I just finished doing a test to compare what happens when you hit the bare front element of a lens with a paintball, with what happens when you hit it while it's wearing a UV filter. This landmark experiment was inspired by past discussions on FM, and in particular by Herb Chong's suggestion near the bottom of the first link below:
Lens: Vivitar Series 1 35-85/2.8 VF VMC, made by Kino, M42 mount.
note: this is a parts-only lens that I bought for its clean front element, which I swapped for the scratched front element on an otherwise Mint condition version of the same lens (since sold).
Filter: Tiffen 72mm Haze-1 U.S.A.
Marker: Autococker with pump kit and J&J ceramic barrel.
Paintball: winter formula, orange paint.
Shooter: my son Trevor, member of a competitive paintball team with professional sponsorship (i.e. he's a good shot).
Setup: shooting from 25 feet; barrel velocity approx. 280 to 290 fps; lens mounted with M42 to Pentax K adapter on otherwise useless dead Pentax MX body, in turn mounted on 468MG head/055 GS tripod.
Results:
(1) Bare lens: three direct hits on the bare front element of the lens did no damage at all, except to turn the white lettering on the lens face into orange lettering.
(2) Filter in front of lens: one hit on the filter blew a hole right through it and caused significant damage to the front element of the lens beneath it.
Observations: these paintballs were hitting very hard - two near-miss hits went right through the cloth covering the 468MG tripod head; paintball splatter covered the adjacent white wall of the house to a height of about 10 feet (recently cleaned to a height of about 8 feet - stupid splatter!).
Verdict: next time I shoot a paintball tournament, I will not use filters on my 24-70L, 70-200/2.8L IS and 300/4L IS lenses (which is the same as the last two times I shot paintball tournaments).
Learning: next time I do a paintball test, it won't be so close to the white side of my house (thank goodness she wasn't at home).
For what it's worth.
Jim
Attached photos:
1. before, you can just see the original scratch at about 9:30 o'clock
2. after, all of the white stuff is pitting and chips, many are worse than they look
3. after closeup, original scratch runs on LHS between .8 and Auto.
Just a thought from a paintball player. Double check the lens for small marks left from the shell of the paintball. I have take direct hits to my mask (gotta learn to keep my head down) and it all looked fine until I looked with just the right light angle and I could see a "ring" that was left behind by the impact. While I doubt this would happen on the glass surface of the lens, it is worth a check.
PS, that why we test shoot against our old shed, no cleanup issues
jcolwell wrote:
I just finished doing a test to compare what happens when you hit the bare front element of a lens with a paintball, with what happens when you hit it while it's wearing a UV filter. This landmark experiment was inspired by past discussions on FM, and in particular by Herb Chong's suggestion near the bottom of the first link below:
Lens: Vivitar Series 1 35-85/2.8 VF VMC, made by Kino, M42 mount.
note: this is a parts-only lens that I bought for its clean front element, which I swapped for the scratched front element on an otherwise Mint condition version of the same lens (since sold).
Filter: Tiffen 72mm Haze-1 U.S.A.
Marker: Autococker with pump kit and J&J ceramic barrel.
Paintball: winter formula, orange paint.
Shooter: my son Trevor, member of a competitive paintball team with professional sponsorship (i.e. he's a good shot).
Setup: shooting from 25 feet; barrel velocity approx. 280 to 290 fps; lens mounted with M42 to Pentax K adapter on otherwise useless dead Pentax MX body, in turn mounted on 468MG head/055 GS tripod.
Results:
(1) Bare lens: three direct hits on the bare front element of the lens did no damage at all, except to turn the white lettering on the lens face into orange lettering.
(2) Filter in front of lens: one hit on the filter blew a hole right through it and caused significant damage to the front element of the lens beneath it.
Observations: these paintballs were hitting very hard - two near-miss hits went right through the cloth covering the 468MG tripod head; paintball splatter covered the adjacent white wall of the house to a height of about 10 feet (recently cleaned to a height of about 8 feet - stupid splatter!).
Verdict: next time I shoot a paintball tournament, I will not use filters on my 24-70L, 70-200/2.8L IS and 300/4L IS lenses (which is the same as the last two times I shot paintball tournaments).
Learning: next time I do a paintball test, it won't be so close to the white side of my house (thank goodness she wasn't at home).
For what it's worth.
Jim
Attached photos:
1. before, you can just see the original scratch at about 9:30 o'clock
2. after, all of the white stuff is pitting and chips, many are worse than they look
3. after closeup, original scratch runs on LHS between .8 and Auto. ...Show more →
try a good square filter holder with a cr39 clear filter like a Lee or even a cokin next time.
Well, if you're shooting paintball, the square filters probably aren't portable enough for the job. But it would be interesting to see if there's a difference in impact resistance between filter brands.
Also, if you're using a hood, chances are anything that can shatter a glass filter will also destroy the hood. So you better not use those, either.
Finally, if the paintball can break glass, I wonder what it will do to those little plastic buttons and switches on your lenses, or any number of parts on your camera body?
Seems like the amount of force that your paintball gun imparts could destroy a lot of things, not just that filter. If not the direct impact, the paint being pushed into weather-sealed bits at high speed could, too. (Canon's weather sealing won't stand up to a faucet, so I wouldn't expect it to stand up to a paintball!)
Hi John. It's no problem. The plastic sleeve isn't stuck to the lens, the duct tape simply makes a tube by attaching the sheet plastic to itself, so the sleeve turns freely around the lens. You can even set the switches through the sleeve, but it takes a free thumbnail to change the small ones for focus range and Stabilizer Mode. The length of the sleeve is cut to just fit between the front of the camera body and the back of the hood, and you can slide the sleeve right off the lens if the hood is removed.
I use the same setup to shoot on the open deck of ships at sea in rough weather, for which I add an Op/Tech hood hat on a lanyard to cover the lens hood while I'm not actually shooting. The hood hat keeps salt spray and mist from getting on the front element, and it's easy to handle when you're wearing gloves.
Thanks for the hilarious test. This only supports my suspicion. I am very much against the use of UV filters for most situations.
Yes, it protects the glass from sticky dust and other debri, but it hurts your image quality (reduced contrast, increased flares) and as we've seen here, in the case of catastrophic impact, it actually exacerbates the damage.
What's terrible about this I sell cameras for a living. I only make commision on a camera if I sell a filter with the camera. So I am coerced to describe UV filters as having a positive effect on the photograph when I know they do not. I hate it!
A deep lens hood protects your lens and increases your image quality better than any UV filter can.
hey,
I do paintball photography as well, CXBL level,
I think you miss understanding the point of filters like alot of new paintball photographers do.
The point of them is not to protect it from a hit. Because god i know that my front element is forsure thickier then that tiny filter.
Filters and ask Gary from paintball photography, they are used to change in a rush from having spray from a bunker or from a ball hitting you barrel of your lens ect... and getting spray on the front element, this way you can change the filter and away you go.
As for protection against a direct hit, sure its great, but sadly out of the many time i get spray vs Never getting hit Directly in the middle of the filter, i'll go filter any day.
And as for protection for the body and lens, Kata E-702 for life haha
Jeremy Maillet wrote:
I think you miss understanding the point of filters like alot of new paintball photographers do.
The fact that I don't agree with you doesn't mean that I don't understand the issues - it means that I don't agree with you. I shoot woodsball, not speedball, so it's not quite as intense. If I shot CXBL, then I might use a filter, too.
how would that be any different, paint is paint at the end of the day.
It would be more likely that you would get spray on you from woodsball then speedball. With tree branches cutting the balls and spray would go all over the place. If anything i would be more prone to use filters in woodsball more then speedball.
I can't understand that you would go out there barebones... It just doesn't sound smart. You would have to have cleaning solution on you at all time to take the oil off your lens that you would get from so much spray or a direct hit.
You go out there in some form of bright colors and woodsballers are usually quite smart and don't just shoot at anything that moves.
I still completly disagree with you.
!
