How do you protect your glass?

[David T]

What do most people do to keep the front element of their lens from getting damaged? Do you rely on the lens hood and keep the lens clear for your best shots? or always have a filter (eg UV) on the front - assuming your filters go on the front?

 

[DRwyoming]

What do most people do to keep the front element of their lens from getting damaged? Do you rely on the lens hood and keep the lens clear for your best shots? or always have a filter (eg UV) on the front - assuming your filters go on the front?

For walking around I'll always have a lens hood mounted. For tripod work right out of the camera bag (e.g. careful landscape work from a tripod) I may or may not have a lens hood on depending on where the sun is, whether I need a polarizer, etc.. I generally don't use UV filters and I'm not really convinced they add that much protection as demonstrated below:

Some folks swear by UV filters and for the most part they don't really cause any problems and can keep the front element of your lenses pristine (e.g. no dust to blow off and no risk of fingerprints to clean up on the element itself) but from a substantial damage standpoint it's not clear they do all that much.

 

[Strodav]

This topic gets beat to death every few weeks on every photography forum in existence. People get passionate about it to a point of irrational arguments and name calling. There is the any uv/protective filters will destroy IQ so I don't use them and you shouldn't either crowd. They will argue that the lens hood is a good enough protection. Then there is the I want to protect my expensive lens crowd and you can't see any loss of image quality under normal conditions anyway so you should use them to.

At the end of the day, it's a personal preference. Do what you feel is right for you and don't let the zealots on either side influence your decision.

 

[David T]

Thanks I hadn’t seen Steve’s video. His conclusions make a lot of sense. Sorry if it was an old question. Not everyone has the same experience hence the forum!

 

[splatbass]

I used to use UV filters for protection, then the first image happened. I removed the filter for the second image. Both unprocessed RAW files converted to JPG in Photoshop for posting. It was a good quality B+W filter, but the light coming through the leaves caused this to happen. I don't use them anymore.

You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

 

[Ian]

I don’t believe they add any add any significant protection for the lens. I use them all the time simply because I find it easier to clean a filter than the element and it offers some protection from sea spray and sand when in those environments, which I often am. I assume the image above was shot with a lens hood. Most elements are slightly recessed and a filter will eliminate that so a lenshood becomes much more important. If the effects above arise due to the position of the source of light then just remove it for that shot. Thus far I have been lucky and never had to do it.
Ultimately it’s a case of whatever works for you and your circumstances, there is no right and wrong

 

[Pistnbroke]

I use UV for weddings where they spray champagne about or it might rain but for the birds on the long lenses No

 

[soundbyte]

I have had one experience with a UV filter saving a lens from damage.
My wife was rock hopping with a Pentax camera in its leather case (those were the days!) and crunched the front of the case on a rock, she was in tears thinking she had
done irreparable damage, not so, a new UV filter and all was good.
Saying that I do not use UV filters any more as a Nikon one I have blurs the image slightly, so it is now in its leather case in storage.
I agree it is a personal choice, I have seen the benefits in relation to damage but do not use them for quality reasons.
I may have bought a dud Nikon filter of course?

 

[soundbyte]

Hmm nice story but it leaves me with the question wether the lens would have had any damage without that flimsy piece of glass in front of it?

Quite so, but no damage was done to the lens regardless, so in that case there is a possibility that there would have been damage to the lens itself, we will never know.
Any sort of discussion about this will never be settled one way or the other, there are always unanswerable questions as you point out.
It really does come down to personal preference whether you use a lens filter of any sort for lens protection, as I stated I don't.

 

[fcotterill]

Depends on the lens. The deep lenshood protects most of the bigger telephotos. In 20 odd years carrying a 400 f5.6AIS Nikkor, never had a problem and this survived some rough country. The body was worn and chipped, however. Many of the exotic primes are designed with a flat protective element, which, apparently, is 'relatively' cheaper to repair (!)
Some smaller lenses, such as 58 f1.4G Nikkor have a deeply recessed front element, as do the 55 and 60 Micro-Nikkors. Why use a filter with these optics on a digital camera, unless a CPL?

There's a different risk category for primes with large vulnerable front element (eg 85 f1.4AFD and many UWides). If not using a CPL, I keep a protect filter on, mainly as first point of impact (potential one always hopes). I standardized on Marumi Fit+Slim MD Lens Protect. Also keep one of these on the 300 PF, as its flimsy hood is the only weakness of this superb little lens.

 

[EricBowles]

There is a lot of variation in coatings and quality with filters. The best filters are multi-coated. The coatings provide optical benefits - reducing reflections - as well as a modest level of protection. Coatings also are used to make lenses or filters easier to clean. Coatings are generally films - sometimes multi-layer films - that are applied to the clear glass filter.

I use a lens hood almost all the time - even with a circular polarizer. In poor conditions, I use a lens cap - potentially between shots. I use a CP relatively often for landscapes and macro work, but much less often for wildlife, so I am using a filter - just not a clear filter. I only use a clear filter when conditions really call for it.

I've had one occasion where lack of a filter affected my gear. I had a 70-200 with a hood and was photographing at an event. I stepped into some soft ground with 3-4 inches of mud making a big mess. I got a small splash on my lens element, and when I wiped it away it left a small scratch on the front coatings. It had no impact at all on image quality, but did affect value by $100-150 when I sold the lens. I'd rate the lens aas Bargain with the scratch instead of Good without the scratch.

There is a bit of a difference depending on where you live and photograph. In the eastern US and Pacific Northwest, you have lots of trees and foliage, and skies tend to have moisture related haze. A CP works well and is used frequently to cut haze and reduce reflections on foliage. If you are in arid regions of the mountains or southwest, you might be more subject to blowing grit, and a CP is too strong for the deep blue skies. If you use a clear filter, it's going to be much more frequently used in areas with blowing sand and grit that are not good for a CP.

One final thought. Be careful how you clean filters. Ammonia damages polystyrene and acrylic - and some coatings. Never use ammonia based glass cleaners on your filters. It can cause fogging and can't be repaired or corrected.

 

[DavidT]

I don't use a filter. I do have some for a few lenses and would only use them if in very dirty/wet environments where I want the temporary extra protection. Other than that the lens hood does a fairly good job keeping things from hitting the front element.

 

[gordon_g]

I use the hoods and the lens cap... and an unhealthy amount of caution... LOL. that's it.

 

[KiwiinHK]

What do most people do to keep the front element of their lens from getting damaged? Do you rely on the lens hood and keep the lens clear for your best shots? or always have a filter (eg UV) on the front - assuming your filters go on the front?

A UV filter saved me from writing off a lens after a fall. The filter was cracked and completely useless; but once I got Nikon to prise it off, the lens was in good condition.

 

[Yogi]

I haven't used UV filters since I switched to digital. I don't believe they offer much protection to the lens, if any. I use a lens hood for impact protection or, when faced with blowing sand or salt water, I use Sigma ceramic protector filters.

 

[Roaring 40s]

Big filters are hard to make and mount to avoid degrading the image.

Here's a simple test... https://clarkvision.com/articles/evaluating_filter_quality/index.html

 

[TimD]

Caveat....All of this works for me, myself and I. So this is my final decision and comments on the issue of protecting cameras and lenses.
I think..............probably,.............Maybe?

No filters on any digital or analog lens for me. Lens hoods are my first choice for front lens element protection.... when out of the cases... AND IN THE CASES they remain on the lens

Back and forth for years with every kind of bag or Goldberg configuration I could think of or fabricate. Lens filters to cover the front element on all lenses. Still there was damage, scratches even in the best bag or backpack affair. 3 or 4 years ago it dawned on me...never in a hard case. So..... "Ok gang...everyone up we are going back to hard cases".
No regrets, no gear loss, no damage from drops, tumbles, humidity, cold weather. No filters on any lens for protection.
Good for me. good for Pelican ($$) and good for the gear.