A Front UV filter on every lens for protection (against damage) ?

Maybe it is a stupid question, because on all my lenses I have a

front lens (UV) for protection. Newly I have the 500mm Canon IS but I

didn�t buy a front filter (UV).

Canon claim that the 500 mm lens is weather resistant but is it

really so, is there danger that the front glass will get damaged by

water (rain, seawater, ore water with sand).

I�m also afraid to hit something with the front glass but the large

(very large ) suncap will maybe prevent this.

 

Thanks

Unless something has changed, I thought that the front element of "L" series lenses was a clear piece of glass (i.e. filter) to protect against the damage that you are talking about.

 

 

A quick search provided this thread

 

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=0001Py

The previous poster is correct. There is a built in protective filter on the front of the 500L. It protects the first large element. If the filter gets damaged you can expect to pay several hundred dollars to replace it. That's better than replacing the large lens element or the entire lens though.

 

As you guessed, the lens hood does a very good job of protecting as well. Leave it extended. On my older FD 500 I always leave the lens hood extended. My custom case is designed for that size lens with a camera body attached. When I travel I retract the hood and put the lens into the trunk type case that the lens came with.

The lens hood is useful for a few good reasons.

 

1. Good contrast in your pictures, because you prevent light from all sort of unwanted directions hitting the lens directly. You should put a hood even on the cheapo zooms that are often sold in packages.

 

2. Safety of the lens in the event of a fall or accident. I had the great opportunity to fall flat on my face last week in a photo trip to a national park (Tyresta near Stockholm), and badly damaged my knees and elbows. I had a Canon A2 and a 17-35 hanging on my neck, and could see them flying off just before I fell. After I came to my senses my reaction was "let us search for all the camera pieces". What I found was a badly scratched body, and a lens hood that was badly scratched too, still attached to the lens. The lens was in fine shape save a scratch, and withstood the accident because of the hood. I have shot a few rolls of film after that and all is well, and the body and lens are working as finely as before.

 

So, don't leave that lens hood at home...

I am reluctant to put a $25 piece of glass in front of glass that cost $300-$3000 (or more). If I pay a premium for sharpness and contrast, I would rather not do anything to deliberately reduce the sharpness and contrast, like keeping a filter on it. There are times when I use a filter, but rarely for protection. Insurance provides better protection and peace of mind than any filter.

The use of a modern quality filter will not degrade any image enough to be noticeable. The people who down play the value of the filters are from the old school where the filters were not good quality. If you do not believe this, run your own tests. As an example, Moose Peterson "always" has a filter on his lenses, though it is a warming filter. His photos are very good and he sells lots, makes large prints, etc. Often the story of the photo teacher who takes a filter from a student and stomps on it as an example is cited. It is out of date. IF you use the filter, don't worry. They work and won't degrade you images. Just get out there and shoot. Don't worry about the relative cost of lenses vs filters.IF the filters cost more than the lenses, they would have no buyers. My agency has chosen some shots where I used two stacked filters. The shots were sharp and useable.

I prefer to use protective front filters, and temporarily remove one only when flare or ghosting is likely. However, I use the best filters I can afford, and for me that means B&W Schneider multicoateds.--> Try searching "filters" and you'll find a wealth of info on this subject.

This seems to be an endless debate.

 

I heard a lot of folks say, "John Shaw says don't put a protective filter on lenses."

 

Well, first John Shaw never said exactly that. (John said that he would not put a filter on a lens withour a reason.) And second, as nice as he is, John won't pay you if your glass shatters. (And it DOES happen -- I can vouch for that.)

 

The previous poster is correct. Image degradation with a high quality filter is di minimus and, if that is a worry, you can always remove it before you shoot.

 

Having said that, I do not carry UV or Sky1 "protective" filters on my glass. Instead, I use 81A warming filters (as does Moose Peterson and Art Wolfe). They warm up my shots a little with no bad side effects.

 

A lens hood is never a bad idea, either.

 

Good luck!

Isn't the whole question moot? I don't think you can put a front filter on the 500/4L IS. Certainly none of the older non-IS telephotos were threaded for front filters (since as others have pointed out, the front element on most of them IS a plane filter).

 

Do filters degrade image quality? The answer is both yes and no. My tests show polarizers are more likely to lower resolution more than most other types, presumably beacuse they are a multi-layer structure). Most solid glass fileters (even cheap ones) do not seem to measurably lower resolution, but they can lead to loss of contrast due to added flare.

 

I've seen filters so bad you could see distortion through them by eye, but they were "no-name" brands.

 

I use filters if I have a reason to. Under most "normal" conditions I don't have one on my lens for protection, but shooting anywhere where damage is likely (e.g. out at sea or near geysers in Yellowstone) I'll put one on.

I agree that there really is not much reason to discuss the quality of filters for this lens. Looking at the B+H web site, the largest filter that I saw was for 122mm and was getting close to $200.00 dollars. As Bob Atkins said, I don't think you can put a filter on the front of this lens, that is why it has a 52mm rear filter.

 

Even if you wanted one for the front, you would likely have to special order the filter, and start coming close to what the repair bill would be to just replace the clear front element if it were damaged.

 

As a side note, the only thing that your local camera shop needs to replace the front element on a Canon L series lens is the tool to remove it with. I had the front element replaced on my 300/4IS by a local dealer. The cost of the front element? $5.00!!

This is a question: Do the Nikon lenses have "sacrificial" front

elements like those on the anon optics? If so, which ones?

Yes, at least the AFS 300,400,500,600. The 300/4 doesn't have one. I don't know about the other lenses.

Others have already pointed out that the lens in question does not have filter threads.

This brings up a point I find a bit irksome. I find the front "bonnet" supplied with both my Nikon 800/5.6 and Canon 300/2.8 to be clumsy. This makes it far less convenient to "cap" the front element and I find I am leaving them "naked" for long periods. I am not especially worried about damage but rather dust.

Has anyone found a makeshift front lens cap for any of these "super" telephotos? I like to keep my 300/2.8 at the ready at home . . . not stored away in that trunk.

 

I agree it is reckless to not use these lenses with the hood in place. Yesterday I found myself crawling through tickets in pursuit of a saw whet owl. Distracted by the pursuit, I was horrified to see tree branches poking up into my lens hood. Fortunately the hood was sufficiently deep that the front element of the 300/2.8 was untouched.

Somehow one never quite sees oneself pushing through thick shubbery with these expensive things but it happens. (I also dropped the EOS3 with 550ex attached too . . . but that is a totally different story. I forgot the strap around my neck was attached to the lens . . . not the camera. When I was removing the EF12 extension tube, I quite deliberately just let the camera drop . . . it did! Fortunately the ground cover was thick and resilient.)

I never really considered this issue about "protective filters" until yesterday. My 70-200/2.8 L (attached to an A2) slipped off my shoulder and hit the floor. I had a lens cap on the lens, one side of which was forced inward and required a tiny screwdriver to pry off. I thought I may have only damaged the filter thread, but when I got the cap off my heart sunk because I had shattered the front element. At least I hope that is all that shattered. I took it to a local repair shop which is a Canon authorized repair facility and they said it would be a couple of days before they could tell what I was dealing with. I am worried because the second element is one of the UD elements. My hope is that it isn't damaged also, but we will see. Anyway, whatever happens I will be putting a filter on all my lenses now. I have read Moose Peterson's website where he says he has a warming filter on all his lenses. He is a working professional and if he does this, then I am convinced. I'm not sure that a filter would have "protected" my lens that was droped, but you can be sure that I'll be pretty paranoid from now on. Of course, I am going to use the best filter I can buy--probably B & W, but the expense will be worth it. Has anyone suffered through the same "shattering incident" that I have? How easy is it to replace just that front element?

I've been shooting for 24 years now and never had any damage on any lenses in spite of no protective filter. I treat my equipment pretty roughly and use it under tough conditions. Even if I should damage the front glass of my 300/2.8, its probably still cheaper to replace than the cost for all those protective filters for all my lenses I've owned over the years. Front element replacement for most "normal" lenses is pretty cheap anyway.

A few points. 1.I think its more Important to protect the photographer than the gear. 2. From my experience hoods are far better at protecting lens from damage than filters.3 Under backlit conditions filters cause flare. 4. Going in and out of cars and doors, as well as having cameras and lens banging into one another cause more wear and tear than anything else. 5. Scratches on the front element matter little. However, scratches on the rear element will cause some unwanted reflections. 6. Who cares what moose or anyone else puts in front of there lens. Its still the guy or girl behind the camera that makes the difference. OO

Concerning use of UV or clear protective filters. I used to work as a photographer for a daily newspaper. I used Nikon at the time--F and F2 models which were as close to bullet proof as you could get. I used UV filters on all my lenses. Once knocked a 180mm f/2.8 from the roof of my car while on assignment. It rolled underneath leaving a trail of broken glass. I retrieved it to find a smashed filter but no damage to the lens other than a dented lenshood. I once knocked an 80-200mm f/4 lens off a bar to a tile floor (it was on an assignment, not while I was out drinking after work). Broke the UV filter, no damage to the front element. I forever had to change lenses and stuff them in my camera bag without lens caps while on assignment. I never damaged a single front lens element. I've had cameras smashed, drowned and worn out. UV filters saved the lenses in each case. You can get good filters from Tiffen and Hoya at bargain prices. They will not degrade your photos and will save your lenses. If you are extremely concerned about image degradation, you can go with B&W or Heliopan. They cost quite a bit more but they are still cheap compared to replacing a lens element, not to mention the time involved in having a service facility do the work.

I have to echo what Lee said. I was shooting my first roll of film in a Canon AE-1 I'd gotten off ebay when I tripped and fell on some pavement. My camera was hanging from my neck at the time and smashed into the ground. When I got up I found a shattered filter, but the lens was fine. So for anyone as accident prone as I am, I say keep the filter on. Unfortunately, the camera has since died of natural causes. :(

Nikon AFI and AFS big teles do have a "sacrificial" front element.

 

I've got some antique view camera lenses that have been looked at and serviced by *real* optical experts. One of these lenses had some bad fungus damage and one has a cracked element. Both are usable.

 

On some of my Nikon lenses I keep a Nikon UV filter on them because I never use filters on those lenses. On my Mamiya 7 lenses, I don't because I often use a red filter for B&W and it would be a PITA to take the UV filter off first.