-first, when is this really an issue? I've never ever had a moment where I was worried about the front element of ANY of my lenses....

I personally have lost/shattered/cracked a few filters. I know first-hand of many, many more 'accidents' where protective filters have been lost. Sometimes you can remove the offending glass and keep shooting and other times you're just screwed because the lens is gone. Just because you have experience the effect of a severe shock and/or abrasive materials/chemicals to a lenses, doesn't make you qualified to speak for all photographers and all lenses. When I was working, shooting every working day, I'd say that 30% of the time there were real and significant environmental hazards that would take out a lens. We all shoot differently and for many photographers a protective filter is cheap insurance, YMMV. (I also immunized my children.)

When did I say I was speaking for all photographers and lenses? And I agree it's cheap insurance, and earlier explained when I use them. I'm just trying to point out that in many cases they are unnecessary and/or possibly degrading IQ for no reason (I don't have children).

Let's see ... how about and I quote "Protective filters are a waste of money." Nowhere did you qualify that statement as solely of your opinion. Okay, maybe you assumed that we'd all know that was just your opinion ... but, by my reaction I guess that assumption wasn't true either.

I'm not trying to be a jerk ... I just found that statement overly generalized and righteous.

 

[D-B-J]

Cheap insurance.

I have to ask when a lenses front element comes in contact with something anyway? Short of dropping the camera/lens on the ground lens-first, when is this really an issue? I've never ever had a moment where I was worried about the front element of ANY of my lenses....

I personally have lost/shattered/cracked a few filters. I know first-hand of many, many more 'accidents' where protective filters have been lost. Sometimes you can remove the offending glass and keep shooting and other times you're just screwed because the lens is gone. Just because you have experience the effect of a severe shock and/or abrasive materials/chemicals to a lenses, doesn't make you qualified to speak for all photographers and all lenses. When I was working, shooting every working day, I'd say that 30% of the time there were real and significant environmental hazards that would take out a lens. We all shoot differently and for many photographers a protective filter is cheap insurance, YMMV. (I also immunized my children.)

When did I say I was speaking for all photographers and lenses? And I agree it's cheap insurance, and earlier explained when I use them. I'm just trying to point out that in many cases they are unnecessary and/or possibly degrading IQ for no reason (I don't have children).

Let's see ... how about and I quote "Protective filters are a waste of money." Nowhere did you qualify that statement as solely of your opinion. Okay, maybe you assumed that we'd all know that was just your opinion ... but, by my reaction I guess that assumption wasn't true either.

I'm not trying to be a jerk ... I just found that statement overly generalized and righteous.

Of course it was generalized. But I later specified when I use them. Which means I "wasted my money" on one. And of COURSE it's my opinion... I'm writing it! I don't write others opinions... Let's agree to disagree. 'tis what makes the world go round.

 

[Gary A.]

Sure ... you say they are a waste of money and I say in many situations they have real value.