JDMvW Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 <p>Two words: iced milk.</p> <p>I will not tell the story again, and it is less traumatic than Jeff's blood and mud stories (Könnte es Blut und Boden sein?) anyhow.</p> <p>The UV part of the "protection filter" idea was pretty moot even in film days. It turns out that lots of so-called UV filters didn't actually do much UV filtering anyway.<br> On digital, at least, a good clear filter is fine if you use protection, but in the old days before buying electronically came along, it was generally easier to find UV than clear filters. Many people liked the slight warming effect some UV filters and all 'skylight' filters had, but with AWB that is of no concern now.</p> <p>I usually keep a filter on my lens when walking about, but remove it when I am really serious about a subject. But then I'm an old guy and we're set in our ways.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johne37179 Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 <p>Filtering out fast moving objects is good.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g dan mitchell Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 <p>OP wrote: </p> <blockquote> <p><em>The UV filter wont help while shooting landscapes, like in the Sahara desert?</em></p> </blockquote> <p>That is correct. The story was the film was susceptible to UV light since it was sensitive to it. Your DSLR sensor is not significantly sensitive to UV light at all, so there is no "haze cutting" benefit to using the UV filter in the Sahara or anywhere else.</p> <p>Dan</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john_robison3 Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 <p>My take on 'protective' filters? In most shooting a good quality filter will not do bad or good. But if protecting a metal filter rim is important then just buy any metal filter and remove the glass. That is what I have done with most of my OM mount Zuikos. The 24mm and 35mm have front elements that are very close to the rim of the lens so I have purchased used filters where the glass is held in with a threaded ring and just removed the glass and threaded the retaining ring back in to strengthen the ring. Of course a lot of today's lenses have filter ring made out of plastic and don't dent. If hit hard enough they just crack or break.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g dan mitchell Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 <p>One more thing...</p> <p>Every time this subject comes up, we see a variety of reasons for using filters. Yes, I've seen the "blood and bodily fluids" one posted before. Well, OK, but that is hardly a concern for most of us. I hear the "protect from UV light at high elevations" one - but it isn't the case with modern DSLRs. I hear the "need to seal my lens" explanation - do you shoot with a sealed body?</p> <p>I also frequently hear the "insurance" argument - that it is less expensive to replace a filter than to replace an expensive lens. Like all things, there are few absolutes even here, but in the vast majority of cases the insurance argument really doesn't hold water either. As someone pointed out, the cost of replacing a front element is little more than the cost of a good filter. Now if you <em>knew</em> that you would definitely suffer from an impact to the front to the lens that would most certainly damage the front element, any sane person would put a filter on the lens. But the reality is that a very, very small percentage of lenses ever suffer that sort of impact or have the sort of damage that a filter might protect against. So it is a matter of percentages: Let's say (to make up a number) that there is a one in 25 chance that you might damage your front element in a way such that the filter would have prevented it. Let's say that the cost of the filter is half the cost of replacing the front element. Using these made-up numbers, people will have spent more than 10 times as much on insurance as they receive in value. </p> <p>This could make some sense if the cost of a damaged front element was so extraordinarily high that you could not afford it, but the real cost is merely the differential between the cost of the filter and the cost of repairing the front element. As insurance, the numbers don't make sense.</p> <p>Also, keep in mind that there are many other ways to damage (or even truly destroy) a lens besides front element damage... and the filter does nothing at all to help there. And also consider whether you might better spend the money you invest in "protective" filters in actual real insurance that covers all risks to your lens - types of damage that are not the filter-related front element damage, loss, theft, etc.</p> <p>More here: <a href="http://www.gdanmitchell.com/2007/12/27/uv-filter-or-not">UV Filter or Lens Cap and Hood?</a></p> <p>Dan</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peter_j2 Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 <p>This test may give readers second thoughts on buying what they thought was a good filter:</p> <p><a href="http://www.lenstip.com/113.1-article-UV_filters_test_Introduction.html">http://www.lenstip.com/113.1-article-UV_filters_test_Introduction.html</a></p> <p> </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spearhead Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 <blockquote> <p>Yes, I've seen the "blood and bodily fluids" one posted before. Well, OK, but that is hardly a concern for most of us.</p> </blockquote> <p><br /><br> Anyone that shoots in a club should think about it. A lot of people don't realize, until they are in there with the camera, how much stuff is going through the air, especially if it's hot and a mosh pit starts up, so it's usual to warn them. On the other hand, there aren't that many of us who shoot fights, which is usually where the blood hits.</p> Music and Portraits Blog: Life in Portugal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g dan mitchell Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 <p>One more thing...</p> <p>Every time this subject comes up, we see a variety of reasons for using filters. Yes, I've seen the "blood and bodily fluids" one posted before. Well, OK, but that is hardly a concern for most of us. I hear the "protect from UV light at high elevations" one - but it isn't the case with modern DSLRs. I hear the "need to seal my lens" explanation - do you shoot with a sealed body?</p> <p>I also frequently hear the "insurance" argument - that it is less expensive to replace a filter than to replace an expensive lens. Like all things, there are few absolutes even here, but in the vast majority of cases the insurance argument really doesn't hold water either. As someone pointed out, the cost of replacing a front element is little more than the cost of a good filter. Now if you <em>knew</em> that you would definitely suffer from an impact to the front to the lens that would most certainly damage the front element, any sane person would put a filter on the lens. But the reality is that a very, very small percentage of lenses ever suffer that sort of impact or have the sort of damage that a filter might protect against. So it is a matter of percentages: Let's say (to make up a number) that there is a one in 25 chance that you might damage your front element in a way such that the filter would have prevented it. Let's say that the cost of the filter is half the cost of replacing the front element. Using these made-up numbers, people will have spent more than 10 times as much on insurance as they receive in value. </p> <p>This could make some sense if the cost of a damaged front element was so extraordinarily high that you could not afford it, but the real cost is merely the differential between the cost of the filter and the cost of repairing the front element. As insurance, the numbers don't make sense.</p> <p>Also, keep in mind that there are many other ways to damage (or even truly destroy) a lens besides front element damage... and the filter does nothing at all to help there. And also consider whether you might better spend the money you invest in "protective" filters in actual real insurance that covers all risks to your lens - types of damage that are not the filter-related front element damage, loss, theft, etc.</p> <p>More here: <a href="http://www.gdanmitchell.com/2007/12/27/uv-filter-or-not">UV Filter or Lens Cap and Hood?</a></p> <p>Dan</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johne37179 Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 <p>I keep the filters (the cheapest I can find) on until I ready to trip the shutter, I focus through them. I travel with them. I store lenses with them. I just don't shoot through cheap filters. Over the years a hundred dollars invested in cheap filters has saved me thousands of dollars in lenses. Sh*t happens and it selects the front of the most expensive lenses.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johncrosley Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 <p>At one time, early on in the film days, when I could get them used, I put warming filters, skylight or UV filters on all my lenses. However, the quality was uneven, and I soon realized that unless I bought the highest quality filters which cost up to and sometimes over $100 apiece, that putting a filter on my lens for any purpose other than achieving a specific purpose OTHER THAN protection was not a very cost-effective idea.</p> <p>Good filters must be made of highest quality optical glass and multi-coated to the highest standards, and although there are a large number of filters on the market, there are not so many that make highest quality filters, and those filters are often priced to the stratosphere, especially in mom and pop brick and mortar stores.</p> <p>B&H advertises B&W filters heavily, and for commonly used sizes, prices range from $25 to over $100 and if one wants multi-resistant coating, then prices range up to $200 apiece.</p> <p>That's getting pretty pricey.</p> <p>I've bought maybe 50 or 60 lenses in eight years, maybe more, and if I put a filter on each one, you can only imagine the huge sums I would have paid for filters, and in most cases, the photo consumer, aside from the professionals and technicians, is ill-informed to make a proper filter choice.</p> <p>I have saved many 70-200 f 2.8 lenses (I've had a number) from blows by using a factory lens hood. Not one has had a front filter - there never seemed to be a need to justify the high cost. <br> Two totally different times, after two different customs inspectors removed two different versions of that particular lens then replacded the lens on my camera, they did not lock the lens into place, but it appeared to me they had (I was very tired each time). <br> Each time, a little while later, the lens (each a $2000+ item) dropped right from my side onto its lens hood instead of its front element. I always kept the lens hoods on for just such protection. The lens hood ($49 apiece) was garbage in each case, but in each case the lens was entirely undamaged. (The second time, shame on me, I know, I know . . . .)</p> <p>Out of all those 50-60 lenses, in some VERY ROUGH use for some of them in street shooting, I've only had one broken front element, and that was from a lens I lent to an assistant. She returned a zoom with a broken front element and said "I don't know how it happened'. </p> <p>What she meant was she wasn't going to own up to whether she, her mother in Moscow or her boyfriend or some partygoer at her Moscow flat had dropped it. </p> <p>Nikon replaced the front element for about $185 or less, as I recall, and that's the sum total of all the front end repairs for all those lenses under sometimes extremely rough use. (Somehow my lens treatment has become lighter now, as I've learned tricks to shelter my lenses).</p> <p>If I were shooting at seaside, as I sometimes did, and doing so routinely (as I frequently did), I might consider buying dedicated filters for my lenses - salt air can be super corrosive, and since pro lenses are super expensive and are expected to last a very long time, it might have been short sighted for me not to buy filters then, but in any case, I never had a corrosion problem.</p> <p>I do not consider a filter to be real 'insurance' as a filter can cut both ways regarding protection: it can shield a blow sometimes, but sometimes it can be thinner or more easily fractured glass than the front element, and those broken shards can be driven into the front element damaging it. Then you've got a broken filter AND a broken front element.</p> <p>I've seen it both ways in camera/lens repair shops.</p> <p>Filters are not automatic protection from damage; a front element might ward off damage that might fracture a filter, then cause the filter to damage the front element, or a struck front element might not be damaged by a blow that might fracture a filter.</p> <p>So, sometimes a filter can offer protection; other times it can exacerbate a blow, and you can worry about the percentages of each as they cannot readily be calculated.</p> <p>I do know this:</p> <p>1. I've saved probably thousands not buying filters, and my ability to buy appropriate filters is and always has been questionable, especially since the advent of digital.</p> <p>2. Camera stores mark up filters rather substantially, and many consumers who bargain a body or a lens to the penny and will drive 500 miles to save a buck, will overpay extravagantly when the salesman suggests 'of course, you want to put a filter on that, don't you?' I suggest the majority of SLR camera lens buyers think filters are almost required and the vast majority have no knowledge of the price or quality of filters and ultimately overpay.</p> <p>Filters probably are one of the highest sources of profit for brick and mortar camera stores. I seldom buy them, but I never turn them down when buying a lens that has 'filter included' so I have accumulated a nice collection of wonderful, name, highest quality filters.</p> <p>3. I have an excellent working relationship with the repair facility for the brand I shoot most frequently (Nikon), and they can work wonders with a broken front element for really not much money. </p> <p>It can pay to buy an expensive lens, or even a pro lens just to get a good chassis that will resist damage.</p> <p>I once was at Yellowstone and did a stupid thing that I never will again. I put a Nikon lens and a Sigma lens on a rear car fender, forgot they were there, went to move my car and</p> <p>CRASH!</p> <p>Both fell to the parking lot pavement when I just barely moved the car.</p> <p>The Nikon 500 mm reflex lens -- I just put back on my camera and continued to shoot -- it had a scuff mark. Damage was virtually invisible.</p> <p>The Sigma lens not only had a broken front element, but the iris was broken as were several internal elements. I just tossed it in the garbage. It was a top quality lens, an f 2.8 top-of-the-line zoom.</p> <p>Sometimes you get what you pay for.</p> <p>A filter on the front is not going to protect the internal works if the blow is so substantial it's going to damage the internal workings, be it iris, aperture ring (older models), barrel, internal glass, or focus or zoom controls.</p> <p>I save my money now and if I buy a used lens, when I occasionally have no more use for it and sell it, I don't sell the filter.</p> <p>People who buy used lenses -- in my experience -- do not pay extra for the filters, so I keep the ones I accumulate, and a good filter can sell new for $200 easily if it's UV, MRC and of large aperture.</p> <p>You can make your own calculations and decisions/this is my experience.</p> <p>As to real insurance (not filters), they keep track of all claims and claim circumstances. </p> <p>There are huge computerized setups and databases designed to keep records of claims, all shared among companies, and not just inside your own company. </p> <p>If you make a claim, it's going to be noted relentlessly and archived forever, so be guided in your behavior by that knowledge. It's fair to them and to the rest of us that they do so; and it helps keeps rates down for all of us.</p> <p>john<br> John (Crosley)</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robertbody Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 <p>Best filter for night photography is no filter. You can get flare from light sources, and in places where you don't see while taking pictures. Also when shooting into the sun. Filters are great but watch for flare.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johncrosley Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 <p>Addendum:</p> <p>If I kept my lenses in a smoking household, I know from my childhood where mom smoked 2 packs a day and dad 3 packs daily, that smoke gets into everything, and surely smoke must be getting into every smoker's lenses' internal elements and putting some sort of thin haze on them that will cut contrast.</p> <p>It would be the devil to take each lens apart to clean those internal elements.</p> <p>In such a rare case, I would buy inexpensive front lens filters, screw them on tightly, place the lenses in their protective purse-like carriers many come supplied with (or see below).</p> <p>For one good reason, I would not seal them in plastic: If there is one bit of water inside the plastic, it can never escape when the plastic is sealed and the moisture can work its corrosive ways, or just as badly, it can create mold which can grow on lens elements.</p> <p>That lens you though was dry, might have some internal moisture, maybe from condensate from being brought inside from a humid environment, and if you popped it into a plastic bag, sealed the bag to 'protect the internal elements from smoke exposure, which otherwise sounds like a reasonable thing to do, days, weeks or months later you might examine your lens only to find mold growing on the glass -- an irreversible, lens-destroying affliction. </p> <p>Though mold can be removed at some expense, it almost always recurs, repairmen tell me, so such lenses are literally garbage.<br> <br />So, if stored in a smoking household, or one with lots of cooking smoke indoors, then I think I'd opt for putting filters on the front to seal the lenses - nothing of high quality -- just seal them tighter than the front lens cover will, as the front covers will NOT do a very good job protecting against vapors. </p> <p>Rear covers fit snugger and probably will do a much better job, or you might store the lens on a camera. Try putting the lens in a breathable bag -- leather perhaps?</p> <p>Just a thought. I lost a lens from mold early on, from leaving swim trunks in the trunk of my car with a lens, all under a hot California sun. I came close to losing one when I put one in a plastic bag in my pocket on a rainy day. I just barely saved that lens. Doesn't take long for moisture damage to occur, so beware of storing in plastic, and if you absolutely must, use a hygroscopic material (absorbs moisture). (hygroscopic: the property of absorbing moisture from the air.)</p> <p>Lens covers do have their good uses.</p> <p>(I have construed this thread liberally as one about lens protection and its relation to lens covers in particular - not just impact damage.)</p> <p>(Voice of experience; you can learn from my mine)</p> <p>john<br> John (Crosley)</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nathangardner Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 Andres, I'm in the states and have Nationwide. It doesn't matter how much or how little you have or whether or not you're a pro. The replacement cost for you kit is probably between $3000-3500 USD. I had $3300 coverage for $42 per YEAR with a $0 deductible. I have more now, but for that price how can you afford not to have it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDMvW Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 <p>I once bought a camera and lens that was listed as being from a "smoking house" -- turned out that it was literally a smoking HOUSE - it had been in a house fire. Cleaned up OK though. (had a "Tru-Scru" UV filter on it.)</p> <p>How dumb do you have to be to have unprotected photography?<br /> At the least it cuts down on photographically transmitted diseases like HiDef.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peter_j2 Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 <blockquote> <p>How dumb do you have to be to have unprotected photography?</p> </blockquote> <p>As dumb as it may sound, that's why I also wrap most of the exposed paint on my expensive 300/2.8 IS with an inexpensive layer of LensCoat. It helps to prevent the reflection of the light off of the white paint which contributes to some of the flare and ghosting in my photos. <em><strong>:/</strong></em></p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott_ferris Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 <p><em>"It helps to prevent the reflection of the light off of the white paint which contributes to some of the flare and ghosting in my photos."</em><br> <em><br /></em><br> <em><br /></em>I'd like to see some photographic proof of that. I'd also like an explanation of how on earth any reflection from the outer paint could cause flare and ghosting within itself, unless you mean you are using several lenses severely staggered, though even then I never recall press pit images suffering from that.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peter_j2 Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 <p>OMG Scott. I was joking (<em><strong>:/</strong></em>), man!</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott_ferris Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 <p>DOH! well I'm the idiot then :-) Sorry, so many take themselves so seriously here it just slipped by........</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peter_j2 Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 <p>That was my point. <strong>:-)</strong></p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pto189 Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 <p>I really want to take the B&W filter off my 70-200 II lens. The problem is that when the hood is on, I cannot take the cap on and off easily, and I don't want to either leave the hood on without a cap or cap my lens without a hood. Further, since the lens is long and heavy, It's easy to hit the front element with surrounding objects. Putting the lens, without a protective filter, in the camera bag is another painful experience because I have to take the hood off, put the cap on, reverse the hood, and put it back on... To those who suggest using a hood to protect the lens, do you have a better solution?</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spearhead Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 <p>I leave the hood in place and use Hood Hats on all my lenses. It does make them a bit longer, and the 70-200 is right at the limit of my backpack capacity (which is what I use when I have the long lens with me), but it still fits and it's a whole lot better than screwing around with taking the hood on and off and reversing it.</p> Music and Portraits Blog: Life in Portugal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marcus Ian Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 <p>Well Andres, I think you've heard the whole gambut... Certainly it adds *some* protection (especially in clubs...! ), but equally certainly it also *can* detract from your IQ (though how much is too situationally dependent to offer specific guidance). I wouldn't worry to much about penetration through the front element of stuff - especially on your 10-22(!), as you are vastly more likely to suffer penetration from zoom rings, focus rings, switches, etc. <br> But the bottom line is simple - If YOU feel like having filters on your lenses allows you to shoot more effectively (aka risk getting better shots because you aren't afraid of potential damage) than keep em on! <br> Just be aware of other options - ones that don't interfere w/ the optical path... for example, if you remove the glass from a filter, and screw it on, then it acts as a standoff, so if your lens cap gets whacked hard, you don't have to worry about damage to your threads <em>or</em> your front element. I also love lens hoods as much for their protective traits as for their <em>improvement</em> to IQ. </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aesco48 Posted February 22, 2012 Author Share Posted February 22, 2012 <p>Definitely, thanks to everyone!</p> <p>I will for sure take the filter off for night shots (Just not 1hr+ exposures in the desert for Star Trails) and any other special shots....</p> <p>The 10-22 def needs something on the front to seal the lens in the desert.... The Front Element slides back and forth!</p> <p>The 28-300mm always has the big lens hood on anytime its out of the camera bag regardless of fliter or no filter!</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peter_e Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 <p>Lens hood as a cheap way to protect the front lens: Not necessarily. On my 70-200/f4, a bump onto the hood knocked out the plastic ridge on the lens that holds the hood while the hood itself remained intact.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aesco48 Posted February 22, 2012 Author Share Posted February 22, 2012 <p>Just noticed there is a hairline crack in the filter mount of the lens....</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now