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 12 Jan 2015 (Monday) 15:10
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Cir-polarized filter as a protective filter

 
aviography
Member
128 posts
Likes: 6
Joined May 2008
Location: Toronto, Canada
     
Jan 14, 2015 05:31 |  #31

nqjudo wrote in post #17381334 (external link)
Breaking the front element of a 2000$ lens does not equate to a 2000$ repair bill. The front element is only one component of the entire lens. I broke the front element of a 100-400 (which had a polarizer on it BTW) and I was surprised at the relatively low repair cost.

That maybe the case, however I could just remove the filter if the filter protected the lens front element and keep shooting, a broken front element means the shooting with that lens is done for the day, and who knows how long the waiting time for the lens to be repaired.


Unwavering Canon shooter for the last 35 years.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
john ­ crossley
Goldmember
2,452 posts
Likes: 771
Joined Nov 2009
     
Jan 14, 2015 06:37 |  #32

But don't you think that if the lens is hit by something that is strong enough to break the "protection filter" it will also be strong enough to damage the front element of the lens.


Football is a very simple game. Twenty-two players chase a ball and Germany always win.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
hollis_f
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
10,649 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 84
Joined Jul 2007
Location: Sussex, UK
     
Jan 14, 2015 06:38 |  #33

aviography wrote in post #17381622 (external link)
That maybe the case, however I could just remove the filter if the filter protected the lens front element and keep shooting, a broken front element means the shooting with that lens is done for the day, and who knows how long the waiting time for the lens to be repaired.

How many people do you know that have had a front element broken by an impact where a filter would have prevented the damage? I'll bet it's a number remarkably close to zero.

Those front elements are tough. Any impact that is powerful enough to break one is going to be powerful enough to shatter a thin piece of glass and proceed to smash the front element at close to full speed - accompanied by a cloud of pointy shards of SiO2 - one of the things that can easily scratch glass.

I'm really interested in knowing what sort of situation people imagine when they talk of a 'protective' filter preventing a broken front element. Because I've got a couple of spare (AF broken) kit lenses and a couple of cheap 'protective' filters that I can experiment with. I envisage trying a few of the things oft-reported as likely to break a front element until I find one that does break it. I'm guessing that it's going to need the corner of a granite block dropped from several feet - or maybe one of my arrows (although it's more likely that the arrow will break). Then I'll stick a 'protective' filter in front of the other lens and see if it makes any difference.


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
SkipD
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
20,476 posts
Likes: 154
Joined Dec 2002
Location: Southeastern WI, USA
     
Jan 14, 2015 07:54 |  #34

One thing that I forgot to mention above is that I always use a rigid lens hood on any lens that is out of the camera bag. That does help to protect the lens against impact in some situations.


Skip Douglas
A few cameras and over 50 years behind them .....
..... but still learning all the time.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
hollis_f
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
10,649 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 84
Joined Jul 2007
Location: Sussex, UK
     
Jan 14, 2015 08:13 |  #35

SkipD wrote in post #17381751 (external link)
One thing that I forgot to mention above is that I always use a rigid lens hood on any lens that is out of the camera bag. That does help to protect the lens against impact in some situations.

Yup. Hood when shooting, lenscap all other times.

I'm amazed at how people are so concerned about their $2000 lenses, yet they can't be bothered to use a hood or a lenscap ?


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
nqjudo
Goldmember
Avatar
3,173 posts
Likes: 1031
Joined Apr 2007
     
Jan 14, 2015 08:24 |  #36

aviography wrote in post #17381622 (external link)
That maybe the case, however I could just remove the filter if the filter protected the lens front element and keep shooting, a broken front element means the shooting with that lens is done for the day, and who knows how long the waiting time for the lens to be repaired.

I assure you that repair times are much faster than waiting for you IQ to improve with a filter on.


No photographer is as good as the simplest camera. - Edward Steichen.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
LV ­ Moose
Moose gets blamed for everything.
Avatar
23,340 posts
Gallery: 205 photos
Best ofs: 4
Likes: 4138
Joined Dec 2008
     
Jan 14, 2015 08:26 as a reply to  @ nqjudo's post |  #37

^ :-D


Moose

Gear... Flickr (external link)...Flickr 2 (external link)...
Macro (external link)...Hummingbirds (external link)
Aircraft (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
aviography
Member
128 posts
Likes: 6
Joined May 2008
Location: Toronto, Canada
     
Jan 14, 2015 10:14 |  #38

nqjudo wrote in post #17381784 (external link)
I assure you that repair times are much faster than waiting for you IQ to improve with a filter on.

If that works for you, then good. I prefer living with the filter on, my lens cap goes into the box as soon as I take the lens out the first time, and it stays there until I sell the lens.

I shoot in many kinds of environemnt, I'd soon clean/replace the filter then the front element as I have inadvertantly caused minute scuffing to the B+W filter, which I can easily address with little to no down time by taking the filter off and replace it with another one in my kit or a new one.

Just how much loss of IQ are we talking about when a high quality multi-coated filter is used? 1%? 0.5%? 0.1%

I'm not an @n@l retentive perfectionist who needs to have that last bit of absolute IQ, I'd soon not have to deal with the hassle of lens cap and know that a damaged filter can be removed/replaced quickly, and keep the OEM optical elements in prestine condition.

YMMV.


Unwavering Canon shooter for the last 35 years.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
LV ­ Moose
Moose gets blamed for everything.
Avatar
23,340 posts
Gallery: 205 photos
Best ofs: 4
Likes: 4138
Joined Dec 2008
     
Jan 14, 2015 10:18 |  #39

aviography wrote in post #17381922 (external link)
=aviography;17381922]....my lens cap goes into the box as soon as I take the lens out the first time, and it stays there until I sell the lens.

I shoot in many kinds of environemnt, I'd soon clean/replace the filter then the front element as I have inadvertantly caused minute scuffing to the B+W filter, which I can easily address with little to no down time by taking the filter off and replace it with another one in my kit or a new one.

Maybe your B+W filter wouldn't get scuffed if you used your lens cap


Moose

Gear... Flickr (external link)...Flickr 2 (external link)...
Macro (external link)...Hummingbirds (external link)
Aircraft (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
aviography
Member
128 posts
Likes: 6
Joined May 2008
Location: Toronto, Canada
Post edited over 4 years ago by aviography. (2 edits in all)
     
Jan 14, 2015 10:30 |  #40

LV Moose wrote in post #17381929 (external link)
Maybe your B+W filter wouldn't get scuffed if you used your lens cap

Sure, if I kept my lens cap on all the time then you are right there would never be any chance of damges to the lens front element.

But then again there would never be any images either. :D

I use the filter as an insurance, kind of like house or car insurance, hopefully it will never be needed, but it pays off when something unexpected happens, there is only so much you can do to avoid potential damages.

Other than leave the lens cap on and put the lens back in the box. :)

BTW, although not a common occurance, last May I found myself on a last minute photoshoot under a hovering EH-101 Cormorant military search & rescue helicopter, I was lowered from a cable hoist 100 feet to the ground, released myself, and then shoot the SAR Tech being lowered next.

The rotor downwash was imense, the dirt and sand that got kicked up was imense, as I fought off the force of the downwash and tried to shoot the SAR tech and the hovering helo above me between bursts of flying debries, I distinctively remember thinking I am so glad to have the UV filter on the EF17-40 lens I was using.


Unwavering Canon shooter for the last 35 years.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
LV ­ Moose
Moose gets blamed for everything.
Avatar
23,340 posts
Gallery: 205 photos
Best ofs: 4
Likes: 4138
Joined Dec 2008
Post edited over 4 years ago by LV Moose.
     
Jan 14, 2015 10:50 as a reply to  @ aviography's post |  #41

Of course there are instances when a protective filter isn't a bad thing. But never to use a cap over it when not shooting? I'd be afraid of scuffing the filter just putting the camera in and out of my bag. B+W filters aren't cheap.


Moose

Gear... Flickr (external link)...Flickr 2 (external link)...
Macro (external link)...Hummingbirds (external link)
Aircraft (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
aviography
Member
128 posts
Likes: 6
Joined May 2008
Location: Toronto, Canada
     
Jan 14, 2015 11:40 |  #42

While we are discussing the protective value of a filter in this thread, there is one example where the lens cap would have been of help.

In my Pelican case, I had the EF100-400 and EF70-200 f2.8 placed lens to lens divided with a standard fabric divider in the "photo divider kit" from Pelican.

Unbeknownst to me, the metal edge of the filter from both lenses eventually wore through the fabric divider and started to rub against each other, one of the B+W filter was the older aluminum material while the other was brass, the brass one wore down the front edge of the aluminum one, but no damage to the filter glass themselves.

This is where the lens cap would have prevented the filter front edge from wearing through the fabric and rubbing against the filter on the other lens.

I'm not personally fond of the lens cap mainly because it's a hassle for me.


Unwavering Canon shooter for the last 35 years.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
DoughnutPhoto
Senior Member
513 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 21
Joined Aug 2014
Location: the Netherlands
     
Jan 14, 2015 12:13 |  #43

I personally use hoods, uv filters and lens caps on all my lenses. I tend to shoot in all environments and often i dont have any chance to go back and try again in case a lens fails. I also have my gear set up so that I can suffer the failure of any one component and still get the shot.

The lens hoods are there for impact damage, the filters for chemical (think soapy bubbles, had those twice on my lenses from a street performer), abrasives and so on. The lens hoods stay on in my bag so my lenses are more snug to the foam dividers.

Since simple things can render my lenses useless for the day (until I can clean them at home or at the hotel), I take care of them ;).


Canon 5d, 60d, 17-40mm L, 30mm Art, 50mm, 85mm

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
hollis_f
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
10,649 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 84
Joined Jul 2007
Location: Sussex, UK
     
Jan 14, 2015 14:08 |  #44

aviography wrote in post #17381922 (external link)
I shoot in many kinds of environemnt, I'd soon clean/replace the filter then the front element as I have inadvertantly caused minute scuffing to the B+W filter, which I can easily address with little to no down time by taking the filter off and replace it with another one in my kit or a new one.

OK, that's just a bit too far. I'd believed you up until now, but trying to say that you'd quite happily pay out $70 every now and then to replace a filter - just because you're too lazy to use the lenscap - is just too unbelievable.

I smell troll.


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
sandpiper
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
7,171 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 50
Joined Aug 2006
Location: Merseyside, England
     
Jan 14, 2015 14:10 |  #45

john crossley wrote in post #17381664 (external link)
But don't you think that if the lens is hit by something that is strong enough to break the "protection filter" it will also be strong enough to damage the front element of the lens.

No, I don't.

The filter is a thin sliver of glass, the front element is a fairly thick chunk of glass. It is actually the other way around to your theory, anything that is going to hit hard enough to break the front element is hardly going to be slowed down by a filter it has to pass through en route. I have had stones flicked up from the wheels of shale track / grass track racing cars hit my lens element on many occasions, with no damage, but I have met several people who tell me I should put filters on as "their lens was saved by a filter" when a stone hit it. What they actually mean is a stone broke their filter, there is no evidence it would have damaged the lens had the filter been absent. I also know two people who have had a filter break and the glass shards scratched the lens, in a situation where an "unprotected" lens element would have been fine. Filters are quite fragile and break easily, lens elements are tough and don't.

I have been shooting with SLRs for about 35 years now, I don't treat my gear gently (when I sold my 35mm film outfit 3 of the lenses had dents in the barrels and all the camera bodies were heavily battle scarred) but have never yet had a front element get scratched, let alone broken, despite never using protective filters.




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

6,312 views & 4 likes for this thread
Cir-polarized filter as a protective filter
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 EJayA
938 guests, 265 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.