Protective Filters...Yes or No???

[paigew]

I have never used a filter on my lenses.

 

[zombiesniper]

Can only say they've spared pricey-rare-favorite optics from harm on more than a few occasions.

Until you do side by side comparisons you have no idea that it saved anything.

I used too, until I saw pictures of comparisons with and without. Even with cheaper lenses (assuming lower quality). A direct hit to the main lens caused very little marks on the glass (using slide hammer, I think 3# slide). But a lens with a cheap filter on the front. Would get several marks (from the broken glass of the protector hitting and marking the good lens glass). The test lenses were all MF lenses from different brands. Would have several of each one (same exact lens). One would get the filter, and other would have nothing. Believe it or not, the lens barrel / actual lens piece mount would break more often than the glass (again the cheaper lenses). So, for the most part just chips in the glass were the worst, until they used more force than just letting the slide fall on the slide hammer.

After I saw that article. I thought to myself. How thick is that filter. They are all pretty thin actually. They actually take less abuse than the lens itself. And when they break, cause more damage than if it had not been there in terms of marks on the lens.

I remember a similar article and it made perfect sense to me not to have an additional thing that could shatter into my expensive glass.

 

[cgw]

Can only say they've spared pricey-rare-favorite optics from harm on more than a few occasions.

Until you do side by side comparisons you have no idea that it saved anything.

I used too, until I saw pictures of comparisons with and without. Even with cheaper lenses (assuming lower quality). A direct hit to the main lens caused very little marks on the glass (using slide hammer, I think 3# slide). But a lens with a cheap filter on the front. Would get several marks (from the broken glass of the protector hitting and marking the good lens glass). The test lenses were all MF lenses from different brands. Would have several of each one (same exact lens). One would get the filter, and other would have nothing. Believe it or not, the lens barrel / actual lens piece mount would break more often than the glass (again the cheaper lenses). So, for the most part just chips in the glass were the worst, until they used more force than just letting the slide fall on the slide hammer.

After I saw that article. I thought to myself. How thick is that filter. They are all pretty thin actually. They actually take less abuse than the lens itself. And when they break, cause more damage than if it had not been there in terms of marks on the lens.

I remember a similar article and it made perfect sense to me not to have an additional thing that could shatter into my expensive glass.

Filters have saved front elements and/or lens-side filter rings on at least a half dozen of my lenses. And no, they didn't shatter. Try acquainting yourself with evidence-based discussion sometime. Cicala is pretty good at it. You're plainly not.

 

[table1349]

Filter Failed.

 

[pixmedic]

For me, it was never about protecting the front element. I find the lens hood to do a good job of that. And the front element is pretty tough.

I just found the idea of a UV filter odd on a digital camera that doesn't need one like film cameras did. People make such a fuss over "good glass", pixel peeping and comparing mtf scores... looking for the sharpest lens. then put an unnecessary piece of glass in front of it.
Even of its an expensive filter...it just seems weird. In 25 years of shooting film and digital I've never wrecked a lens.
Maybe I'm just lucky.

Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk

 

[zombiesniper]

Filters have saved front elements and/or lens-side filter rings on at least a half dozen of my lenses. And no, they didn't shatter. Try acquainting yourself with evidence-based discussion sometime. Cicala is pretty good at it. You're plainly not.

An evidence based discussion is what was lacking in your post. I was just pointing out that if you don't do comparisons with and without a filter it is merely speculation that the filter protected anything.

 

[BrentC]

The only time I use a filter is if I am going into conditions like blowing sand or some type of condition where the lens will could easily get dirty, splashed or grit. Otherwise the lens hood does a better job of protection. If you drop or bang the lens a filter is not going to help. If something smashes the lens, the filter which is a lot thinner and less durable, has a higher possibility of cracking and scratching the lens glass. At least that is my opinion.

 

[Buck777]

I always use B+W 007's or Fuji (not tested in that article). Its purely for protection only. I have sold the odd lens and have found that advertising that a protective filter has been on the lens since purchase always gets a quick sale at a good price. I might sell them without the lens as quick but consumers always like the fact that the glass is protected, as I would do as well. I don't like hoya, and that was confirmed (to me ) in that article. I used to get B+W 010's but read an article that there is a small amount of distortion with them, whereas the 007 has none, which is fine by me.

 

[cgw]

Filters have saved front elements and/or lens-side filter rings on at least a half dozen of my lenses. And no, they didn't shatter. Try acquainting yourself with evidence-based discussion sometime. Cicala is pretty good at it. You're plainly not.

An evidence based discussion is what was lacking in your post. I was just pointing out that if you don't do comparisons with and without a filter it is merely speculation that the filter protected anything.

Er, that's why I use them, Chief. No confusion about causation when it comes to damaged-vs-undamaged front elements and absence/presence of a filter. But then this really wasn't the point of Cicala's article.

 

[Peeb]

I found your article to be a great read! Thanks for sharing.

BTW, I don't (currently) use protective filters but back in the 70s and 80s when I shot a lot of film I ALWAYS used one. Thought it was pretty much 'required'. Here is a recently scanned slide (shared in another thread) of a shot from 1979 right into the sun with a filter:

Philmont Scout Ranch 1979 by Peeb, on Flickr

I would agree with the proposition that the filter likely introduced a fair bit of optic 'trash' into the image, but I must also admit that (IMO) it kinda helped the image in this case! Of course the sun star was created by the aperture blades, but see the lower left corner.

Thanks again for your reasoned and thoughtful analysis- very helpful!!

 

[Gary A.]

I use protective filters. I find it easier to remove a damaged front filter and keep shooting than replace a front element. I've tested filtered against unfiltered and found the differences to be insignificant. Filters go a long way in protecting the front element against destructive airborne stuff. If I shot in a controlled environment (studio) or a safe environment (overprotective) then I wouldn't consider a filter. But I don't ... so I filter.

 

[webestang64]

I am always amazed at how many lenses come into our store to have the broken filters removed and how delighted our customers are when they find out the filter saved their lens.

 

[BrentC]

I am always amazed at how many lenses come into our store to have the broken filters removed and how delighted our customers are when they find out the filter saved their lens.

I'd be curious on what caused these broken filters and what damaged the filters would have damaged the lens. Also if a lens hood would have prevented it. Can you give use some of the causes?

 

[webestang64]

I am always amazed at how many lenses come into our store to have the broken filters removed and how delighted our customers are when they find out the filter saved their lens.

I'd be curious on what caused these broken filters and what damaged the filters would have damaged the lens. Also if a lens hood would have prevented it. Can you give use some of the causes?

At least 75% are from dropped cameras where the lens hit the ground first. Also I have noticed that most do not use a lens hood.

 

[table1349]

I am always amazed at how many lenses come into our store to have the broken filters removed and how delighted our customers are when they find out the filter saved their lens.

I'd be curious on what caused these broken filters and what damaged the filters would have damaged the lens. Also if a lens hood would have prevented it. Can you give use some of the causes?

At least 75% are from dropped cameras where the lens hit the ground first. Also I have noticed that most do not use a lens hood.

I find it curious how many people attribute a cheap filter as having "saved" their lens when the do not know it to be true. But there is more profit in pushing cheap filters rather than pushing the using of the OEM hood ALWAYS. Len's hoods provide protection. Protection from stray light as well as protection from objects, bumps and drops.