i'm sure glad i used protection...,.

AFJ?

Left Handed Brisket wrote in post #18039605

what's the point here? He scratched his lens

Charlie wrote in post #18039651
what's the point here? He scratched his lens

really?

"I may have hit the filter with another lens or camera when I put it in my bag" ≠ seven blows with the claw end of a hammer

Left Handed Brisket wrote in post #18039663
really?

"I may have hit the filter with another lens or camera when I put it in my bag" ≠ seven blows with the claw end of a hammer

it really doesnt need to scratch the lens, loss of coating would cost the same for a element replacement.

Great summer troll thread!

Really though, it was busted in a bag on a boat. Which really raises a big question... how was a well packed stash of this equipment banging around each other in a packed bag? Filters bust from nearly anything. Showing a busted filter doesn't mean much, other than you found it that way--don't even know what tapped it or compressed it, in a packed bag no less. I actually think protective filters are a great idea when you're actually taking on environmental stuff, like mud at a track, etc. But in a bag, it's like in this case, it was packed without a lens cap, because... how did something impact it with a lens cap? That just seems like it was asking for issues... filter or not. In this case, maybe the coatings would have been rubbed off without the filter, since you didn't have a lens cap on, so that's a great thing and it's sure a good safety net when storing lenses without lens caps in bags on boats!

Alas, it will be an interesting thread I'm sure, as it continues.

Thankfully, this is not the final word on the subject.

Very best,

MalVeauX wrote in post #18039723
Great summer troll thread!

Really though, it was busted in a bag on a boat. Which really raises a big question... how was a well packed stash of this equipment banging around each other in a packed bag? Filters bust from nearly anything. Showing a busted filter doesn't mean much, other than you found it that way--don't even know what tapped it or compressed it, in a packed bag no less.

I guess that some people like to protect their lenses by putting them in a cushioned padded case of some sort so that they can''t bump into other lenses while in the bag.

Ed Rader chooses to put filters on 'em and let 'em bang into each other instead.

So I guess there are at least two ways to protect a lens when using it in rough-and-tumble conditions. Each method protects the front element.

I will continue to put them in the soft padded things instead of putting filters on them and allowing them to bang into each other. That will save me the trouble - and expense - of buying replacement filters every time one of them shatters.


.

did you continue to use the filterless lens in the harsh conditions...or did you regulate it to the bag, worried it couldn't survive without a filter...

Anti-Filter Jihadists.

The hood might have helped in this situation.

eddieb1 wrote in post #18038212
Except for the fact Ginger was HOT!!!!!!!

Mary Ann and yes to filters.

I always put any lens in a padded pocket in my bag - which was once kicked over by someone while I was taking the camera out, causing my 17-55 to fly 3 feet to the concrete. The filter glass was totally destroyed and the rim bent to the extent that I had to remove it with a pair of small pliers to avoid damaging the lens filter threads. The replacement filter threaded on with no problem. Both filters were high end Hoya HMC units, so they weren't cheap junk.

That lens has worked fine to this very day (I did send it in for calibration and cleaning recently, because it's getting on in years). You all go ahead and do what you wish with your lenses; I'm perfectly satisfied with the choice I made.

yes. that's why I had to replace the front element on the last 24-70LII the coatings got destroyed by cleaning. it was so bad and had a spidery appearance and I thought it might be fungus but it was coating damage. really puzzled me because I've never had that problem with any lens before. and I was getting weird flaring under some conditions.

in short, I think the coatings are much softer than the AFJ (anti filter jihadis) and the cubicle photographers (talk a good one from work but don't really shoot) would have me believe.

you can believe what you want. I've made my case. we differ on many things anyway and you appear to have more time to talk then I do.

my bag is domke f1-x not real padded but spacious. you don't shoot anything but wildlife by your own admission so how much gear do you carry. it's nice to have the luxuries but it's not always possible for me and I accept that damage will occur. so yeah were all different