Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
Thread started 03 Jul 2013 (Wednesday) 21:22
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Lense protection?

 
ed ­ rader
"I am not the final word"
Avatar
23,317 posts
Gallery: 4 photos
Likes: 532
Joined May 2005
Location: silicon valley
     
Jul 04, 2013 15:20 as a reply to  @ post 16091239 |  #16

Cheap lenses will probably explode with a direct hit! Any filter might also explode taking a, what, 100+ mph hit from a paintball? But I think there's a bigger chance of indirect hits and debris and for that a filter will work.


http://instagram.com/e​draderphotography/ (external link)
5D4, 80d, 16-35L F4 IS, 24-70L II, 70-200L F4 IS II, 100-400L II, sigma 15 FE, sigma 14 f1.8 art, tc 1.4 III, 430exII, gitzo 3542L + markins Q20, gitzo GT 1545T + markins Q3T, gitzo GM4562

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
TweakMDS
Goldmember
Avatar
2,242 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Nov 2008
Location: Netherlands
     
Jul 04, 2013 15:26 |  #17

I think a Hoya HD is at least half the price of a 55-250mm (used one anyway). Apart from ease of cleaning, I'd just take that risk rather than buying an additional filter at half the price now...
Think of it like this: If you don't buy it, you're already halfway towards a replacement!


Some of my lenses focus beyond infinity...!
~Michael
Gear | Flickr (external link)
"My featured shots" (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
lovemyram4x4
Goldmember
Avatar
2,198 posts
Gallery: 97 photos
Best ofs: 3
Likes: 60
Joined Mar 2013
Location: Temecula
     
Jul 04, 2013 15:45 |  #18

I'd think the 4mm thick square resin filters would be the best for impacts as it goes for filters. Most of the glass screw on filters can't take a small impact from something hard, I doubt they'd hold up with something fast yet soft like a paint ball. While the front element can handle a hit from a ball peen hammer, a paint ball should be easily be no problem, I wouldn't want want all the paint splattered on the lens(another thing the square filter might help minimize).




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
bratkinson
Senior Member
643 posts
Likes: 4
Joined Dec 2011
Location: Western MA
     
Jul 05, 2013 06:55 |  #19

I think I'd be more concerned about paint getting into the lens and or camera than damage to the front element. Except for the L lens, neither the other lens nor the camera are solidly 'weather protected'. And certainly not water-proof. I think I'd go with some kind of underwater housing, or, at a minimum, some kind of rain-protection 'baggie' that leaves only the front element and hood exposed to the weather.

http://www.bhphotovide​o.com/c/search?Ntt=cam​era+rain+protection&N=​0&InitialSearch=yes&st​s=ma (external link)


"Never tell people how to do things. Tell them what to do and they will surprise you with their ingenuity." General George S Patton, Jr 1885-1945

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
paintcheck
THREAD ­ STARTER
Member
154 posts
Joined Jun 2013
Location: Indianapolis
     
Jul 05, 2013 07:02 |  #20

bratkinson wrote in post #16093047 (external link)
I think I'd be more concerned about paint getting into the lens and or camera than damage to the front element. Since the OP is concerned about his/her 55-250mm lens, neither the lens nor the camera are solidly 'weather protected'. And certainly not water-proof. I think I'd go with some kind of underwater housing, or, at a minimum, some kind of rain-protection 'baggie' that leaves only the front element and hood exposed to the weather.

http://www.bhphotovide​o.com/c/search?Ntt=cam​era+rain+protection&N=​0&InitialSearch=yes&st​s=ma (external link)

You're right, the only lens that I'm really concerned with is the 55-250. the 18-50 is not that expensive to replace and it's not the primary lens that I would be using to do most of the shooting.

I was looking to find like a rubber grip cover, for a lack of better terms, an otterbox type covering, for the body, then I was looking for a cover for the lens/padding but i'm not sure if it would affect the zoom on the lens. (can ya tell i'm a n00b? :o )

I was thinking this Storm Jacket (external link) would be good rain protection.

I'm thinking an entirely waterproof box would be a bit bulky.


Camera(s): 7D, (wishing for a 5dm3)
Lenses: Tamron 70-200 f2.8 VC / Tamron 75-300 f/4-5.6 / Canon Nifty Fifty / Tamron 10-24 f/3.5-4.5
Cards: 16GB/32Gb SanDisks CF

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
casaaviocar
Senior Member
Avatar
887 posts
Joined Jun 2006
     
Jul 05, 2013 13:10 |  #21

ed rader wrote in post #16089390 (external link)
I found a nasty scratch on the protective filter of my 24-70L II after my night climb on the bay bridge. sure glad it wasn't the front element :D.

There is anecdotal evidence all over that a filter saved the day, there is also plenty of anecdotal evidence that a filter is not needed. There is however, a lot of solid substantiated evidence that a poorly manufactured filter can adversely affect image quality and autofocus on many lenses. Not a jihadist, which I find a bit offensive in this day and age, but a realist, there is a place (this post is one of them), and in that place, a high quality filter is the only answer.

Filters are mostly an up-sale item when you are weak purchasing very high dollar equipment, an easy throw in with a huge profit margin. The filters sold at point of purchase are usually cheap, uncoated, plain glass and definitely affect image quality and autofocus. I bought into the up-sale with my first camera purchase, but have since decided that the high $$ lens I just purchased was designed to take stellar photos and putting a $40 piece of glass in front of the $1000 glass was kind of silly. Religious used of the cap/hood/watching what I am doing, has resulted in exactly 1 front element scratched in 30+ years, and I continued to use that lens for many years after the scratch with NO affect on IQ.


Rule books are paper they will not cushion a sudden meeting of stone and metal -ekg-

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
TJays
Goldmember
Avatar
1,323 posts
Likes: 179
Joined Mar 2013
Location: Los Angeles USA
     
Jul 05, 2013 19:25 |  #22

I use Hoya Pro 1 UV filters on all my L glass just for peace of mind or if I'm looking for a certain effect. I hear all the time they degrade the quality of the photo, in my view and trials it was not true, I could not tell the difference with the filter on or off shooting under the exact conditions and settings. To use them or not use them is a choice, it's a debate that no side will win.


Regards
Terri Jean

5D4 Gripped-EOS 1DX Markll -600mm/4.0 II L-35-350mm/3.5 L-70-200/2.8 L-24-70mm/2.8 L-85mm/1.2 II L-50mm/1.2 L

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
KirkS518
Goldmember
Avatar
3,983 posts
Likes: 24
Joined Apr 2012
Location: Central Gulf Coast, Flori-duh
     
Jul 05, 2013 21:47 |  #23

TJays wrote in post #16094884 (external link)
I use Hoya Pro 1 UV filters on all my L glass just for peace of mind or if I'm looking for a certain effect. I hear all the time they degrade the quality of the photo, in my view and trials it was not true, I could not tell the difference with the filter on or off shooting under the exact conditions and settings. To use them or not use them is a choice, it's a debate that no side will win.

How could a filter not affect IQ if you use it for a certain effect? ie., it can't give you any effect if it doesn't affect the lens's performance?? Not being argumentative, just curious how that statement doesn't contradict itself.


If steroids are illegal for athletes, should PS be illegal for models?
Digital - 50D, 20D IR Conv, 9 Lenses from 8mm to 300mm
Analog - Mamiya RB67 Pro-SD, Canon A-1, Nikon F4S, YashicaMat 124G, Rollei 35S, QL17 GIII, Zeiss Ikon Ikoflex 1st Version, and and entire room full of lenses and other stuff

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
jimewall
Goldmember
1,871 posts
Likes: 11
Joined May 2008
Location: Cleveland, Ohio
     
Jul 06, 2013 09:08 |  #24

KirkS518 wrote in post #16095140 (external link)
How could a filter not affect IQ if you use it for a certain effect? ie., it can't give you any effect if it doesn't affect the lens's performance?? Not being argumentative, just curious how that statement doesn't contradict itself.

I think he was trying to say that he doesn't see a difference with his UV filters versus no filter. I don't think he meant that if he was using a polarizer that he saw no effect.


Thanks for Reading & Good Luck - Jim
GEAR

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
TJays
Goldmember
Avatar
1,323 posts
Likes: 179
Joined Mar 2013
Location: Los Angeles USA
     
Jul 06, 2013 11:04 |  #25

jimewall wrote in post #16095992 (external link)
I think he was trying to say that he doesn't see a difference with his UV filters versus no filter. I don't think he meant that if he was using a polarizer that he saw no effect.

KirkS518 wrote in post #16095140 (external link)
How could a filter not affect IQ if you use it for a certain effect? ie., it can't give you any effect if it doesn't affect the lens's performance?? Not being argumentative, just curious how that statement doesn't contradict itself.

Yes that's was my meaning UV filter vs no UV filter, this is no real loss of picture quality if good quality filters are used. Sorry if I made my statement confusing not my intent


Regards
Terri Jean

5D4 Gripped-EOS 1DX Markll -600mm/4.0 II L-35-350mm/3.5 L-70-200/2.8 L-24-70mm/2.8 L-85mm/1.2 II L-50mm/1.2 L

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
mike_311
Checking squirrels nuts
3,761 posts
Gallery: 18 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 560
Joined Mar 2011
     
Jul 06, 2013 13:26 |  #26

how about an insurance policy? :)


Canon 5d mkii | Canon 17-40/4L | Tamron 24-70/2.8 | Canon 85/1.8 | Canon 135/2L
www.michaelalestraphot​ography.com (external link)
Flickr (external link) | 500px (external link) | About me

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
hollis_f
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
10,649 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 85
Joined Jul 2007
Location: Sussex, UK
     
Jul 06, 2013 13:43 |  #27

TJays wrote in post #16096267 (external link)
Yes that's was my meaning UV filter vs no UV filter, this is no real loss of picture quality if good quality filters are used...

...most of the time.

Under some circumstances, even an expensive 'protective' filter will cause noticeable image degradation.


Frank Hollis - Retired mass spectroscopist
Give a man a fish and he'll eat for a day. Teach a man to fish and he'll complain about the withdrawal of his free fish entitlement.
Gear Website (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Nick5
Goldmember
Avatar
3,241 posts
Gallery: 4 photos
Likes: 310
Joined Mar 2007
Location: Philadelphia Suburbs
     
Sep 28, 2013 10:04 |  #28

ed rader wrote in post #16089232 (external link)
I think even the anti-filter jihadists would give you a pass on this one :D!

BADADUMP! Pshhhhhhhhhhhhhh......​..


Canon 5D Mark III (x2), BG-E11 Grips, 7D (x2) BG-E7 Grips, Canon Lenses 16-35 f/4 L IS, 17-40 f/4 L, 24-70 f/4 L IS, 70-200 f/2.8 L IS II, 70-200 f/4 L IS, 70-200 f/4 L IS Version II, 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 L IS Version II, TS-E 24 f/3.5 L II, 100 f/2.8 L Macro IS, 10-22 f3.5-4.5, 17-55 f/2.8 L IS, 85 f/1.8, Canon 1.4 Extender III, 5 Canon 600 EX-RT, 2 Canon ST-E3 Transmitters, Canon Pixma PRO-10 Printer

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

4,248 views & 0 likes for this thread
Lense protection?
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is lamacchiacosta
837 guests, 257 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.