BEST CLEAR PROTECTIVE FILTER

SkipD wrote in post #16218660
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.

Might mean nothing to you, but results speak for themselves. By the way, ever shot a rodeo from ground zero? If not, then you have no idea.

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.

And I got proof ( two damaged lens ) that says rocks hitting the lens can chip the glass. I think some people just love to argue.

Hogloff wrote in post #16218687
By the way, ever shot a rodeo from ground zero?

No, but I have shot European motocross races right at trackside. Often, I'd be on the outside of a curve shooting at bikes that have passed me already. I was behind them with the wheels kicking all sorts of stuff at me. I think that "qualifies" my experiences for you.

SkipD wrote in post #16218739
No, but I have shot European motocross races right at trackside. Often, I'd be on the outside of a curve shooting at bikes that have passed me already. I was behind them with the wheels kicking all sorts of stuff at me. I think that "qualifies" my experiences for you.

Break any glass...if not, then you have not experienced it. A fellow photographer got a tooth chipped by flying rocks. It can be dangerous not only for the gear, but also for the photographer. I have zero doubt that my protective filters saved me having to replace the front elements on my bigger glass.

Not everyone shoots under such conditions so I can understand there is some ignorance around, but once a person experiences flying rocks as they are concentrating at getting the shot, they will quickly understand why protective filters are used in such conditions.

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?

A lot of these 'protective' filters are extremely fragile thin glass. Others (Hoya HD) are more robust.

Hogloff wrote in post #16218619
if you do, carry out your own experiments with your gear.

The sacrificial lens and filter are in the post. From some of the posts on PotN I'm not expecting the lens to survive the initial test - poking with a twig (which is one of the classic reasons for using a filter). If it does, by some miracle, survive a twig, then I'll try some other stuff. A steel knife will be interesting, it won't scratch the lens but it'll be interesting to see what happens to the coating.

The final test will be to drop something heavy onto the lens until I get some noticeable damage. Then I'll try it with the filter.

See my impact test thread here.

In a nutshell, it showed that the impact necessary to break a filter is far less then needed to damage a front element. While not scientific, the test showed that an impact that may only damage (not shatter) a filter, will most likely not damage the front element. It also showed that impact that shatters a filter will also cause damage to the front element. So if it only damages your filter, it wouldn't have hurt your lens, and now you're out the cost of the filter and it's replacement.

I won't use filters except for a polarizer now and then. I'm in the camp of "they cause more issues than they solve". I can't imagine buying a nice Zeiss fixed focal only to cover it up with some crappy filter.

Insure your gear against damage and theft. Much cheaper than most filters anyway especially if you have a bunch of different lenses with different size rings.

Take one can of worms and open

...getting popcorn

I used to put filters on all my lenses. Part of this was carryover from the film days when I used UV filters. Now I only use protective filters when I am shooting on the beach or rocks directly in the sea spray. They are easier to keep clean.

Jon, when it comes to filters, we cannot infer anything at all. Decades ago I had an Olympus zoom lens mounted on my OM-1 camera during a trip to Germany. Camera was on my shoulder; I turned suddenly in a confined space, and the camera swung out from me and struck a stone castle wall. Filter was not broken, filter ring was not deformed, filter ring was not even scratched, but my zoom lens could no longer zoom to WA settings because of internal damage in the lens.

I have said many times before, filters are to modify the optical properties of a shot. 'Protection' is purely a chance occurance, apart from keeping blowing sand from hitting the front element, or to catch blowing salt spray at the ocean, or to make it easier to clean (rinse filter under running water) than to clean toodler spittle or dog nose fluids after either have touched the front of the filter rather than the lens.

While I agree that inference of filters having prevented glass chips is not statistically well supported, and carries a bit of superstition along with it, I still think it's a reasonable assumption.

We know Hogloff has had a lens chipped twice, and we know that hasn't happened since he started using filters. We also know that however minute the strength of a filter might be, it is nonzero, and will add protection. We also know that granite is harder than glass, so it's reasonable to assume that a rock pushing glass into your lens will yield a better result than direct rock-on-lens contact, in addition to the absorbed energy from the break.

We also know that arguing on the Internet is fun.

waterrockets wrote in post #16253029
We also know that arguing on the Internet is fun.

No it isn't!

waterrockets wrote in post #16253029
We also know that granite is harder than glass

Except that its not!

Granite is made from quartz, feldspar and mica.

Hardness is measured using Moh's scale (higher numbers are harder). Quartz is around 7, feldspar is 6 and mica is 2 to 3. Most glass is 7 (not surprisingly, the same as quartz, because they're both Silicon Dioxide).

Most people have no idea how hard glass really is. It's even harder than steel.

Thanks for clearing that up. I knew glass was really hard, but was thinking granite's makup put it closer to 8.

Anyhoo... I need to reflect more on my sitcom-watching as a child. I remember Alice got an engagement ring, and Flo didn't think it was real, so she took it over to the Mel's Diner front door so she could show how it failed to cut a circle into it. Circle fell right out, and I learned something about hardness of glass, that I seemed to forget this morning.

Can you tell it's Friday?