BEST CLEAR PROTECTIVE FILTER

I just purchased a hoya 67mm clear protector filter for my canon 70-200mm F4 IS and i couldnt be any happier with it, ive tested photos side by side to really test how clear the filter is and there is no difference it almost looks a tiny bit more clear with the filter to be honest, i paid around $49.99 for this on amazon and im so glad i bought it, now i wont have to worry about cracking my thousand dollar lens, i just wanted to make this thread to let people know that if you want to strictly protect your lens this is the way to go! here is the link to the product http://www.amazon.com …o00_s00_i00?ie=​UTF8&psc=1

Now all you have to worry about is your filter getting smashed against your front element and trashing it anyways...

jonathanheierle wrote in post #16216642
now i wont have to worry about cracking my thousand dollar lens,

The filter might help with sticky fingers, sandstorms etc., but anything that is coming in hard and fast enough to crack your front element, isn't going to be stopped by the thin sliver of glass in a filter. The likelihood is that it will go clean through the filter and break the lens anyway, leaving you with a broken lens and filter. More worrying is something hitting the filter that wouldn't have damaged the lens, but still shatters the filter and pushes shards of very sharp glass into the lens element the filter is supposed to be saving.

Front elements are generally a very solid, thick piece of glass that can take a lot of breaking - I've seen people drive nails into wood using the front element in their lens without cracking it (although they may have scratched it a little, it looked unmarked). Filters break quite easily and the shards can damage a lens.

Do you use the hood? That is the best protection for the lens, against impact damage.

sandpiper wrote in post #16216997
The filter might help with sticky fingers, sandstorms etc., but anything that is coming in hard and fast enough to crack your front element, isn't going to be stopped by the thin sliver of glass in a filter. The likelihood is that it will go clean through the filter and break the lens anyway, leaving you with a broken lens and filter. More worrying is something hitting the filter that wouldn't have damaged the lens, but still shatters the filter and pushes shards of very sharp glass into the lens element the filter is supposed to be saving.

Front elements are generally a very solid, thick piece of glass that can take a lot of breaking - I've seen people drive nails into wood using the front element in their lens without cracking it (although they may have scratched it a little, it looked unmarked). Filters break quite easily and the shards can damage a lens.

Do you use the hood? That is the best protection for the lens, against impact damage.

yes I do use my hood, the filter is really just a good defense against heavy scratching and maybe a light crack but your right no filter will hold against a serious impact

Did you take any shots with the sun in or just out of frame to see if flaring is worse?

oxygen45 wrote in post #16217934
Did you take any shots with the sun in or just out of frame to see if flaring is worse?

I've taken shots with the sun, and I could see it was different but it wasn't a huge difference

sandpiper wrote in post #16216997
The filter might help with sticky fingers, sandstorms etc., but anything that is coming in hard and fast enough to crack your front element, isn't going to be stopped by the thin sliver of glass in a filter. The likelihood is that it will go clean through the filter and break the lens anyway, leaving you with a broken lens and filter. More worrying is something hitting the filter that wouldn't have damaged the lens, but still shatters the filter and pushes shards of very sharp glass into the lens element the filter is supposed to be saving.

Front elements are generally a very solid, thick piece of glass that can take a lot of breaking - I've seen people drive nails into wood using the front element in their lens without cracking it (although they may have scratched it a little, it looked unmarked). Filters break quite easily and the shards can damage a lens.

Do you use the hood? That is the best protection for the lens, against impact damage.

False. I've shot rodeos where rocks chipped my lens, twice. I started using UV filters and a few got smashed, but my lens are still pristine.

jonathanheierle wrote in post #16216642
it almost looks a tiny bit more clear with the filter to be honest

Which means you're breaking the laws of physics. Stop it, now or the physics police will get you.

Hogloff wrote in post #16217989
False. I've shot rodeos where rocks chipped my lens, twice. I started using UV filters and a few got smashed, but my lens are still pristine.

But what you don't know is..

a) Would the lenses that were smashed have fared any better if they'd been 'protected' by a filter? Or was the impact sufficiently violent that a filter would have made no difference?

b) Would the impact that smashed the filters have been violent enough to have damaged the lenses if the filters hadn't been there? Or would the rock have just bounced off the lens?

In each case you're assuming the first statment is the truth, but there's zero evidence one way or the other.

hollis_f wrote in post #16218176
But what you don't know is..

a) Would the lenses that were smashed have fared any better if they'd been 'protected' by a filter? Or was the impact sufficiently violent that a filter would have made no difference?

b) Would the impact that smashed the filters have been violent enough to have damaged the lenses if the filters hadn't been there? Or would the rock have just bounced off the lens?

In each case you're assuming the first statment is the truth, but there's zero evidence one way or the other.

The above is very true.

Many folks make the simple (but not necessarily correct) assumption that if they broke an attached filter somehow and the lens is still in operating condition that the filter "saved" the lens from damage. More often than not, it's probable that the lens would not have been damaged if the filter was not on it and the same thing happened to the lens.

hollis_f wrote in post #16218176
But what you don't know is..

a) Would the lenses that were smashed have fared any better if they'd been 'protected' by a filter? Or was the impact sufficiently violent that a filter would have made no difference?

b) Would the impact that smashed the filters have been violent enough to have damaged the lenses if the filters hadn't been there? Or would the rock have just bounced off the lens?

In each case you're assuming the first statment is the truth, but there's zero evidence one way or the other.

The evidence I have is two damaged lens prior to protective filters and zero damaged lens ( but some smashed filters ) after using protective filters. I don't need anymore proof...if you do, carry out your own experiments with your gear.

SkipD wrote in post #16218354
The above is very true.

Many folks make the simple (but not necessarily correct) assumption that if they broke an attached filter somehow and the lens is still in operating condition that the filter "saved" the lens from damage. More often than not, it's probable that the lens would not have been damaged if the filter was not on it and the same thing happened to the lens.

Read my thread just above. 2 damaged lens prior to filters, zero damaged lens after filters.

Hogloff wrote in post #16218623
Read my thread just above. 2 damaged lens prior to filters, zero damaged lens after filters.

That really means nothing when you think about it, though. Do you know precisely what hit the front of your lens in each incident - size, shape, weight, hardness, velocity, etc.? If you don't know these things then you cannot possibly extrapolate whether or not the things that hit the filters would have made a mark (or worse) on the lens' front element. You also cannot determine whether or not a filter would have done anything to reduce the damage to the lens that you experienced without a filter.

A typical photographic filter breaks very easily when impacted (either on the glass or its rim).

There are very few photographic filters that are actually made to be impact resistant.

So Skip, you and Frank contend that something which hit the front of his lens hard enough to break the filter wouldn't have at least chipped the front lens element had the filter not been there? You're letting your fixation get the better of you.

Jon wrote in post #16218669
So Skip, you and Frank contend that something which hit the front of his lens hard enough to break the filter wouldn't have at least chipped the front lens element had the filter not been there? You're letting your fixation get the better of you.

Jon, that scenario is entirely possible.