There just seems to be a number of people somehow invested in not using a quality protective filter because they know better despite first hand experience of people with no vested interested in the sales of filters.
Gunzorro wrote:
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.)...Show more →
Do you understand the distinction between belief and knowledge? That's all that matters to me. I don't give a rat's ass whether anyone uses a protective filter or not.
ricardovaste wrote:
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.
If you find a D57KB for it, you won't need anything else. I've got mine clamped on good and tight to my 58/1.2 and I just leave it as a permanent fixture, in the bag, in my pocket, while shooting (of course) - all the time. It could survive far more abuse than any filter. If I want to get really rough with my 58/1.2 (like let my kids play catch with it or something crazy) I have a metal screw-on cap for it as well.
edwardkaraa wrote:
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.
I don't believe that for a second. The coatings are tough as hell and only about as thick as the wavelength of light (that's how they work). The surface of the "scratched" lens looked like new when I was finished.
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.
Where have you read about this? No offense, but it sounds like a real myth to me.
Makten wrote:
I don't believe that for a second. The coatings are tough as hell and only about as thick as the wavelength of light (that's how they work). The surface of the "scratched" lens looked like new when I was finished.
Where have you read about this? No offense, but it sounds like a real myth to me.
It's ok, everyone is free to believe whatever they want. If you think coatings are tough as hell, I won't argue with that, but I've seen cleaning marks develop from just one overzealous cleaning.
cogitech wrote:
If you find a D57KB for it, you won't need anything else. I've got mine clamped on good and tight to my 58/1.2 and I just leave it as a permanent fixture, in the bag, in my pocket, while shooting (of course) - all the time. It could survive far more abuse than any filter. If I want to get really rough with my 58/1.2 (like let my kids play catch with it or something crazy) I have a metal screw-on cap for it as well.
yeah, i just use a 55mm metal screw cap. i could drop the lens from 10ft onto a pointed rock and i'm sure the glass would be fine. more importantly, i can put the camera and lens in my wife's purse with her keys etc (to make up for all the times i carry her stuff in my pockets) when we go out and not worry about any damage.
Gunzorro wrote:
No, I've stated that I've had lenses saved by the filter which took the scratch instead.
The front element is orders of magnitude tougher than the filter - just because the filter got a scratch doesn't mean that the front element would have had it received and equal blow.
-
Anyway, a funny story - I got started with alt glass in the first place because of filters. Before going down the Zeiss ZE path, my primary wide angle was a Canon 16-35 f/2.8 (MkII). I was increasingly displeased with the image quality - the edges and corners where just awful. You could see it in web sized photos. I stumbled upon some Zeiss ZE photos and was very impressed and after doing a bit of research I got my first alt lens - the 21 Distagon. When I got it I took it out for a spin and to my dismay the image quality was not nearly as good as I expected.
I made a post about it here (one of my first posts) and was told unanimously that there was something wrong. At some point somebody asked me if I had used a filter. Sure, I replied, a Cokin ND Grad filter and got a response that basically amounted to "What do you expect when you put a $10 piece of plastic in front of a $2,000 lens?". I stopped using the filter and the image quality improvement was just amazing. The 21 Distagon proved to be everything I had hoped for and more. Much later I got a set of high end Lee ND-grad filters and there was no directly noticeable degradation in quality - although I have not used them a lot.
Anyway, the really funny thing is that for quite a while whenever the Canon 16-35 was mentioned, I would make a point of showing samples of what a terrible lens that is. Until it suddenly struck me one day that I had been using Cokin ND-filters on it - all the time. So I dusted it off and took a bunch of test shots - without the Cokin filter. Although the IQ was of course not in the same league as the 21 Distagon, it was not nearly as bad as when used with the cheap plastic filter. Had I not used the damned filter, I would have probably been quite happy with the zoom and never ventured off into alt-territory.
I guess the moral of the story can be expressed as follows:
1) The quality of the filter matters a lot. Don't put a cheap filter on an expensive lens!
2) Filters can be much more expensive than you think. That damned Cokin filter resulted in me spending a lot of $$$$$$ on alt glass
AhamB wrote:
Doesn't protect your lenses from salt spray and sand and such, especially wide angle lenses.).
No, but a lenshood increases the contrast you get from each lens, eliminates flare and ghosting, protects the front element and lens from impacts and all this without putting additional glass in the way which can ruin image quality...Every lens should have one!
There are only a couple of SLR filters that are usefull with digital cameras...ND grads, ND's and Polarisers...And thats about it!
Besides, if I do get down to the beach to shoot I dont plan to get my camera/lens close enough to the waves to get exposed to salt in the first place...If there is any spray, the Cokin ND grad filter which I would be using will protect against it.
denoir wrote:
The front element is orders of magnitude tougher than the filter - just because the filter got a scratch doesn't mean that the front element would have had it received and equal blow.
-
Anyway, a funny story - I got started with alt glass in the first place because of filters. Before going down the Zeiss ZE path, my primary wide angle was a Canon 16-35 f/2.8 (MkII). I was increasingly displeased with the image quality - the edges and corners where just awful. You could see it in web sized photos. I stumbled upon some Zeiss ZE photos and was very impressed and after doing a bit of research I got my first alt lens - the 21 Distagon. When I got it I took it out for a spin and to my dismay the image quality was not nearly as good as I expected.
I made a post about it here (one of my first posts) and was told unanimously that there was something wrong. At some point somebody asked me if I had used a filter. Sure, I replied, a Cokin ND Grad filter and got a response that basically amounted to "What do you expect when you put a $10 piece of plastic in front of a $2,000 lens?". I stopped using the filter and the image quality improvement was just amazing. The 21 Distagon proved to be everything I had hoped for and more. Much later I got a set of high end Lee ND-grad filters and there was no directly noticeable degradation in quality - although I have not used them a lot.
Anyway, the really funny thing is that for quite a while whenever the Canon 16-35 was mentioned, I would make a point of showing samples of what a terrible lens that is. Until it suddenly struck me one day that I had been using Cokin ND-filters on it - all the time. So I dusted it off and took a bunch of test shots - without the Cokin filter. Although the IQ was of course not in the same league as the 21 Distagon, it was not nearly as bad as when used with the cheap plastic filter. Had I not used the damned filter, I would have probably been quite happy with the zoom and never ventured off into alt-territory.
I guess the moral of the story can be expressed as follows:
1) The quality of the filter matters a lot. Don't put a cheap filter on an expensive lens!
2) Filters can be much more expensive than you think. That damned Cokin filter resulted in me spending a lot of $$$$$$ on alt glass ...Show more →
I certainly agree that if a person is going to use a filter it should be one of quality. Those cheap filters really cost you big time!
One has to wonder how bad the contact is to create scratches and gouging on lenses. My first view camera lens had a big chunk gouged out of it, just off center. And I've purchase a few others that were nearly as bad, listed as Ugly.
Maybe I'll go back and try harder to polish out the mark on my ZE 21. Now there is lens I babied along and seldom used, just trying to keep it pristine. So much for that!
Gunzorro wrote:
[One has to wonder how bad the contact is to create scratches and gouging on lenses. My first view camera lens had a big chunk gouged out of it, just off center. And I've purchase a few others that were nearly as bad, listed as Ugly.
Maybe I'll go back and try harder to polish out the mark on my ZE 21. Now there is lens I babied along and seldom used, just trying to keep it pristine. So much for that!
Haha, there seems to be the Scandinavian school of thought on this forum that claims the lens coatings and front element are hard as nails. An interesting concept, but that still needs to be proven
I have no idea why lenses on the used market almost invariably come with small nicks and polishing/cleaning marks, even when described as in excellent or mint condition. I suspect most people don't see these marks, but they are there nevertheless. If you want to really get scared, look at the front element with a jeweler's 10X loupe. Curiously, all second hand lenses I have bought (always with filters, I never buy used if the owner didn't have a filter on) had pristine front elements, and all the cleaning marks on the filter. Probably even more pronounced as people seem to treat filters less carefully than how they would normally treat the naked lenses.
I am sorry, but no one can convince me about that theory unless they start making front elements from synthetic sapphire or diamonds.
Gunzorro, if I were you, I would be careful with that ZE 21.
I will, Edward, don't worry! I used a micro fiber cloth and Singh Ray cleaning solution and was fairly gentle the first time.
I just bought a used Nikon 28-200G lens on eBay that had smear marks and dust on the front coating and very dusty on the rear, and it cleaned up beautifully -- looked bad, but was fine in reality.
edwardkaraa wrote:
I have no idea why lenses on the used market almost invariably come with small nicks and polishing/cleaning marks, even when described as in excellent or mint condition. I suspect most people don't see these marks, but they are there nevertheless. If you want to really get scared, look at the front element with a jeweler's 10X loupe. Curiously, all second hand lenses I have bought (always with filters, I never buy used if the owner didn't have a filter on) had pristine front elements, and all the cleaning marks on the filter. Probably even more pronounced as people seem to treat filters less carefully than how they would normally treat the naked lenses. ...Show more →
excellent, it's discriminating buyers like you that allow me to pick up amazing lenses for half to a quarter their mint price. the actual degradation in iq from a few tiny scratches or coating marks on the front element is less than from a filter in most cases. also, i'm cheap.
often the elements just need a bit of cleaning too.
edwardkaraa wrote:
Haha, there seems to be the Scandinavian school of thought on this forum that claims the lens coatings and front element are hard as nails. An interesting concept, but that still needs to be proven
No one has claimed that, unless you mean fingernails. You on the other hand, have claimed things like the Zeiss cleaning fluid will "soften the coating". How about proving that first, before you try to put words in other peoples mouths?
Makten wrote:
No one has claimed that, unless you mean fingernails. You on the other hand, have claimed things like the Zeiss cleaning fluid will "soften the coating". How about proving that first, before you try to put words in other peoples mouths?
Well, you said the coatings are tough as hell. I'm not sure if nails are tougher than hell and how tough hell exactly is, but in my poor understanding of english, that must mean extremely tough.
Luka also mentioned something similar.
As for my claim about the Zeiss cleaning fluid, it is my own experience and I cannot prove it, that's why I didn't insist on this issue. Anyhow I'm surprised about your aggressive tone. Usually you give the impression of being a mild person.
edwardkaraa wrote:
Well, you said the coatings are tough as hell. I'm not sure if nails are tougher than hell and how tough hell exactly is, but in my poor understanding of english, that must mean extremely tough.
”Magnesium fluoride is inert to organic chemicals and many acids including HF. It will slowly dissolve in nitric acid.”
”Magnesium fluoride can be machined with standard diamond tools and water based coolants. The material takes a good polish using either aluminum oxide or diamond based polishing powders using either pitch or cloth laps.”
”Hardness: 415 Knoop” (~same as steel and glass)
Good luck scratching it with a lens cap or "softening" it with a propanol based cleaning solution.
As for my claim about the Zeiss cleaning fluid, it is my own experience and I cannot prove it, that's why I didn't insist on this issue. Anyhow I'm surprised about your aggressive tone. Usually you give the impression of being a mild person.
I'm mild until the point when people try to make fun of me or when people claim things they don't know anything about. If it is something we scandinavians have in common, it's the desire for knowledge instead of just believing things.
Glass and steel are soft material and scratch easily. I know that because I'm a gemologist and jeweler. Moreover, if you think someone is making fun of you while it was obviously a friendly joke, you must have personal issues. Will make sure to avoid you in the future.
edwardkaraa wrote:
Glass and steel are soft material and scratch easily. I know that because I'm a gemologist and jeweler. Moreover, if you think someone is making fun of you while it was obviously a friendly joke, you must have personal issues. Will make sure to avoid you in the future.
Have fun with those diamond lens caps of yours and the nitric acid cleaning fluid. And keep avoiding anyone that proves you wrong.
edwardkaraa wrote:
I know that because I'm a gemologist and jeweler.
Aah, that explains why you treat your lenses as jewels
Serious question: Since you say cleaning marks are to be avoided for photographic reasons, how often do you exchange your filters with new ones, since they also get cleaning marks and you don't want cleaning marks in your optical path when you take photograps?
The coatings are tough as hell and only about as thick as the wavelength of light (that's how they work). The surface of the "scratched" lens looked like new when I was finished.