How bad is it for the lens if your lens cap comes off inside bag?

Jamesino wrote in post #17753651
Let's suppose there isn't anything sharp - only the polyester padded lining typically found in camera bags. Let's also suppose there is minimal sand or grit.

Will the rubbing against the bag or plastic lens cap rub off the multi-coating in the front element?

Inspect the lens carefully. If you damaged the coating you should be able to see it, but if the case was clean its unlikely.

PhotosGuy wrote in post #17754797
That's a BIG difference. I wouldn't have expected that much. Do you remember who made it?

It was a phottix brand, which was a brand much like Yung Nuo now. They made some good quality accessories, but filters were a big flop. They were even multicoated.

Same here. Except I only use the XS version for über-wides. The supplied cap for those extra slim filters suck!

I'm the wrong guy to comment here-- I have 8 pair of Tara Labs RSC audio interconnects, and Tara Labs speaker cable, at about $150/foot.

I trust B+W filters. Remember Singh-Ray, Schneider cc filters? Anyway, I've inherited a few Tiffen UVs on various lenses and they're foggy. Good lenses deserve good glass protection. I'm not paying 10% of a len cost for one, so my cheaper lenses don't get anything.

Here's a 100% crop taken with the B+W MRC UV filter on a Canon EF 85/1.8 5D MK2. 1/1600, f/1.8, ISO 160

There is purple ghosting/flaring on the car's right headlights (left headlight from our perspective).

Since it was a moving target, I didn't get a chance to take another shot with the UV filter removed, but is the purple ghosting likely a result of the UV filter?

i think the 85mm f1.8 is known to have issues with purple fringing...so it may just be the lens

Ah I see.

What about this one:

Jamesino wrote in post #17755158
Here's a 100% crop taken with the B+W MRC UV filter on a Canon EF 85/1.8 5D MK2. 1/1600, f/1.8, ISO 160

There is purple ghosting/flaring on the car's right headlights (left headlight from our perspective).

Since it was a moving target, I didn't get a chance to take another shot with the UV filter removed, but is the purple ghosting likely a result of the UV filter?

HTTP response: NOT FOUND

jamesino, honestly you're not ever gonna see a difference with that filter with most lenses. really. i am making one assumption, and that is the bw mrc uv you have is the same in performance as my xspro mrc clear's that i use.

i've said this earlier, but....

i have tested with and without the filter in varying lighting conditions with many lenses. never saw any difference, not even totally magnified. that includes flare, into the sun, normal conditions, etc. you won't see any difference. i have even tested with my 5dsr, and again saw nothing.

the one that has been reported by some is that using the 100-400 lens people have posted pictures showing a difference. but again, as i said earlier, i tested with my 70-300L and could not repeat the results. but i have seen pics, so i guess it's been proven that in those conditions there are differences.

so, use your bw mrc without fear.

btw.... there's a sticky at the top that details lots of things about filters. i guess you should read it:

https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=807555

i do find humor in one thing though...... you got some responses earlier that are like this, but many will tell you that if you can't see a difference in your shot, then you shouldn't worry about the dust or fine scratches on your lens. but at the same time the some of the same people will tell you not to use a filter even though they cannot see a difference in the shot as well with or without. but whatever.

mcluckie wrote in post #17755102
I'm the wrong guy to comment here-- I have 8 pair of Tara Labs RSC audio interconnects, and Tara Labs speaker cable, at about $150/foot.

I trust B+W filters. Remember Singh-Ray, Schneider cc filters? Anyway, I've inherited a few Tiffen UVs on various lenses and they're foggy. Good lenses deserve good glass protection. I'm not paying 10% of a len cost for one, so my cheaper lenses don't get anything.

I have Tara cables and interconnects in one of my home systems as well, (not in my main sound room though. Pretty much every room in my house has some sort of music system. As you are probably aware, even at $150 a foot, which would be considered over the top for wiring to most people here, your Tara wire is downright inexpensive in the world of high end audio. You can easily spend $750 to $1000 a foot!

Jamesino wrote in post #17755171
Ah I see.

What about this one:

(Full image, not 100% crop)

Are those flares on the traffic lights due to the UV filter?

The easiest way to confirm that is to take the same image with and without the filter.

mwsilver wrote in post #17755185
I have Tara cables and interconnects in one of my home systems as well, (not in my main sound room though. Pretty much every room in my house has some sort of music system. As you are probably aware, even at $150 a foot, which would be considered over the top for wiring to most people here, your Tara wire is downright inexpensive in the world of high end audio. You can easily spend $750 to $1000 a foot!

just curious............... as you are probably aware, there is variation in IQ among various lenses of the same model. sometimes that variation is very large and can easily be seen at 1:1 crops.

do you believe that there is the same variation in sound quality among your cables of the same model? sounds like a very expensive problem...

but no worries, there's actually a simple solution to that dilemma.

Yeah good idea, just went outside right now and took similar shots and I see the same sort of flaring even without a UV filter. Thanks @Xyclopx too for the reassurance.

I use clear (not UV) filters to complete the weather sealing or to protect my lenses when I shoot in places where I think there is a reasonable risk of harm, like when shooting on a beach. I don't use protective filters in the studio, but I do keep the hoods on my lenses to protect from knocking the front elements into things like lightstands or the ground.

I found a site many here will have seen, where they had done more thorough testing of the options than I ever could, here: http://www.lenstip.com …_results_and_su​mmary.html I basically concluded that B+W MRC and Hoya Digital/HMC were good options, and that Tiffen and all uncoated filters should be avoided, including Canon's. Also Heliopan was overpriced for how they performed. The end results is that I have mostly Hoya multi-coated filters in my bag, including all my protective, ND and polarizers, plus a few B+W color filters.

Also worth noting, there are some lenses which can be compromised even by good quality filters, due to their design. When I had the Canon 70-300L, I never found a protective filter that wouldn't cause ghosting when shooting outdoors, even with the hood on. There was just something about the fluorinated coating on that lens that made the space between the front element and the filter some kind of trap for light to bounce around in and cause flare.

absplastic wrote in post #17755213
Also worth noting, there are some lenses which can be compromised even by good quality filters, due to their design. When I had the Canon 70-300L, I never found a protective filter that wouldn't cause ghosting when shooting outdoors, even with the hood on. There was just something about the fluorinated coating on that lens that made the space between the front element and the filter some kind of trap for light to bounce around in and cause flare.

many of the new lenses now have fluorine coatings. are you sure it's the fluorine? others have suggested telephotos are more prone.

Xyclopx wrote in post #17755223
many of the new lenses now have fluorine coatings. are you sure it's the fluorine? others have suggested telephotos are more prone.

Not 100% sure, no. But at the time, it was the only lens I had this issue with, and also the only one with this coating. I did not have the problem on the non-L lens it replaced. That said, there certainly could be other factors, like the spacing between the front element and filter threads, something else about the front group that did not play well with the filter, or even the geometry of the front element itself. I'm totally open to the coating being a red herring.