Probably more often than he changes front elements.
Also, just because one element of the coating is tough doesn't mean it's the only thing in there. If you're talking about older C/Y Zeiss lenses, I've personally seen lenses with cleaning marks on them. And I've seen lenses with chipped and scratched front elements for sale all the time that could have been avoided with protective filters.
It seems like some people are convinced of their choice and nothing anyone can say will change their mind except to get their last 2 cents in to reinforce their notion that a high quality multi coated filter will somehow ruin their images. I think this is actually a fairly insignificant point since I've seen far more images ruined by misfocus, poor holding technique, terrible compositions, and far too much processing. At least in my images!
alundeb wrote:
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?
Assuming it's a serious question, I would say it depends. I usually change systems often, and the filters remain fairly in good condition, but I have managed to seriously damage a few. The B+W MRC filters usually last about 2-3 years until the cleaning marks become annoying enough to replace them.
FlyPenFly wrote:
It seems like some people are convinced of their choice and nothing anyone can say will change their mind except to get their last 2 cents in to reinforce their notion that a high quality multi coated filter will somehow ruin their images. I think this is actually a fairly insignificant point since I've seen far more images ruined by misfocus, poor holding technique, terrible compositions, and far too much processing. At least in my images!
On the other hand then, how many images have you seen that was ruined by a scratched front lens element? Here's one that was ruined by a filter. A very expensive, multicoated one.
edwardkaraa wrote:
Assuming it's a serious question, I would say it depends. I usually change systems often, and the filters remain fairly in good condition, but I have managed to seriously damage a few. The B+W MRC filters usually last about 2-3 years until the cleaning marks become annoying enough to replace them.
Thanks. I could live with that expense if it turns out to be important.
It would be interesting to se a comparison of image quality between no filter, new filter and worn out filter, in a normal situation and a ghost prone situation.
This debate will surely last until the end of time.... Each person has different needs and different personal experiences. My experience tells me that the benefits of a filter are not worth the drop (albeit fairly insignificant) in image quality and the artifacts which can appear from time to time. Using the best quality filter may help but it doesn't avoid these issues entirely. To each their own.
if i knew i had to destroy a moderately expensive lens on a once in a lifetime shot that would garner me international awards and that kind of recognition i would. it's just a tool that can be replaced. i wouldn't be happy about it but if such a guarantee were in place, it wouldn't be as hard a choice as some people here make it out to be. a lens is a lens is a lens is a tool for making images, not a collector's item valued intrinsically separated from its image creation ability. even so, in the 20 or so years that i have shot without protection filters since i wised up, i haven't scratched a lens ever. destroyed a few filters cleaning them because the coatings streaked and watched fungus grow on a lens i bought used but that is it.
Hehe, you guys are funny. Still on this. And about half of us (myself included) had this exact same discussion about 2 or 3 years ago. It went for about 15 or 20 pages as well and covered all the same points. Just saying.
On the coatings being tough as hell remark, I can vouch for that. Some pre-70's lenses do actually have softish rub-off-able coatings tho. Newer ones need to be hit with a high-speed buffing wheel with polishing compound for a good 3 to 5 minutes with quite a lot of force exerted before the coating is gone enough to see the underlaying glass. This 3-5 minutes actually takes about 20min altogether or the elements heats and cracks. This is true of probably all front elements on all post 70's lenses. And yeah, I have tried it on quite a few pre and post 70's lens elements. Interestingly enough the coating on internal elements is much softer... or at least comes off much easier.
Bifurcator wrote:
Hehe, you guys are funny. Still on this. And about half of us (myself included) had this exact same discussion about 2 or 3 years ago. It went for about 15 or 20 pages as well and covered all the same points. Just saying.
this thread repeats more often than that. almost nobody ever changes their mind on either side though.
But it keeps us out of trouble and is kinda fun actually.
------
HerbChong wrote:
a lens is a tool for making images, not a collector's item...
that's wrong - unless you're only speaking only for yourself. It's both actually! If you were right then there would be no lens and camera museums - yet there are many! And many collectors here among us as well.
for lenses that ship a few hundred thousand copies a year? look in the museums and see what is valuable in them. even Leicas that ship a few thousand a year on an amazing year don't qualify.
Herb...
Bifurcator wrote:
that's wrong - unless you're only speaking only for yourself. It's both actually! If you were right then there would be no lens and camera museums - yet there are many! And many collectors here among us as well.
Here's one that was ruined by a filter. A very expensive, multicoated one.
