dnadrifter wrote:
I have read this thread and many others like it and issues such as price, internal reflections, hoods, sand and salt spray, image degradation to L-glass, etc. always come up. As a rookie photographer I understand all these points and arguements.
What I rarely see addressed though is how likely is it that the front element will get scratched, (even if they are very small) by routine cleaning under normal shooting conditions (not at a sand dune). To me, again I am a beginner, I am wary of routinely cleaning of the front element knowing that there is dust, minute grime, and potential scratching agents on the lense that I am going to clean off.
I have had very reputable, and long existing camera store tell me that every time you clean a lense you could be putting small fine micro scratches in it and that is good reason to buy a filter. (I know, I know they have something to gain from selling me one...but that doesn't by itself make them wrong.)
If you go up to a car with a new paint job with a small amount of dust on it and run your fingers across it you will see scratches in the paint caused by the dust. Now there is a HUGE difference between paint and glass I know, but it illustrates the point.
What does everybody think....what is the potential to scratch an element by simple routine cleaning....Show more →
I would image that more lenses are damaged by overcleaning than any other thing. The truth is that you don't need to clean these things much. Some people go crazy trying to get every single spec of dust off the front element, only to have it return in a few minutes. Keep in mind that these lenses have very tough coatings on them. There was an article a while back about UV photography. In order to use the lens in question, one needed to rub off the coating on the front element. If I remember correctly, they recommended applying lots of pressure while rubbing it with a certain type of cloth. At that, it would take hours and hours and hours of intense work to get that coating off.
When I clean my lenses, I usually just blow some air in there and get the dust and other abbrasives off the surface. That's the extent of my cleaning. If there is some stubborn dust, I'll blow more, then use a super soft microfiber cloth to gently wipe the surface.
If you are an obsessive complusive cleaner who wants to get every single speck of dust off the lens, and you use rough cleaning techniques, you will likely wear down the lens after quite a long time. However, if you are sensible about cleaning the lenses, and do it only when necessary, it's not going to harm a thing. I suspect the camera store people said this because A) they know that most consumers overclean their gear to the point of damaging it, and B) They want to sell you a high mark-up filter. :-)
Willem W wrote:
Ben,
would you care to comment the test found in http://www.orchideen-kartierung.de/Macro100E.html.
This is a comparison between macro's. Much to my surprise the author showed a big improvement in sharpness when using a Leica Apochromat. Is this something which happens with macro's only, or would there be a real benefit in using such a filter for other lenses too?
I'm unfamiliar with macro photography and that equipment in general, so I don't really have much to offer about that,
This is a great topic of discussion, I always used a filter no matter what! Basically becuase I was nervous about damage to my expensive glass. I hate cleaning my lenses, especially when the canned air doesn't get some "embedded matter" off the glass. I will now take the old filter off when situation permits.............though..........even after what Ben Horne said, I think I'll still be nervous......couple shots of whiskey then filter comes off
If I hear you correct, you seem to be saying that the multi coating on the lens should protect it from being scratched when cleaning, and the only issue if any, would be rubbing the coating off which would take a lot of cleaning.
How do you clean occasional smudges, fingerprints, and smears (possibly from cleaning), rather than just blowing or lightly wiping dust off?
The coatings are for optical purposes. They will reduce internal refelctions, etc. Some lenses have a built-in anti UVcoating. I use a microfiber cloth to clean the lens when necessary. By necessary, I mean maybe once every two months.
In that case, if you buy filters for 4 lenses, you pay for a lens repair. And each time you drop the lens, it will cost you $80. Seeing the vast majority of people will never harm that front element, you still come out ahead without those filters.
I totally agree with Ben. One shoulnd't say "I have a $2000 lens I want to protect" but insted "I have a $160 front element I want to protect with $80 filter".
So, if this makes anyone sense, and you can live with the fact you forget the filter on when shooting light sources and get reflections on your once of a lifetime picture, then go for it. If you know how to take care of your stuff, you wouldn't propably abuse your front element, so there's no sense paying that kind of money.
Point a lens with a UV filter into the sun, and the amount of flare you see will be magnified. It does not degrade image quality measureably in all situations, but in specific situations, it will cost you the shot. I do a some seascape work myself, and after seeing how the UV filters would mangle my sunset shots, I started shooting without, just leaving the hoods on.
If you really need to filter, leave it on. But Ben is right about one thing; people will often buy gear that is designed for harsh conditions, and then baby it to the point of utter ridiculousness. It's like when you buy a car, hoping that 20 years from now, it'll look just like it does today.
Taking good care of equipment does not mean one must be obsessive; it just requires some common sense. Getting good images with the equipment requires its own measure of common sense. Common sense dictates that the durable glass elements of these lenses are designed for harsh elements, especially weatherproof ''L' series lenses. For some of the big 'L's. you can't even GET filters for the front element. Common sense also dictates that the lenses are designed to take great pictures without an additional piece of glass in front, otherwise Canon would recommend or include it.
So why would you put another piece of glass there?
tailwgn wrote:
... You can get a HOYA 77 SUPER HMC UV FILTER for $40.
Ben Horne wrote:
In that case, if you buy filters for 4 lenses, you pay for a lens repair. And each time you drop the lens, it will cost you $80.
Ben , where did you get your repair figures?
Canon's current repair rate for replacing the front glass in large primes, or the front element in most L lenses is based upon damage, and is listed as:
LABOR FEES
STANDARD $168.00
MAJOR $299.00
EXTENSIVE $600.00
If you have an IS prime with a meniscus lens, the replacement part price is:
PROTECTIVE FILTER PARTS PRICING
EF300/2.8L IS $140.57
EF400/2.8L IS $315.15
EF500/4.0L IS $261.60
EF600/4.0L IS $366.25
Plus the labor listed above...
Ouch!!! Minimum $534.25 to replace the front glass on a 600mm. DON'T DROP IT!!!!
Obviously the 4 lenses listed above won't accept screw-on filters, but lenses such as the 70-200 (all three), 100-400mm IS, 300mm F/4, and 400mm f/5.6 will cost a minimum of $168.00 labor plus the cost of the front element. I would imagine the WA lenses carry the same labor rate...
The figure was based on someone who scratched the front element of their 70-200mm. It has been a while, so I don't remember who it was, but the repair was around $160.
With regard to the bit primes, the hoods are so big on those suckers that it would be VERY difficult to scratch the protective elements on them. You'd have to take the hood off, then set the lens down on something sharp..... but I don't know who in their right mind would let that happen?
Agreed on the hoods, I was just thinking about how much it would cost to replace the protective lens if it were cracked from being dropped. They are quite thin. I doubt the $168.00 labor fee would cover that kind of external damage, and I would imagine there would other parts that would need to be replaced as well.
Anyway, I partially based my decision to keep UV filters on my lens upon repair costs, and partially upon the fact that I am constantly getting crap on filters from crawling around, runners on the beach, bugs landing on it, sand storm (lost one filter recently to that), etc. Another reason is hearing of a 70-200mm f/2.8 front element replacement that was over $300.00.
BTW, I just couldn't go two months between cleanings. Plus, if you get any sea spray in the lens glass or filter, it needs to be removed ASAP IMO. This happens almost every time I shoot the beaches.
Keep in mind I always remove the filter temporarily when any bright light source has direct access to the filter, regardless of whether on not it is visible through the viewfinder. I occasionally get surprised by unexpected flair and ghosting on the image which I believe 'may' have been due to leaving the filter on, but not that often...
Just to make Ben happy, I removed my normal UV filter off my 200mm. Will be testing it tomorrow at a hockey game and see if it fixes my AF hunting problems.
jray wrote:
BTW, I just couldn't go two months between cleanings. Plus, if you get any sea spray in the lens glass or filter, it needs to be removed ASAP IMO. This happens almost every time I shoot the beaches.
Keep in mind I always remove the filter temporarily when any bright light source has direct access to the filter, regardless of whether on not it is visible through the viewfinder. I occasionally get surprised by unexpected flair and ghosting on the image which I believe 'may' have been due to leaving the filter on, but not that often...
I used to shoot seascapes all the time with my 17-35mm without a filter. Sea spray was never a problem for me...
Nothing gets photog's going more than the "filter" debate, "smacking" on their favorite lens or having your favorite photo supplier that someone had a bad experience with....
Do what makes you feel the most comfortable. Who cares what the other guy thinks.
