When I bought a lot of Canon L glass, I followed the conventional wisdom that informed me I wasn't getting a proper weather seal without it (still don't know if that's true or "accepted truth") and that it was far less expensive to replace a good filter than a front element. I invested a lot of time and money in finding the "right" filters for them, too. A few years later when the alt bug bit and I sold off all my AF lenses, they all had one thing in common, that being pristine UV filters. So now I don't bother. So far, all of my lens' front elements have not suffered for it, but I'm fairly cautious and have a solid routine with the lens caps.
In my experience, filter ring damage is more common than glass damage. I've never damaged the filter ring on any of my lenses, but I know people who have, and I've (knowingly) bought several used lenses that had filter ring damage. A filter would have protected these threads/rims, absorbing the damage. Naturally, the damaged lenses lose an incredible amount of resale value. I have bent the front rims of at least two filters in the course of my career -- that would have been the lens rim, otherwise.
I've bought a couple lenses with scratches and gouges in the front and rear elements. Those lenses sold for very low prices. One was a Nikon 180/2.8 ED AIS that had obviously lost its front lens cap in the camera bag and been terrible scratched and deeply gouged by the rabbit ears of another AIS lens grinding against it on a trip. I bought it for a song, filled the gouges and worst scratches with a Sharpie black marker, and it takes very nice pictures. But when I go to sell it, I won't even get what I paid for it. A filter definitely would have saved that lens and its IQ and improved it resale value.
Then there is the Zeiss ZE 21/2.8 I've been trying to sell . . . I thought I'd follow the sage advice to never use a filter on it, and guess what? It got a small scratch in the front lens surface. It's off to the side and doesn't affect images, but it is visible and I have to disclose it, and is killing my resale price. It's a beautiful lens and crying shame to have that little mark have such and effect on the price of an otherwise perfect lens.
It's really easy to have a flip attitude, until it starts costing you money.
Now I'm back to using a filter most of the time the camera is in motion (I'd never damaged a front element in 30 years prior!), except when safely on a tripod, or a cheaper lens that I can easily repair or replace. Even a lens hood is out of the question for many faster paced events -- they can be far too large and bump into people or objects.
RCicala wrote:
Facts, to me, would be things like 1) how much does the front element of the lens cost, 2) how quick and easily could it be replaced, 3) what conditions am I shooting in.
My favorite silliness example is a friend who bought a $93 B&H filter to protect the front element of his Canon 70-200 f4 IS, which costs $76 from Canon parts and can be replaced at home in 15 minutes.
#2 would be a key element that should be a big factor depending upon the situation. If you happen to damage your favorite lens the first day of vacation or backpacking trip, then the "how quick and easy" part becomes a no go. Simply removing a filter would obviously be a better solution, no?
Having said that, I'd rather not have a filter unless it improves the photo. I use a filter for protection only in certain situations like shooting in high winds or at the beach, where a filter on lenses such as the 70-200f4is, provide weather-sealing. I think hoods provide much more protection from damage.
'Until one day you come home, DL all your images onto the computer, and find that the 3 or 4 best shots from the day were ruined because of the filter'
You might investigate fittings called lens hoods, bif. They work well, so do hats, as flare control agents. I don't lose images to 'filters', ever.
Roger may know how much a front element of a fancy glass CY 21/2.8 might run...can't buy one? fancy that. Not to mention the hassle and cost of labour/shipping.
Erwin Puts (who know a thing or two) says a good clean filter costs you 1% of image quality - about as much as you may or may not see on the preceding page's comparisons...back your eyes to see it? don't be so sure.
I use 'em because I shoot 12,000 kms away from home, in the Great Himalayan range (mucho UV of course) - if not there, in tough wilderness areas. I often end up eating the volcanic dust in my food in the mountains, it blows in every afternoon, and it's very, very abrasive. And I've lost count of the number of lenses I've seen ruined due to front element damage - last century lenses for which element replacements are highly likely to not be easily available. But each to his/her own.
In street environs like India, I will sometimes remove the filter for a shot, they seal the front much better than the average cap. If I was buying a 14-24 I would budget for a replacement element for resale; so sure am I about likely damage, for my shooting. But I work out of a bag, with a lot of stuff in it, in jeeps, etc. I don't buy the BS about coatings being harder than [insert favourite metal] either.
Thinking more about this, perhaps most filter 'issues' are from bright light sources - street lights, sun in frame, etc. and night shots. Who knows - they don't affect what I do in any case.
philip_pj wrote:
'Until one day you come home, DL all your images onto the computer, and find that the 3 or 4 best shots from the day were ruined because of the filter'
You might investigate fittings called lens hoods, bif. They work well, so do hats, as flare control agents. I don't lose images to 'filters', ever.
hoods and hats don't do much when the light source is in the frame (e.g. at night in a city).
edit: oops, i see you realized that.
philip_pj wrote:
I use 'em because I shoot 12,000 kms away from home, in the Great Himalayan range (mucho UV of course) - if not there, in tough wilderness areas. I often end up eating the volcanic dust in my food in the mountains, it blows in every afternoon, and it's very, very abrasive. And I've lost count of the number of lenses I've seen ruined due to front element damage - last century lenses for which element replacements are highly likely to not be easily available. But each to his/her own.
In street environs like India, I will sometimes remove the filter for a shot, they seal the front much better than the average cap. If I was buying a 14-24 I would budget for a replacement element for resale; so sure am I about likely damage, for my shooting. But I work out of a bag, with a lot of stuff in it, in jeeps, etc. I don't buy the BS about coatings being harder than [insert favourite metal] either....Show more →
they can certainly be useful to protect a lens against weather and dust, but i don't buy they're ability to protect against real impact. if anything heavier than light hail hits the filter it'll shatter putting lots of nasty stuff against the front element. all you people losing lens caps in your bags should get decent caps – seriously, throw out those zeiss caps.
Speaking about impact, I had once an incident where the filter did protect the front element. I was shooting an indoor soccer match with the ZA 135/1.8 and for laziness reasons I didn't bring the hood along. You might know that the large front element of the ZA 135 is very close to the filter mount, not recessed like the ZA 85. I received a ball flat on the lens front, and the filter had a long scratch and one deep nick in the glass. The filter was expensive, a 77mm Sony Zeiss, but I am not sure how much would it have cost me to change the front element, probably much more than the filter cost. If I had the hood on, it would have been broken too, and it costs more than the filter
I'll very rarely use a UV/protective filter at all these days. The impact it can have with flare/glare, colour/contrast out weigh any (unlikely) potential damage my front element might get. I used to use UVs all the time from my film days out of habit, but they're a thing of the past now... thankfully. Learnt from those mistakes.
But of course, I do a lot of outdoor photography, so a protective filter does still come with me occasionally. Another example is my 58/1.2, my cap isn't that stable, nor is my hood, so when I'm travelling to where I want to shoot the filter is always one, and I just take it off with the end cap when I come to shoot. That element is quite exposed, so for me there is a reason there.
Gunzorro wrote:
A filter definitely would have saved that lens and its IQ and improved it resale value.
Unless you perform a controlled experiment you don't know whether a filter would have saved the lens from damage. I prefer to be more careful with my equipment.
telyt wrote:
Unless you perform a controlled experiment you don't know whether a filter would have saved the lens from damage. I prefer to be more careful with my equipment.
A controlled experiment is hardly necessary, but if you insist, you can lightly rub the edge of a lens cap against the front element a couple of times, with and without filter. As mentioned earlier in this thread, the lens cap of one of my lenses got loose while in the bag and kept on rubbing on the front element for quite a while, until I noticed it, but then it was too late. That was during the very short period of time when I decided not to use filters, influenced by a similar thread on this same forum.
edwardkaraa wrote:
A controlled experiment is hardly necessary, but if you insist, you can lightly rub the edge of a lens cap against the front element a couple of times, with and without filter. As mentioned earlier in this thread, the lens cap of one of my lenses got loose while in the bag and kept on rubbing on the front element for quite a while, until I noticed it, but then it was too late. That was during the very short period of time when I decided not to use filters, influenced by a similar thread on this same forum.
I was responding to Gunzorro. In your case a loose lens cap is preventable.
Smridevan wrote:
By flipping through the two images, I can see that the image without the Nikon L37c filter has a tiny bit more micro-contrast and sharpness than the image with the filter.
I did the same thing with the image with the B+W filter and the image without, and the difference is not as noticeable if at all. I guess this does show that a more expensive filter does make a difference, albeit a very small one.
Yeah, agreed. And in all truth this is about the same difference I usually see in el'cheap-o filters too. It's just the 1 in 100 shot that gets wrecked because of the filter (cheap or expensive no matter) that keeps me away from them. And sometimes every shot in the shoot is wrecked - I've had that happen too without knowing it. In my case I guess I'm lucky; except for a few family member shots and shots of friends, I shoot inconsequential subjects that wouldn't bother me much if lost. Besides those mentioned I could lose my entire 2 year library (boom) and I wouldn't even care all that much. It's interesting here in Japan too... I dunno if these types exist outside Japan but there is a class of photographer here (perhaps making up about 25% ?) who shoot to the card but never offload the images to anything. When they're tired of looking at the captures or maybe showing them to a few friends, they just delete them - gone forever. They just enjoy the moment of capture and using the equipment and that's about it. I recently met a family where 3 members were into photography in such a way. But they did "transfer" the images to a Sony P&S so that they could play them back for others without having to allow others to touch their expensive gear.. That all had 5DmII cameras with expensive L lenses. They might even have had multiple memory cards I dunno - didn't ask. But with never being displayed larger than 3" even the worst filter "wreck" will likely never be noticed.
Kinda weird IMO but I think it demonstrates how totally unimportant fine detail and ultimate IQ are past the point of capture, to a whole lotta folks - at least here in Japan.
edwardkaraa wrote:
A controlled experiment is hardly necessary, but if you insist, you can lightly rub the edge of a lens cap against the front element a couple of times, with and without filter. As mentioned earlier in this thread, the lens cap of one of my lenses got loose while in the bag and kept on rubbing on the front element for quite a while, until I noticed it, but then it was too late. That was during the very short period of time when I decided not to use filters, influenced by a similar thread on this same forum.
Are you sure that the coating is actually damaged? I had something I thought was scratches on the front element of a Nikkor 35/1.4 AI-S, but before I sold it I tried to rub the front element with a micro fiber cloth and isopropanol, quite brutally, and the "scratches" came off. Those where also from a lens cap, which of course is much, much softer than the coating, but can still leave marks.
I never use filters unless I'm shooting in the rain. Not even with very expensive lenses such as the Summicron-M 28/2 or Makro-Planar 100/2. But I do put the cap on directly after each image is taken.
telyt wrote:
I was responding to Gunzorro. In your case a loose lens cap is preventable.
You are suggesting I try to ruin either an expensive filter or an expensive lens to satisfy your curiosity? Ha-ha! That sounds like you have a self-assignment there!
Edward, I'm with you on this. I would prefer not to have an extra piece of multi-coated glass in the optical mix, and will remove it when I don't need the filter. I'll go further -- I'm not a big fan of changing lenses on the fly -- the most liability of lens damage and dust getting inside the camera body. I have a lot of lenses, but when possible, I keep the same lens on during a busy outing and bring additional body, or bodies.
Makten wrote:
Are you sure that the coating is actually damaged? I had something I thought was scratches on the front element of a Nikkor 35/1.4 AI-S, but before I sold it I tried to rub the front element with a micro fiber cloth and isopropanol, quite brutally, and the "scratches" came off. Those where also from a lens cap, which of course is much, much softer than the coating, but can still leave marks.
I never use filters unless I'm shooting in the rain. Not even with very expensive lenses such as the Summicron-M 28/2 or Makro-Planar 100/2. But I do put the cap on directly after each image is taken....Show more →
Martin, what you are describing here is not unusual. Some faint marks can be polished off, but what you're actually doing is reducing the surrounding coatings, which is the basic idea behind polishing anyway. The Zeiss cleaning liquid that I use actually softens the coatings to allow for what you're describing. Rubbing the glass "brutally" as you say will leave the dreaded cleaning marks inevitably.
Gunzorro wrote:
You are suggesting I try to ruin either an expensive filter or an expensive lens to satisfy your curiosity? Ha-ha! That sounds like you have a self-assignment there!
No, I'm suggesting that unless a controlled experiment is done to confirm your suspicions you have a belief that the UV filter would have prevented damage, not knowledge.
telyt wrote:
No, I'm suggesting that unless a controlled experiment is done to confirm your suspicions you have a belief that the UV filter would have prevented damage, not knowledge.
No, I've stated that I've had lenses saved by the filter which took the scratch instead. And that I've knowingly bought several damaged lenses that had scratched elements, front and back, that were obviously not protected by filters.
I've also bought numerous used filters, as well as receiving cast-offs with used lenses, and as a result, have seen the good, the bad, and the ugly that could have been the front element of the lens. Most common are "cleaning" scratches, probably from wet t-shirts coated in pumice out in the wilds.
Next you will be questioning my chain of custody.
I'm not a filter salesman -- don't use one, and see if I care!
(BTW -- I do agree with an earlier posting that filters have probably the highest profit margin of any photo-related product. Sad, but true.)
