Good quality - moderate cost - protection filter

[Garbz]

Very few professionals use them.

*Citation Needed* .

Most professionals I know or have seen have used them. Kind of like religion. I see most people here are Catholics. The Jews will ofcourse disagree with me. But I have yet to see a world wide census on all professional photographers which would suggest that they don't use them.

If you do scratch a front element than they can be replaced.

If I run over a lens with a steam roller that can be replaced too, it's just a matter of cost. For a lot of the lenses the front element is the most expensive. Often specially coated and aspherically designed. Depending on the lens it may be better to simply replace the entire lens than just the element if it gets damaged.


In abrasive conditions a filter is a godsend. While other photographers will meticulously work with their lens pens and micro fibre cloths, I'll pull out my shirt and just wipe. Bonus if my shirt is clean.

 

[Overread20]

Aye but at the £30ish kind of price range (I might go higher not sure yet) I'm looking at for a filter the repair costs on the lens (excluding the time factor on waiting for the repair) far and away is cheaper than not using the filter. Further the MPE which I intend to use the filter on is a rare lens so chances are any replacement parts will have to come from the factory.

It is a situation where I would use the lens hood - but its even more rare than the lens! I've not found a UK retailer that sells them and imports from HongKong are not cheap (plus I don't want to have to deal with customs as well) .

 

[kundalini]

Filters for 'protections' are for poofters.

Use your hood and common sense. While you're shifting through the bramble to get your position, use your lens cap + hood.

 

[Overread20]

Hahahah normally I agree - but this is a special case and I just don't want to risk working with something I'm not very familiar with so close to the lens - at 5:1 macro its only around 4cm from the front of the element and despite its small size I really don't want the stuff getting on the lens.

*and yes till I do it I'm being all cagey about what I'm going to do *

 

[Garbz]

Filters for 'protections' are for poofters.

Funny I think the same about people who use wishful thinking for protection. Filters are a tool, every tool has a purpose, even obscure ones.

Call me crazy but I think you're being totally shortsighted for thinking a lenshood can protect your from an abrasive liquid splashed 2-3cm from the lens. May I ask what kind of a pointless "protective" lenshood will let you get within 2-3cm of a subject?

The entire forum knows your dislike for filters, and a good half of them would agree, but at least you could do us the service of reading the thread to find out the application before posting your dogma.

 

[MrLogic]

Slightly off-topic, but all the "professional" (super)teles (300 f/2.8 and up) come with protective front elements, as far as I know. I wonder what percentage of filter haters *always* have them off / *never* use them.

 

[Overread20]

Slightly off-topic, but all the "professional" (super)teles (300 f/2.8 and up) come with protective front elements, as far as I know. I wonder what percentage of filter haters *always* have them off / *never* use them.

Apparently Canon has now removed them from the new M2versions of those lenses soon to be released.

 

[MrLogic]

Slightly off-topic, but all the "professional" (super)teles (300 f/2.8 and up) come with protective front elements, as far as I know. I wonder what percentage of filter haters *always* have them off / *never* use them.

Apparently Canon has now removed them from the new M2versions of those lenses soon to be released.

Interesting. Will they be optional, though?

 

[Overread20]

I doubt it since the originals were a firm part of the lenses construction. I assume that the will take front filters so you can get the same protection back with that - also canon do say that their weathersealed lenses are not weathersealed unless they have a filter attached.

I suspect its a move to either reduce weight - improve sharpness - reduce costs of production. It might also be that canon saw so few repairs needed that they have taken the choice that most of the deep hood telephoto primes don't need the added protection

 

[MrLogic]

I doubt it since the originals were a firm part of the lenses construction.

I know for a fact that the 600 f/4 L has a flat glass front element, so I'm not sure what you mean.

I assume that the will take front filters so you can get the same protection back with that - also canon do say that their weathersealed lenses are not weathersealed unless they have a filter attached.

I suspect its a move to either reduce weight - improve sharpness - reduce costs of production. It might also be that canon saw so few repairs needed that they have taken the choice that most of the deep hood telephoto primes don't need the added protection

Seems plausible. And under normal circumstances, no, you don't need them. But that's not what I meant.

The current crop of super teles don't take front filters, so I wonder what they come up with. There aren't even any front filters in that size, AFAIK.

 

[Overread20]

I mean that the front elements were part of the body of the lens not a slip on -so replacement still had to be done by canon (unless you were willing to open up a few £/$1000 worth of lens and have a go yourself with the ordered part )

As for the filters aspect - I guess it will rely totally upon users using the hoods - which on those lenses are pretty good protection from the start. After that I guess it means more expensive repairs on the front elements should they come to harm.

 

[MrLogic]

I mean that the front elements were part of the body of the lens not a slip on -so replacement still had to be done by canon (unless you were willing to open up a few £/$1000 worth of lens and have a go yourself with the ordered part )

Ah, I see.

As for the filters aspect - I guess it will rely totally upon users using the hoods - which on those lenses are pretty good protection from the start. After that I guess it means more expensive repairs on the front elements should they come to harm.

Yeah, under normal circumstances, the lens hood is more than sufficient. But shooting erupting volcanoes might make a protective front filter worthwhile, to give an extreme example. Less extreme: if you shoot surfers and have to deal with salt spray all the time.