who doesnt use a filter..

hollis_f wrote in post #8922740
Hmmm, totally the opposite of my opinion. On a longer lens (70-200) the hood definitely helps prevent dust from getting onto the front element when shooting horses.

As I said, everyone has their own MO.

In my case, the felt lining in my lenshood attracts dust like crazy. In addition, it sneaks into the crevices and is a pain to clean. Any excess dust that doesn't stick to the interior of the lens hood falls onto the lens. It may depend on *where* you shoot horses but, in the places I do, a hood is not sufficient protection against dust (and I shoot with my 70-210).

I'd rather spend a couple of seconds brushing the filter with my handy lens pen and have time for that one special shot than taking care of regularly cleaning my lens + hood set-up and missing opportunities. I wouldn't use my lens pen on the front element of my lens. It does great on my filters but it could damage the lens itself.

Pommekitty wrote in post #8922825
I wouldn't use my lens pen on the front element of my lens. It does great on my filters but it could damage the lens itself.

So you believe that the coating on a filter is tougher than the coating on a lens?

Tee Why wrote in post #8919605
Trust me, if lenses came from the factory with a UV filter, many folks would get another UV filter to protect their factory UV filter.

Indeed.

I don't really buy the whole "filter needed to complete the seal" thing. I think that's a pitch by Canon to try to sell a filter to make extra bucks on overpriced junk since newbs will usually buy a Canon filter for their Canon lens.

Every time I do a shoot on catamarans and such, I get sprayed quite a bit by both flying sea water and flying alcohol. I don't use filters and my lenses aren't internally affected whatsoever.

I don't use them. Lens hoods always on my lenses though.

I only use them on short focal length lenses where the hood is small and I'm afraid I may put a finger print on the front element accidentally. For anything with a decent hood I don't use a filter.

Lens hood has always been my rescuer. Works like a charm, aint going to risk flares and stuff with filters

hollis_f wrote in post #8922870
So you believe that the coating on a filter is tougher than the coating on a lens?

The Hoya HD fitlers I use are great and extremely tough (tougher than many other filters). The lenspen works great on them. If I have to mess up while cleaning my gear because I went too fast, I'd rather mess up on my filter than on my lens.

This is interesting...I do a lot of beach shooting and I have bought filters for every lens I own [Including the 70-200L] as I would rather scratch the filter than the lens if something blows around into it [and sand gets into EVERYTHING]...

I will be watching this closely as I didn't realize a UV would hurt IQ that much...does anyone have tests or a site with results that clearly show this? FWIW, I buy good filters for my good lenses...

Safety first.

I'm usually extremely careful when it comes to my gear, but, 6 months ago while on a road trip I left my camera bag open on the hood of the car while switching lenses.

My friend spotted some wildlife and in our haste to get into good position I 'forgot' my bag was open and my 70-200L is went flying out of the bag and landed on the ground with the distinct sound of shattering glass that made my heart stop.

When i picked it up I had noticed that the uv filter was shattered and distorted with not a scratch on the glass of the 70-200, perhaps a nick on the side of its body.

That ~$70 uv filter saved my ~$2000+ lens.

nightmaresonwax wrote in post #8972605
That ~$70 uv filter saved my ~$2000+ lens.

The only damage to a lens (in a crash situation) that a filter could possibly prevent is bending of the lens' filter threads.

In order to provide any reduction of the peak forces "felt" by the lens, a protection device must either crush, bend, or break up on impact while the device is between the lens and the surface it is impacting. Think of the water-filled or sand-filled barrels you sometimes see on a highway in front of a bridge abutment. They function by collapsing and slowing the impact. It's the slowing of the impact over time that reduces the peak forces.

The breaking of the filter's glass provided no measurable reduction of the impact forces to the lens, as filter glass is very fragile and brittle.

An attached lens cap would have done more to reduce the forces applied to the lens than a filter could have, and an attached lens hood would probably have done even more.

I use ND for long exposure waterflow shots etc.. and CPL normally.

VentoGT wrote in post #8971662
I will be watching this closely as I didn't realize a UV would hurt IQ that much...does anyone have tests or a site with results that clearly show this?

Sure:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/columns/​sm-feb-05.shtml
http://toothwalker.org​/optics/filterflare.ht​ml
There are more dramatic demonstrations on the net...

René Damkot wrote in post #8973408
Sure:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/columns/​sm-feb-05.shtml
http://toothwalker.org​/optics/filterflare.ht​ml
There are more dramatic demonstrations on the net...

Looks like it is time to loose the UV B&Ws on all my lenses. That is except when shooting under harsh outside conditions. I use hoods all the time.

cdifoto wrote in post #8922878
Indeed.

I don't really buy the whole "filter needed to complete the seal" thing. I think that's a pitch by Canon to try to sell a filter to make extra bucks on overpriced junk since newbs will usually buy a Canon filter for their Canon lens.

Every time I do a shoot on catamarans and such, I get sprayed quite a bit by both flying sea water and flying alcohol. I don't use filters and my lenses aren't internally affected whatsoever.

No, Canon understands the scarcely passable quality of the filters that they sell, offering them only as a convenience for those looking for 'one stop, one brand shopping'

nightmaresonwax wrote in post #8972605
Safety first.

I'm usually extremely careful when it comes to my gear, but, 6 months ago while on a road trip I left my camera bag open on the hood of the car while switching lenses.

My friend spotted some wildlife and in our haste to get into good position I 'forgot' my bag was open and my 70-200L is went flying out of the bag and landed on the ground with the distinct sound of shattering glass that made my heart stop.

When i picked it up I had noticed that the uv filter was shattered and distorted with not a scratch on the glass of the 70-200, perhaps a nick on the side of its body.

That ~$70 uv filter saved my ~$2000+ lens.

Indeed.

I had almost the same thing happen to me, and despite what the anti-UV crowd thinks, I'm not willing to replay the event without a filter to see if they are right.

And i would challenge anyone to take a series of shots with and without a UV filter and look at them split screen and compare for a loss in image quality.