Removing the question, answers are getting redundant.

If you would like to post, you'll need to register. Note that if you have a BCG store account, you'll need a new, separate account here (we keep the two sites separate for security purposes).

Member's gallery
Butlerkid said:
Steve on the subject...........

backcountrygallery.com

All About UV Filters - Backcountry Gallery

UV filters – do you need them or not? It’s a question that comes up all the time in photography circles with usually about half the people thinking they need UV filters and the other half thinking the fist half is crazy! So, what’s the truth? To find out, I put everything to the test […]
backcountrygallery.com backcountrygallery.com
Click to expand...

Indeed but fair to say that 9 years since the video and article was made a lot has changed to the pro protection filters, the top Hoya filters have today just very state-of-the-art coatings. And yes, in the end there will always be a pro and a con to it.
 
Member's gallery
Have been to Florida several times and found no obvious need for a protective lens filter on the "Nature Coast".

However - on one outing to Clearwater Beach our Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 "L" lens ( a Canon weather-protected lens but w. no protective lens filter ) was accidentally dropped onto dry beach sand. Oops.

After quickly picking it up there was noted some slight "grinding" of the lens when trying to zoom with it. The lens required a trip to back to Canon for CLA and was fine afterwards.

No lens filter would help when dropping lens onto dry sand.
 
I'd challenge anyone, assuming that direct glare is not happening, to post 10 pairs of identical shots one with and one without and see how well folks can tell them apart.
 
Member's gallery
I don’t use filters for lens protection but rather ease of cleaning if it’s a dusty/sandy or spray environment. That way I can just go for it with a lens brush and lens wipes and not really worry much if i degrade a lens filter. Otherwise it’s a more meticulous approach to an actual lens element.

I’m not convinced they help much for impacts, also not really convinced the image quality hit on using them is much to worry about either.

They seem lIke (the clear/uv ones) more of a convienience item for me for quick worry free clearing of the lens. This happens more for me with smaller primes and whatnot than the large lenses where I’m generally not hiking all around with those as much and I use filters on the small lenses, but not the large lenses.
 
Member's gallery
bleirer said:
I'd challenge anyone, assuming that direct glare is not happening, to post 10 pairs of identical shots one with and one without and see how well folks can tell them apart.
Click to expand...
People can't tell when you shoot through window glass either... so what does that say about the cost of those expensive tiny bits of round glass?

R5_C2842 Wolf.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

Shot through thick window glass at Parc Omega, QC.
 
Member's gallery
I had one incident long ago when my 70-200mm rolled off a chair onto concrete. I had a protective filter on the lens, it cracked and had to be removed in pieces. I later took the lens in to have the filter ring removed, it cost me all of $10 to fix. The lens had some rough edges around the filter thread but was otherwise undamaged. I could have paid to have the filter ring replaced but chose to leave things alone.

At the time that happened the lens hood was not on the lens.

Based on various studies I have read about the effectiveness of protective filters I no longer use them. The amount of money spent on protective filters is out of proportion to their value.

To me good quality lens caps and especially hoods are much more protective.

My most vulnerable lens is probably the 800mm f6.3 pf. It has a very large front element that is both very prominent and very vulnerable. The lens comes with a very effective protective case which includes a large padded leather like front cover. I found the Zemlin lens cap to be a valuable protective addition. The cap is substantial and highly protective. It holds securely. I also always keep the lens hood in place and I recently added the two-piece Zemlin hood.
 
Member's gallery
Protective being a strange word. If you drop a lens on a filter, it will break. Will it protect the lens? Possibly, but that’s not what a protective filter is designed for. It’s meant to protect the front element from dirt and scratches. Same as a hood. Hodds are not protective, they’re designed to prevent light casting shadows on the front element and affecting IQ. They will be most likely damaged in a drop, but will they protect the lens? Unlikely.

Yes, you can buy hoods that are designed for protection, you can buy bags too of course.
My view is that it’s simply user preference. How many times have we seen this question asked. It’s endless.
 
Member's gallery
Patrick M said:
Protective being a strange word. If you drop a lens on a filter, it will break. Will it protect the lens? Possibly, but that’s not what a protective filter is designed for. It’s meant to protect the front element from dirt and scratches. Same as a hood. Hodds are not protective, they’re designed to prevent light casting shadows on the front element and affecting IQ. They will be most likely damaged in a drop, but will they protect the lens? Unlikely.

Yes, you can buy hoods that are designed for protection, you can buy bags too of course.
My view is that it’s simply user preference. How many times have we seen this question asked. It’s endless.
Click to expand...
dirt and scratch reduction still falls under protection…
 
Member's gallery
bleirer said:
I'd challenge anyone, assuming that direct glare is not happening, to post 10 pairs of identical shots one with and one without and see how well folks can tell them apart.
Click to expand...
I bought a second hand Canon 100-400 Mk2 earlier this year. When I tried using it with an extender the results were very bad. Lots of strange banding. Took the filter off and it works fine. Filter was a Hoya.
I buy new camera bodies but all my lenses are second hand. Some come with filters. If the filter is not a problem I leave it on.
 
Member's gallery
I don't use protective filters, just relying on the lens hood and being careful. For the big telephone lenses, there are no filters to my best knowledge.
When photographing on a windy day at the beach with lots of sand flying around, I guess they could make sense.
If you drop your lens on a rock with the front element, I don't think a filter would offer much protection.

If you get some, I would get really good ones which do not interfere much with the image quality of the lens, but these can get expensive, for example the Nikon 77mm neutral filter is almost 100 dollars. In Germany I saw them for about 65 Euros.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top