Recommended UV lens cover for lens protection.....

[Strodav]

From what I read, UV filters were necessary with film cameras, but not so much with digital cameras. The exception is at higher altitudes, so if you are planning a trip to the mountains, you should equip your lenses with uv or cpl filters. There are a lot of "rules" that came from film photography that are not as applicable to digital photography, but are still with us.

I do protect my glass, especially my expensive glass. I use Hoya Protector filters. You can read about them here: HOYA | PRO1D PROTECTOR Do some research and make up your own mind and don't let the online "experts" bully you one way or another on personal choice issues.

 

[480sparky]

Lots of people make claims that a filter saved their lens. But no one has ever produced any empirical evidence. It's just a hunch... a feeling... a wish. They point to the busted or bent filter and proclaim, "See, that would be my lens if I didn't have that filter on it!".

But lenses and filters are completely different construction. Lenses are robust and thick. Filters are thin and flimsy.

The only way to prove your lens was 'saved' would be to subject it to the exact same event without the filter. So far, no one seems capable of doing that as the event that damage the filter was unplanned. This is the closest I've ever seen done:

Had I not thrown it out I would show proof of a shattered filter with one of my Med. Format lenses I have that had a UV filter on it.

As for thier use, UV filters above 4k feet actually are quite useful. In NM the UV index here is measured in millirads!

So you would show me a broken filter. And that is proof of what? That you broke a filter.

 

[Soocom1]

Lots of people make claims that a filter saved their lens. But no one has ever produced any empirical evidence. It's just a hunch... a feeling... a wish. They point to the busted or bent filter and proclaim, "See, that would be my lens if I didn't have that filter on it!".

But lenses and filters are completely different construction. Lenses are robust and thick. Filters are thin and flimsy.

The only way to prove your lens was 'saved' would be to subject it to the exact same event without the filter. So far, no one seems capable of doing that as the event that damage the filter was unplanned. This is the closest I've ever seen done:

Had I not thrown it out I would show proof of a shattered filter with one of my Med. Format lenses I have that had a UV filter on it.

As for thier use, UV filters above 4k feet actually are quite useful. In NM the UV index here is measured in millirads!

So you would show me a broken filter. And that is proof of what? That you broke a filter.

What broke the filter was a pebbel. The lens fell face first. I can pritty much say that the pebbel would taken out the front element.

 

[480sparky]

What broke the filter was a pebbel. The lens fell face first. I can pritty much say that the pebbel would taken out the front element.

As I said....

Lots of people make claims that a filter saved their lens. But no one has ever produced any empirical evidence. It's just a hunch... a feeling... a wish. They point to the busted or bent filter and proclaim, "See, that would be my lens if I didn't have that filter on it!".

 

[petrochemist]

Lots of people make claims that a filter saved their lens. But no one has ever produced any empirical evidence. It's just a hunch... a feeling... a wish. They point to the busted or bent filter and proclaim, "See, that would be my lens if I didn't have that filter on it!".

But lenses and filters are completely different construction. Lenses are robust and thick. Filters are thin and flimsy.

The only way to prove your lens was 'saved' would be to subject it to the exact same event without the filter. So far, no one seems capable of doing that as the event that damage the filter was unplanned. This is the closest I've ever seen done:

Thanks @480sparky that's the best test I've seen.

 

[Soocom1]

What broke the filter was a pebbel. The lens fell face first. I can pritty much say that the pebbel would taken out the front element.

As I said....

Lots of people make claims that a filter saved their lens. But no one has ever produced any empirical evidence. It's just a hunch... a feeling... a wish. They point to the busted or bent filter and proclaim, "See, that would be my lens if I didn't have that filter on it!".

Well with respect...

You werent there.

The filter stopped the damage.

 

[480sparky]

What broke the filter was a pebbel. The lens fell face first. I can pritty much say that the pebbel would taken out the front element.

As I said....

Lots of people make claims that a filter saved their lens. But no one has ever produced any empirical evidence. It's just a hunch... a feeling... a wish. They point to the busted or bent filter and proclaim, "See, that would be my lens if I didn't have that filter on it!".

Well with respect...

You werent there.

The filter stopped the damage.

Well, with respect...

So you say. I stand by my claim.

 

[Destin]

Lesson just waiting to be learned here. I used to use UV protective filters the Nikon l37c for about 20 years and then I switched to b + w which were quite expensive, and then one day I thought the heck with it I will just dispense with any filter that was about 20 years ago dude for the past 20 years I have not used any protective filters.

This. I have a friend who is an optical engineer, and I’ve had this discussion. The modern lens coatings are extremely durable and if you don’t take sandpaper to your front element, then you don’t need a protective filter.

 

[petrochemist]

What broke the filter was a pebbel. The lens fell face first. I can pritty much say that the pebbel would taken out the front element.

As I said....

Lots of people make claims that a filter saved their lens. But no one has ever produced any empirical evidence. It's just a hunch... a feeling... a wish. They point to the busted or bent filter and proclaim, "See, that would be my lens if I didn't have that filter on it!".

Well with respect...

You werent there.

The filter stopped the damage.

Unless you repeat the test without the filter you can't be at all sure of that.
All you can guarantee is the filter took the damage, it's surprising how often lenses can survive what you'd think would be a disastrous blow.

 

[cgw]

Lots of people make claims that a filter saved their lens. But no one has ever produced any empirical evidence. It's just a hunch... a feeling... a wish. They point to the busted or bent filter and proclaim, "See, that would be my lens if I didn't have that filter on it!".

But lenses and filters are completely different construction. Lenses are robust and thick. Filters are thin and flimsy.

The only way to prove your lens was 'saved' would be to subject it to the exact same event without the filter. So far, no one seems capable of doing that as the event that damage the filter was unplanned. This is the closest I've ever seen done:

Had I not thrown it out I would show proof of a shattered filter with one of my Med. Format lenses I have that had a UV filter on it.

As for thier use, UV filters above 4k feet actually are quite useful. In NM the UV index here is measured in millirads!

So you would show me a broken filter. And that is proof of what? That you broke a filter.

Think you're a bit selective(self-serving) in your reading of the video. He does concede that UV filters do protect from crud that would otherwise be rubbed off a front element with cumulative effects--arguably their biggest benefit. They have protected my lenses from bonks. Nothing will prevent damage to focus mechanicals from lateral impact. Direct hits akin to those in the video are rare but oblique hits have busted at least three UV filters and prevented chips and deep scratches to front elements of my lenses.

 

[MartinCrabtree]

Oh jeebus ya just disagree. Not like that's never happened.

 

[photoflyer]

I will just dispense with any filter that was about 20 years ago dude for the past 20 years I have not used any protective filters.

Me too. I figure there's no way I can buy a filter that is even optically neutral on a $2000+ lens. And the hood should prevent most objects from making direct contact.

That said I believe my 24-105 mark II L is reasonably water sealed so long as there is a filter on it to seal the front element. At least that is the urban legend. So I keep a filter arond for it just in case.

 

[Pixeldawg1]

OK, sacrilege here... I don't use filters- ever. Not even UV filters. I tend to be freakish about my lenses and they stay in excellent condition. The only real reason to use a UV filter is if you're shooting Ektachrome slide film, which tends to be quite blue anyway. Otherwise (and again, this is my personal opinion), there is no need for the extra glass in front of the lens, which will most likely be of a lesser quality than the glass it is supposedly "protecting" and will ultimately degrade your final image quality because it is literally in front of the good stuff. So, take a test with that 300. Try shooting without the filter and see what the difference is in the image quality. Bet that if the lens is in good condition it will be like night and day in comparison to the filtered lens shots you made. And a note... putting the UV filter in soap and water degrades it and the coating significantly and should not be done. If you want to clean either a lens or a filter, breath on it and form some condensation, then gently wipe it with a lens cleaning microfiber cloth. Repeat as needed.

 

[zombiesniper]

Again not normally a filter user.

"Protective Filter" Sorr but NOBODY makes one. They make many kinds i.e. uv, polorizing etc.

Can a filter protect your lens? Yes. From dust and debris.

Can it protect it from impact yes and no. It may protect your filter threads although highly unlikely but it WILL NOT protect your glass. And nobody can prove it. There are however a few videos on youtube that have tested and found that any impact that has enough force to ONLY just break the filter will also not harm the lens. Any impact that would have cracked or damaged the lens element would still have damaged the lens element even if a filter was in place.

Is it bad to run a filter? No. It can keep your lens element clean. This is only relavent if you have a weather sealed lens and camera though. Since protecting one end of the len is really futile.

 

[Strodav]

Again not normally a filter user.

"Protective Filter" Sorr but NOBODY makes one. They make many kinds i.e. uv, polorizing etc.

Can a filter protect your lens? Yes. From dust and debris.

Can it protect it from impact yes and no. It may protect your filter threads although highly unlikely but it WILL NOT protect your glass. And nobody can prove it. There are however a few videos on youtube that have tested and found that any impact that has enough force to ONLY just break the filter will also not harm the lens. Any impact that would have cracked or damaged the lens element would still have damaged the lens element even if a filter was in place.

Is it bad to run a filter? No. It can keep your lens element clean. This is only relavent if you have a weather sealed lens and camera though. Since protecting one end of the len is really futile.

HOYA | PRO1D PROTECTOR