Jcolwell : wicked cool shot of the blasted lens. Thanks for taking one for the team there.
To the OP : I live near the beach, and I often shoot outdoors in bad weather, in animal enclosures, and in other wet and dirty conditions. I keep a UV filter on each lens, but I take it off for all shots that I take in good conditions. Also, if you shoot flowers as I do, note that some flower colors will be thrown off by most filters. Even the best quality filters sometimes have this effect. I do think B + W and Heliopan filters are better, and that's all I use. Crown Pinks are one of the most widely grown flowers for this test, FWIW. Only plant geeks like me care, I suppose.
I guess its been said, but filters are also easier to clean than the lens glass. Salt spray and toddler snot are not something I want on my good lenses. I shuddered at the thought of chicken grease.
Polarizers are used for a different reason, and even some of the no-filter nazis will admit to using them for landscapes. They're also valuable for shooting where there are reflective surfaces of leaves in bright sun, or when you're on the water.
Jim, i have wondered. would you be willing to do this test with a modern but junk lens? take an old 50 filled with fungus and shoot it like you did the filter. my suspicion is that the front element would not break or scratch.
Excellent idea. I think you're right that it wouldn't break the front element, but why not find out, eh? I have a few likely candidates in my "to sell" pile, their value is less than it would cost to ship them somewhere. Maybe this weekend...
AJ Nadershahi wrote:
What does that mean? If a lens is built and labeled as weather resistant, it comes out of the box weather resistant. Otherwise there would be a disclaimer or warning to "purchase and install an additional filter".
Lenses like the 16-35 II need a filter to complete its weather sealing, you can look it up.
Matt Leitholt wrote:
If you were to drop your lens, the chances of the front element being damaged with a filter on it is much less likely than if you had no filter.
A flimsy filter on your lens is not going to reduce any damage if you drop the camera plus lens, seriously. The only use for a filter is to protect he front element from environmental elements like salt water or chicken fat.
Orlov wrote:
Lenses like the 16-35 II need a filter to complete its weather sealing, you can look it up.
OK, I looked this lens up in the lens workbook 3, It says nothing about requiring a filter. And by the way, the official wording for all "weather resistant" lens in the workbook 3 is "drip proof" not "weather resistant".
pipspeak wrote:
I'm in the "I wish I could do without but am too scared that I'll ding my front ring/element" camp
agreed. it's a simple calculus. variables: how good are your pictures on average? what would be the impact of a slightly degraded (MTF, contrast, ghosting) image due to the filter? what's the ratio of purchase price of lens to purchase price of filter and/or replacement cost of front element? how likely is it that your front element will be marred in the field without a filter?
for me, it's relatively simple: i am a terrible amateur photographer, incredibly clumsy, and have a taste for expensive things. so, every piece of equipment gets stored very carefully in overly padded containers, every lens get a filter, and i clean everything carefully and regularly.
OTOH, if you're professional photographer thom hogan, who is currently raging on against filters on the dpr forums, eking every little bit of performance out of photo equipment is your livelihood, and the marginal chance of damage (in the care of someone of his experience and expertise) is absolutely worth paying for. in fact, he almost certainly sees a monetary net positive if filter flaws keep even a few of of his photos from selling.
adding: i'm not sure i understand this weather sealing via filter thing. filter screw-mounts are not particularly efficient moisture barriers unto themselves (being metal to metal). so it seems somewhat counter-intuitive to call that weather sealing (unless you're meant to fill the mount with RTV silicone or similar?
AJ Nadershahi wrote:
What does that mean? If a lens is built and labeled as weather resistant, it comes out of the box weather resistant. Otherwise there would be a disclaimer or warning to "purchase and install an additional filter".
It is obvious to see from the mechanical design why the filter is needed, and that is stated by Canon. Do you have any of the relevant lenses? Just look at the front while zooming.
mkawa wrote:
agreed. it's a simple calculus. variables: how good are your pictures on average? what would be the impact of a slightly degraded (MTF, contrast, ghosting) image due to the filter? what's the ratio of purchase price of lens to purchase price of filter and/or replacement cost of front element? how likely is it that your front element will be marred in the field without a filter?
Stick the hood on the lens and you are doing a much better job of protecting the front element from accidental bumps, bangs, or dropping. Unlike a UV filter, a hood can improve images. Use a UV filter to protect for salt air, greasy fingers, etc.
yes, and all the damage occured from the shattered filter glass scratching the front element requiring it to be replaced while the paintball material itself didn't damage anything. annoying to clean off, yes. damaging, no.
Herb...
frankda4 wrote:
Did any one actually shoot up a 50? I really would like to know if it would damage the front element! Plus the photos would be cool =p
I'll use em for certain areas like beaches just as an added sand trap. Or if going up close on my cats. Rather the paw touch the filter than the actual front of the lens lol. Wish the 10.5 had something like that, have to be real careful with that glass.
Want physical protection, get a hood. Most glass comes with them, may as well use it, you paid for it. If not, get the hood if possible. Had a few moments where I was glad I run hoods. Chipped hood just adds character to it Added flare reduction an added bonus.
Want filters, get one that does something. Polarizers are nice, about to get into ND filters shortly.
I've also heard that replacing the last lens in most lenses is not very expensive - like $75; I'd like to confirm this. Having to do that once every great while compared to buying a $49 UV filter (MRC good quality) for each lens - it seems like a no brainer to me. I've been shooting in nasty conditions for decades and never had to replace a lens element. ON the other hand, I've had multiple UVs break and spill shards of glass all over the lens - until I finally gave up using them.
UV Filters are probably one of the prime profit centers for most camera shops. They used to matter when shooting at high altitude with film (more sensitive to UV) but digital sensors don't care about UV.
I've got B+W MRC F-Pro UV filters in sizes to match any lens I've got, and I don't even want to think about how much I spent on them as a collection. Funny thing is that I have never used any of them, even once. I've also got the matching B+W MRC F-Pro KSM CPL's, but those actually do get used when necessary. So, now you know what I think of UV filters, but I'll bet they'd make great cold-drink coasters, especially the larger ones
I know even I've said UV filters might be a good idea at the beach, where's blowing sand/surf is in the air, but really in that case, I'm more worried about getting grit in my lens' zoom and focus rings. A UV isn't going to help with that issue. In 35+ years of photography, I have never damaged a front lens element, so that has to count for something, too.
This is why they are used, happened yesterday. Camera bag rolled out of truck onto street from about 2 feet up, cap was on. I don't want to think about how my 16-35 would've looked without it.
Exactly.
People bang-on about how clear filters are destroying their image quality, but have no qualms using a pola.
Constant cleaning degrades the coating on the front element.
If you live near the beach or are exposed to stuff like kid's sticky fingers, smoke, etc. etc. and need to clean the front element frequently, then clear filters make a lot of sense.
Many Canon lenses need a clear filter to be weather sealed also.
Even lenses like the 24L MK II need this.
dougjk wrote:
You are supposed to put a UV filter on your lenses (particularly the ones with large diameter filter threads) so that your local camera dealer can turn an extra profit.
There are lovers and there are haters of UV filters. I use them because I want the added security a filter provides to the lens... if I bump the front or drop a lens, I'd rather have to pay for a new filter than a new front element (hoods do indeed provide some protection but I often don't use a hood).
The only optical downside to filters (good multicoated ones) is they can increase flare in bright sunlight at certain angles. Other than that I've yet to see proof that cutting out 1% of visible spectrum light has any detrimental effect on IQ.
Are UV filters a rip off? Hell yes! I don't care how involved the multi-coating process is, paying $70+ for about 4 square inches of glass is ludicrous. I tend to use Hoya S-HMC or HMC, which are generally the cheapest multi-coated filters available.
I have a few likely candidates in my "to sell" pile, their value is less than it would cost to ship them somewhere. Maybe this weekend...
