Who uses filters for the sole purpose of protecting the lens

GregDunn wrote in post #16177942
I use high quality filters on all my lenses. My 17-55 took a serious fall onto a protruding object that shattered the filter a few years ago, and all I had to do was remove and replace it - the lens was fine physically.

I use protective tissue paper on all of my camera bodies. Last week I brushed against a bush and the tissue got ripped - but the camera was fine physically. I dread to think what would have happened without the protective tissue.

I cannot see any difference with or without a filter, even on my 70-300L. I do remove a filter when shooting into the sun, to avoid any extra flare.

I think my filter saved my 15-85 on a trip to Rome last Fall. I don't know how it happened but I looked at the front of the lens and saw a huge smash in the filter with broken glass everywhere. But the lens was OK and I even had an extra filter for it.

Never. And I actually shoot in weather conditions that might warrant a filter sometimes, if one is ever warranted. It's a catch-22: shooting severe storms typically means worrying about flare, so if you care about IQ, you just have to take the risk. I accept that the front elements of my lenses will not be cosmetically pristine after enough use. Have never seen the faintest hint of problems with my images as a result of dust or micro-scratches, though.

Dirty Murd wrote in post #16177995
False, false, false. So if you're walking through the woods or trying to climb down a bank to get to a hidden waterfall, you wouldn't want a cheap filter over the glass to protect from stray tree branches/twigs that stick out all over in the woods? How would a lens hood protect from a branch or stray twig poking straight past the hood into the lens? A basic UV filter does absolutely NOTHING to image quality so why wouldn't you want the extra protection?

As you said - False, false, false. A UV filter is an extra piece of glass between the subject and your sensor. By definition it *must* impact IQ. The better ones have minimal impact, others have a significant impact.

Take a look at http://www.lenstip.com …icle-UV_filters_test.html. The best filters still block about 3% of visible light, while one of the Hoya filter blocks 10%. And all filters cause an some increase in flare - with some doing better (less degradation) than others.

(Edit - the best overall filter in the lenstip review - Hoya HMC - blocks about 3% of visible light. There are other filters that only block 1% to 2% of visible light, such as the Marumi WPC UV, but were downgraded for other reasons.)

I will use a UV filter when the potential for damage to the front element is more important than the image degradation I know I will get. An to be honest, if I am going somewhere really hazardous to my 7D, I'm just as likely to leave it at home and use the P&S. (I get to do this since I'm just not a pro. )

If the glass is flawless, who cares? I ignore the "filter on since day 1" and I've never bought a used lens with unexpected glass problems.

I have them on all my mostly used lenses, 17-55, 24-70, 70-200. I don't have them on my specialty lenses, 60 and 100mm macro, 10-21, and not on my 50. I don't use those that often.

As for IQ, I never noticed a difference, so on they stay. I use B+W filters only. My walk around lenses (first two) almost always have the circ polarizer on them. tens of thousands of photos later I'm still happy with the results, never got a glare. A long time ago I tested the 17-55 with and without with "difficult" light, no difference. So on they stay.

But it's not a religion, some use them, some don't. Do as you will, but the "fact" that it deteriorates IQ is simply not there for me. Others swear it's there, so take your pick, do as you like, take photos

hollis_f wrote in post #16178153
I use protective tissue paper on all of my camera bodies. Last week I brushed against a bush and the tissue got ripped - but the camera was fine physically. I dread to think what would have happened without the protective tissue.

I understand why some people don't use them. I can understand why some people (including myself) do use them. I never felt the need to make fun of either.

You have used this "story" before. The analogy is not the same (not even close)(nor funny), could you find a better one?

PS - No disrespect intended as you typically have excellent responses.

Too old to change now, been using filters for protection on my lenses since the early 70's. It's a hard habit to break.

jimewall wrote in post #16178399
You have used this "story" before. The analogy is not the same

The analogy is the same. The idea that a thin piece of flat glass could possibly 'protect' the front element of a lens from impact damage that would have otherwise destroyed the lens is as ridiculous as the idea that a piece of paper could protect a camera body.

hollis_f wrote in post #16178494
The analogy is the same. The idea that a thin piece of flat glass could possibly 'protect' the front element of a lens from impact damage that would have otherwise destroyed the lens is as ridiculous as the idea that a piece of paper could protect a camera body.

I'm with the other dude--totally not the same.

Yes throwing a lens against a rock with or without a filter probably has similar outcomes. But scratching your lens against the same rock with or without the filter probably has very different outcomes.

Anyway same deal. No disrespect but this is not one of your better analogies.

People have scratched their lenses just by wiping them when there was dust that was abrasive. Obviously wiping the same dust off a filter would not have damaged the lens. Whether or not those fine scratches make any difference to iq is a different argument. I don't think people put on filters thinking they will stop all damage. They just help eliminate the smaller damages. That's all.

hollis_f wrote in post #16178494
The analogy is the same. The idea that a thin piece of flat glass could possibly 'protect' the front element of a lens from impact damage that would have otherwise destroyed the lens is as ridiculous as the idea that a piece of paper could protect a camera body.

First, I'm making the assumption that if someone is using a protective filter that they are also using the hood for protection. Like I do!

With that said! I don't think anybody here is using a filter as protection from impact damage that would have otherwise "destroyed" the lens. If the impact is that strong, nothing on the lens going to protect it. Otherwise someone is deluding themselves.

We are using the filter to protect against light bumps, relatively frequent cleaning, possible scratches, etc.... More than that, like I said someones fooling themselves. Heavy impacts and worse are why I (and others) also cover equipment in an insurance policy.


To the analogy -
No, the analogy is not the same!

One - Paper is not even close to the thickness nor the strength(to resist forces) of even thin normal glass - let alone the glass they are using for lenses and lens filters. If the filter was made of plastic wrap then I would agree with you, but they are not. (Side note in reference to me - I said I use Hoya HD glass so even a little stronger.)

Two - Paper would touch the body, the filter is (or should be) off the front of the front lens element. This would make a difference (especially slight on impacts) by providing a little give.

(So while yes, it is ridiculous to think of the paper as much protection, the properties that the "thin" glass has is much farther from ridiculous.)

Three - A lens element with (a) scratch/s on the front element may not affect the IQ a ton. Yet, that scratch can definitely increase the chance of flare (probably more so than the addition of the filter). A scratch on the camera body does, nothing.

So, at least in my opinion, it is not the same analogy. (Or at least not a real close analogy).

jrbdmb wrote in post #16178257
As you said - False, false, false. A UV filter is an extra piece of glass between the subject and your sensor. By definition it *must* impact IQ. The better ones have minimal impact, others have a significant impact.

Take a look at http://www.lenstip.com …icle-UV_filters_test.html. The best filters still block about 3% of visible light, while one of the Hoya filter blocks 10%. And all filters cause an some increase in flare - with some doing better (less degradation) than others.

I will use a UV filter when the potential for damage to the front element is more important than the image degradation I know I will get. An to be honest, if I am going somewhere really hazardous to my 7D, I'm just as likely to leave it at home and use the P&S. (I get to do this since I'm just not a pro. )

Then how come the clear protective filters look no different than when there is no filter on? The IQ is 99.99% the same. Maybe if you buy a filter for 5 bucks, there could be a color cast or something. But if you purchase a nice Hoya or B+W protetive filter, there is absolutely no difference in IQ. To say there is is foolish. The link you provided actually proves my point exactly. Here is a specific link within the link you provided. http://www.lenstip.com …2mm_010M_UV-Haze_MRC.html Look at the 3 comparison images...exactly the same. Thanks for helping me reiterate my point Not to mention they didn't even use the Hoya HD filters on that list...

jrbdmb wrote in post #16178257
If the glass is flawless, who cares? I ignore the "filter on since day 1" and I've never bought a used lens with unexpected glass problems.

Good for you! For some of us who actually care about the quality of our lenses, it gives us a piece of mind to know that the previous user actually gave a flying you know what about his lens too.

Dirty Murd wrote in post #16178749
Then how come the clear protective filters look no different than when there is no filter on? The IQ is 99.99% the same. Maybe if you buy a filter for 5 bucks, there could be a color cast or something. But if you purchase a nice Hoya or B+W protetive filter, there is absolutely no difference in IQ. To say there is is foolish. The link you provided actually proves my point exactly. Here is a specific link within the link you provided. http://www.lenstip.com …2mm_010M_UV-Haze_MRC.html Look at the 3 comparison images...exactly the same. Thanks for helping me reiterate my point Not to mention they didn't even use the Hoya HD filters on that list...

Good for you! For some of us who actually care about the quality of our lenses, it gives us a piece of mind to know that the previous user actually gave a flying you know what about his lens too.

And I thought it was only the anti-filter people who were jihadists? Since I don't constantly have a filter on the front of my lenses I don't give a flying %#$%#$% about them? I've never said using a filter is stupid, just that your IQ will degrade just a bit if you use one and I choose not to use one most of the time. And for that I get insulted? Get a grip dude.

Note 1: I don't think a 250x250 web pic is the appropriate vehicle to claim there is no difference in IQ with between using a filter or not.

Note 2: Here is another link by a respected site:

http://www.lensrentals​.com …od-times-with-bad-filters

Roger also shows that good UV filters cause less degradation than bad ones, but they *all* cause some. It just is more obvious when 5 of them are stacked as Roger did.

jrbdmb wrote in post #16179174
And I thought it was only the anti-filter people who were jihadists? Since I don't constantly have a filter on the front of my lens I don't give a flying %#$%#$% about it? Get a grip dude.

Well it's definitely safe to say you don't care as much as the people who actually take measures into their own hands to physically protect the lens instead of hoping that nothing will scratch it on a shoot.

jrbdmb wrote in post #16179174
And BTW, I don't think a 250x250 web pic is the appropriate vehicle to claim there is no difference in IQ with between using a filter or not.

You're completely correct here. The link you gave me to prove that there is a difference doesn't matter. Expecially when they test a top notch filter and find such minimal difference between no filter and a filter. "Research has proven that there is a significant difference in image quality when using top-notch filters. One may notice a .0001% decrease in light transmitted through to the sensor." I love being sarcastic.

Bottom line, if you pay the money to get a nice protective filter to increase the longevity of the glass, you will only benefit. There is minimal-no difference in IQ and no down sides to adding protection to your precious gear. It's really a simple fact and if you think otherwise, well I wish your glass luck in the future.

Dirty Murd wrote in post #16178749
Good for you! For some of us who actually care about the quality of our lenses, it gives us a piece of mind to know that the previous user actually gave a flying you know what about his lens too.

And i guess you believe it when you see a car in the classifieds, that was "only driven by an older lady", or "never abused"?

I shake my head, when i see "had a filter on since day one" in ads.. it means squat to me, other than the fact that they're trying to make it "sound" like they've babied the lens.

1Tanker wrote in post #16179316
And i guess you believe it when you see a car in the classifieds, that was "only driven by an older lady", or "never abused"?

I shake my head, when i see "had a filter on since day one" in ads.. it means squat to me, other than the fact that they're trying to make it "sound" like they've babied the lens.

This.

I don't use filters because I've seen the difference in IQ in high contrast scenes from my own testing, to me it's only worth it if I'm walking through the woods (to prevent a branch from scratching the front element) or if I'm in a situation where sea spay is a possibility (I've had sea salt scratch a filter, so I don't chance it with the front element).

I bought a 28mm Yashica ML lens a few months ago from a bin full of old camera "junk", it had no filters or caps on it and the glass was in perfect condition. It's at least a 20 year old lens yet looks mint and works perfectly, thus I think the argument about filters being good for protection is BS. Most lenses are pretty darn durable, so why take the hit in IQ?