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 02 Aug 2013 (Friday) 04:35
Search threadPrev/next
POLL: "Who uses filter for the sole purpose of protecting the lens"
Use filter
234
51.4%
Don't use filter
221
48.6%

455 voters, 455 votes given (1 choice only choices can be voted per member)). VOTING IS FOR MEMBERS ONLY.
BROWSE ALL POLLS
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Who uses filters for the sole purpose of protecting the lens

 
vaflower
Senior Member
Avatar
855 posts
Joined Sep 2012
Location: Massachusetts
     
Aug 09, 2013 16:23 |  #121

DreDaze wrote in post #16193926 (external link)
^^^still might not be as tough as the regular front element...
http://www.youtube.com​/watch?v=vzOLbMPe0u8 (external link)

Okie, the element did not shatter but see the multiple coating losses in the front elements at the end of the clip?
That is at least 30% resale value loss for the lens and it is almost certain to affect flare resistance if not multiple other things.
I would never thought that a filter can help you avoid shattering the lens from impact but it certainly helps to avoid small coating losses, nicks, dust etc.


Fuji XE-1, Zeiss ikon, Hasselblad; I love shooting film as a conceptual idea :)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
Mahgnillig
Member
Avatar
206 posts
Likes: 1
Joined May 2011
Location: Carson City, NV
     
Aug 09, 2013 18:00 |  #122

I shoot a lot of animal portraits and use a UV filter on my lenses because, in my experience, dog nose prints can be quite difficult to remove. For lenses that are unlikely to encounter dog noses, I don't use filters unless there's a good reason such as creative effect. I usually keep a polarizer on my wide angle lens because I usually shoot landscapes with it. If I'm using it indoors or for architecture then the polarizer comes off. I suppose I could have answered both yes and no to this survey, but I chose yes since I sometimes use UV filters for the sole purpose of protection.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
jimewall
Goldmember
1,871 posts
Likes: 11
Joined May 2008
Location: Cleveland, Ohio
     
Aug 09, 2013 18:01 |  #123

tgara wrote in post #16193747 (external link)
What about these new Hoya filters made with high density glass? You can hit them with a steel rod and they don't break. Check out this video at about the 45 second mark:

http://www.youtube.com​/watch?v=7ES9ioYaIss#a​t=18 (external link)

DreDaze wrote in post #16193926 (external link)
^^^still might not be as tough as the regular front element...
http://www.youtube.com​/watch?v=vzOLbMPe0u8 (external link)

These are the filters I prefer, and DreDaze is correct no way are they as tough as the front element.

tgara wrote in post #16193952 (external link)
^^^^^^^^

Then again, it just might. :lol:

Nope!


Thanks for Reading & Good Luck - Jim
GEAR

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
DreDaze
happy with myself for not saying anything stupid
Avatar
18,181 posts
Gallery: 45 photos
Likes: 2575
Joined Mar 2006
Location: S.F. Bay Area
     
Aug 09, 2013 18:46 |  #124

vaflower wrote in post #16194897 (external link)
Okie, the element did not shatter but see the multiple coating losses in the front elements at the end of the clip?
That is at least 30% resale value loss for the lens and it is almost certain to affect flare resistance if not multiple other things.
I would never thought that a filter can help you avoid shattering the lens from impact but it certainly helps to avoid small coating losses, nicks, dust etc.

i'm not positive that it couldn't have just been cleaned off though...watch zonev's video here, and you can see what i'm talking about...

https://photography-on-the.net …p?p=16112080&po​stcount=53

people talk about coatings getting messed up, but how often do they really happen?


Andre or Dre
gear list
Instagram (external link)
flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
snerd
Senior Member
Avatar
662 posts
Gallery: 14 photos
Likes: 187
Joined Nov 2010
Location: Oklahoma
     
Aug 09, 2013 19:19 |  #125

Okay, I just removed all of my UV Haze filters from all 4 lenses. When I bought them I always wondered that they "had" to degrade IQ at least somewhat, but being a noob I saw plenty of posts saying I should use them. I'll be paying attention to the IQ over the next few weeks to see if I notice a difference.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
NotBlake
Member
Avatar
212 posts
Joined Mar 2012
     
Aug 09, 2013 19:52 |  #126

nightcat wrote in post #16174939 (external link)
If you want to protect your lens, use your lens hood. Don't waste your money on a protective filter. Instead, put that money toward a new lens or donate it to a good charity.

Why not use both?

*crowd cheers*




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
jrbdmb
Goldmember
Avatar
1,291 posts
Likes: 12
Joined May 2011
     
Aug 09, 2013 20:23 |  #127

Mahgnillig wrote in post #16195079 (external link)
I shoot a lot of animal portraits and use a UV filter on my lenses because, in my experience, dog nose prints can be quite difficult to remove. For lenses that are unlikely to encounter dog noses, I don't use filters unless there's a good reason such as creative effect. I usually keep a polarizer on my wide angle lens because I usually shoot landscapes with it. If I'm using it indoors or for architecture then the polarizer comes off. I suppose I could have answered both yes and no to this survey, but I chose yes since I sometimes use UV filters for the sole purpose of protection.

That's the thing ... the poll is incomplete. There should be a third option "Use filter for protection in certain situations."

I personally think having a filter on constantly is overkill - but in a situation where there is the chance of flying debris / sand / salt spray using that filter is a very reasonable precaution.


Tools: 70D, 10-22, Tamron 24-70 VC, 70-300L, 135 f2L

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
DreDaze
happy with myself for not saying anything stupid
Avatar
18,181 posts
Gallery: 45 photos
Likes: 2575
Joined Mar 2006
Location: S.F. Bay Area
     
Aug 09, 2013 20:31 |  #128

jrbdmb wrote in post #16195310 (external link)
That's the thing ... the poll is incomplete. There should be a third option "Use filter for protection in certain situations."

I personally think having a filter on constantly is overkill - but in a situation where there is the chance of flying debris / sand / salt spray using that filter is a very reasonable precaution.

there are other polls that have been done...this one seems to fit what you want:
https://photography-on-the.net …715&highlight=f​ilter+poll

and others:
https://photography-on-the.net …317&highlight=f​ilter+poll
https://photography-on-the.net …549&highlight=f​ilter+poll
https://photography-on-the.net …847&highlight=f​ilter+poll
https://photography-on-the.net …954&highlight=f​ilter+poll

some of those are really old...and it looks like the anti-filter crowd is growing :)


Andre or Dre
gear list
Instagram (external link)
flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
tgara
Goldmember
Avatar
2,336 posts
Likes: 7
Joined Sep 2007
Location: Connecticut, USA
     
Aug 09, 2013 20:54 |  #129

jimewall wrote in post #16195083 (external link)
Nope!

I can see how you can easily be wrong. Too bad you don't.


EOS 5D Mark III
EOS Rebel SL1
Full Gear List

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
jimewall
Goldmember
1,871 posts
Likes: 11
Joined May 2008
Location: Cleveland, Ohio
     
Aug 09, 2013 22:43 |  #130

tgara wrote in post #16195372 (external link)
I can see how you can easily be wrong. Too bad you don't.

Nope!:lol:


Thanks for Reading & Good Luck - Jim
GEAR

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
NemethR
Senior Member
Avatar
866 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 212
Joined Jun 2012
Location: Pécs, Hungary
     
Aug 10, 2013 10:55 |  #131

Seems like most of us are using Protection filters, to protect our high-end lenses.
To the 160+ people who say, the NEVER use a filter, I can only quote myself :)

NemethR wrote in post #16175699 (external link)
... Come with me to the Veszprém Rally, and lets see if you change your mind!
QUOTED IMAGE


Roland | Hobbyst Photographer
Nikon D850 | Nikon 70-200 f/2.8G VR II | Nikon 85mm f/1.8G | Nikon 35mm f/1.8G

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
DreDaze
happy with myself for not saying anything stupid
Avatar
18,181 posts
Gallery: 45 photos
Likes: 2575
Joined Mar 2006
Location: S.F. Bay Area
     
Aug 10, 2013 11:29 |  #132

^i'd say the large majority aren't shooting with protective filters in those conditions...


Andre or Dre
gear list
Instagram (external link)
flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Hogloff
Cream of the Crop
7,606 posts
Likes: 415
Joined Apr 2003
Location: British Columbia
     
Aug 10, 2013 12:32 |  #133
bannedPermanent ban

DreDaze wrote in post #16196491 (external link)
^i'd say the large majority aren't shooting with protective filters in those conditions...

From the rodeos I shoot at, I'd say you are wrong. Most if not all photogs, at least the professionals, are using filters. Not only does the filter protect the lens from flying rocks, but they also allow easy cleaning by just removing the filter and putting another on. And yes, the filters are very dirty with dust and mud stuck onto them. If you were to clean a lens with that much debri stuck on, you would be at it for at least 5 minutes...wasting time and valuable shots.

I think the people that don't use filters are weekend warriors out in the park taking nice photos of their family where I agree, who needs filters in these cases. But there are sure conditions under which I would not shoot without a filter. I'd even have a plexiglass face mask if I could still use the viewfinder as I've been dinged by many a flying rock which could easily damage a tooth or eye.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
DreDaze
happy with myself for not saying anything stupid
Avatar
18,181 posts
Gallery: 45 photos
Likes: 2575
Joined Mar 2006
Location: S.F. Bay Area
     
Aug 10, 2013 12:38 |  #134

Hogloff wrote in post #16196588 (external link)
From the rodeos I shoot at, I'd say you are wrong. Most if not all photogs, at least the professionals, are using filters. Not only does the filter protect the lens from flying rocks, but they also allow easy cleaning by just removing the filter and putting another on. And yes, the filters are very dirty with dust and mud stuck onto them. If you were to clean a lens with that much debri stuck on, you would be at it for at least 5 minutes...wasting time and valuable shots.

I think the people that don't use filters are weekend warriors out in the park taking nice photos of their family where I agree, who needs filters in these cases. But there are sure conditions under which I would not shoot without a filter. I'd even have a plexiglass face mask if I could still use the viewfinder as I've been dinged by many a flying rock which could easily damage a tooth or eye.

really? i'm so tempted to do a poll asking if the filter users shoot at rodeos, or rally car races...i'd be willing to bet the majority do not...

of course at a dusty rodeo people will, but that's just who you're around, when i go out birding, and see guys with 500/600/800mm lenses i don't assume that the majority of people are using those as well...


Andre or Dre
gear list
Instagram (external link)
flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
CHUCK ­ A
Senior Member
358 posts
Gallery: 8 photos
Likes: 39
Joined Jun 2011
Location: New Jersey USA
     
Aug 10, 2013 12:51 as a reply to  @ DreDaze's post |  #135

I only use when on the beach shooting seascapes to protect from salt spray.


Canon 5D3, 60D, 70-200 L f4 IS, 17-40L,16-35f4, 24-105L,100 f2.8, 85 f/1.8, 55-250 IS, 400 f/5.6, Ziess 21 2.8, canon 1.4, 430EX www.flickr.com/photos/​maggiesguy (external link), http://charles-aitken.artistwebsites.​com (external link)

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

21,321 views & 0 likes for this thread
Who uses filters for the sole purpose of protecting the lens
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 gjtabjoa
909 guests, 244 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.