Filters Can Damage as Well as Protect

[bgelfand]

<p>An interesting article by Roger Cicala about filters damaging a lens rather than protecting it:</p>

<p><a href="http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2013/10/bad-times-with-bad-filters">http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2013/10/bad-times-with-bad-filters</a></p>

<p>The lens in question was a Canon, but Nikon lenses may have the characteristics.</p>

[lex_jenkins]

Same problem can affect rear elements with mismatches between lenses and

teleconverters.

[jose_angel]

<p>Yes, also large format users are aware of this kind of issues since the arrival of one of the greatest lenses, the Super Symmar 110 XL. When the front element looks too... prominent? I use to check with a piece of Kleenex the lens to filter clearance, before tightening anything. It is a healthy habit.</p>

[mike_halliwell]

<p>Excellent info, thanks Brooks and Roger @ Lensrentals.</p>

<p>EDIT. Nice tip Jose!</p>

<p> </p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>That is why you always want to use high-quality filters.</p>

<p>Roger Cicala has been writing a lot on his blog. He is in a fairly unique position having to deal with a lot of camera equipment in various brands, frequently many copies of the same model. In that sense he is very knowledgeable with not many equals. However, I also think he is working very hard to promote his lens rental company. I probably would have barely heard of LensRental.com if it weren't his blog.</p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<blockquote>

<p>a lot of camera equipment in various brands, frequently many copies of the same model</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Reading his plot put a lot of lens review in perspective for me. I knew there would be sample variations - I would never have guessed at the extent though. On the other hand, even those variations apparently manifest themselves in practice only when pixel peeping. <br>

As to filters - he writes that all brand filters are fine and that the damage was called by some cheap filter - and I fail to understand why anyone would put such a filter on a $2K lens to begin with.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<blockquote>

<p>I fail to understand why anyone would put such a filter on a $2K lens to begin with.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Partly because it is a rental lens, not their own personal lens. As the author Thomas Freidman once wrote, nobody would ever wash a rental car. (Actually, I once did. My wife and I drove a rental car off some dirt road. The windshield got so dirty that visibility was an issue such that it was dangerous to drive it. So I had no choice but to wash that car.)</p>

<p>But the point is that people don't treat rental equipment well. Roger Cicala is going to see a lot more lenses that have gone through rough abuse. Therefore, his statistics are going to be fairly different from those of us who take good care of our equipment.</p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<p>From the post</p>

<blockquote>

<p>... one that I used in the demonstration is a ‘discount’ filter that someone sent back to us in place of the name-brand filter we sent them...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Seems to go beyond "not washing a rental car" - more like replacing the new tires on a rental with old ones before returning it. BTW, I had a rental washed more than once. But few people would have a rental for six weeks anyway and put some 10,000 miles on it. </p>

<p>But my comment was somewhat independent from the blog post - I was indeed wondering why anyone would purchase a $2K lens and then put a "discount" filter on it. As Roger says, none of the brand filters cause that problem.</p>

[rodeo_joe1]

<p>Not a bad filter issue IMHO, but a poorly designed lens housing. I certainly can't agree with Roger Cicala that Canon are blameless in this. Q: What idiot would make the thread for a filter deeper than the highest point of the front lens element? A: An idiot that works for Canon, obviously.</p>

<p>There appears to be no need for this daft design. Previous mid-range f/2.8 zoom models, from plenty of makers, have managed to leave enough clearance between the front element and the filter thread. And if there's a possibility of vignetting, then the filter size just has to be increased I'm afraid. Or alternatively the lens design has to forego the ability to take a front filter (á la 14-24 zoom Nikkor). I don't think you can blame a filter manufacturer for recessing their glass nearly as far down the thread of the rim as it'll go, since there's no specification that says they shouldn't.</p>

<p>BTW, by a "cheap" filter are we talking Hoya, Kood, unbranded or what?<br>

Further BTW, there used to be a local camera dealer that placed their price tickets on the bare centre of the front element of nearly every used lens they had for sale. I'm talking about a cardboard ticket in a little spring-steel stand. Needless to say I didn't buy many used lenses from that place.</p>

[bgelfand]

<p>If you read down in the blog post, Roger writes you need " thin-line filter with glass close to the back of the filter". Before you use a thin filter (to stop vignetting) especially on a wide angle or some zooms, carefully check glass to lens clearance.</p>

<p>As to why would people use an expensive filter on the lens, it was a rental which means they do not own one nor possible have the correct sized filter. Since it may be only an occasional use, they purchased an inexpensive filter to protect it from damage and charges from the rental company. Very few people would purchase an expensive filter in a size they may never use again.</p>

<p>It may behoove Mr. Cicala to provide the proper filter with the lens upon request.</p>

[jose_angel]

<blockquote>

<p><em>Not a bad filter issue IMHO, but a poorly designed lens housing.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Agree. Maybe the manufacturer is looking for the minimum rim to avoid vignetting, so they tested the lens with one unit from their filter manufacturer of preference.<br />BTW, I have just bought an expensive top quality enlarging lens, and found that the rear element is **almost** at the same plane than the filter rim. It is really awkward because I think one day I`ll damage the lens...</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Have you guys read the entire article? Cicala points out that non of the name brand filters is having this problem. Perhaps Canon's design for the 24-70mm/f2.8 version II is cutting it close, but it is actually those cheap filters that are causing this problem. That lens uses 82mm filters, which are fairly uncommon. It wouldn't be surprising that people who rent that lens have no 82mm filters handy.</p>

[bruce_rubenstein]

<p>Another point Roger makes is that these cheap filters only come back on returns. If someone rents a lens and a filter a good one is sent out. There is an issues with renters swapping the cheap filters with bad ones.</p>

<p>BTW, Roger and his business were written up in a non-photographic publication. He's a licensed, practicing MD before he started LensRentals, with an obviously solid background in studies, research and statistics.</p>

[jose_angel]

<p>A good sample of a filter-unfriendly lens (no more than half a millimeter from the rim plane):<br /> (But even so, it`s true than I can use some "good" filters on it)</p><div></div>

[Two23]

<p>I've now had two expensive lenses damaged when an expensive (B+W, Hoya SMC) filter broke. I know of a couple of other guys this happened to also. Nothing is as good at scratching glass as another piece of broken glass. I also think that sometimes people are more careless with a lens when they (erroneously) are thinking that since a glass filter is on it that it is protected. They then don't use a lens cap--real protection. It's odd that Canon did not check for this problem when they designed the lens.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

[Two23]

<p>"But the point is that people don't treat rental equipment well."</p>

<p>I haven't rented much equipment (nothing recently,) but I have borrowed very expensive camera gear a number of times this year. I'm actually far more careful with it than I am my own. If I don't have $8,000 to buy an expensive telephoto, you can bet I'm going to extra careful with it! In the end you are on the hook if it's damaged or destroyed.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

 

[rodeo_joe1]

<p>".....actually those cheap filters that are causing this problem." - But since 'those cheap filters' aren't named and shamed, it's pretty useless advice to say not to use them. What works and what doesn't, and what's Roger's definition of a good name-brand filter? Camera brands only? Camera brands & Heliopan and/or B+W (which BTW come out quite badly in independent filter tests for flare and UV absorbtion)? Does 'name brand' include Hoya, Sigma, Tiffen, Murami? Where exactly is the cutoff point between 'good' or reputable filters and the 'also rans' that might scratch a lens?</p>

<p>I've yet to come across a filter that needs much more than 2-2.5 turns to tighten it down, and most designs have at least one thread pitch of relief between the metal rim and the rear of the filter glass. Usually it's more like 1-1.5mm minimum. With that in mind, it seems to me that if the glass of a front lens element bulges within less than two thread pitches of the mount front, then that's just an accident waiting to happen. Not just from touching a filter glass, but from the almost inevitable tilt and shuffling that happens when applying or removing a filter, or a slotted filter-holder for that matter.</p>

[joe_user3]

<p>I recently dropped my camera a few feet. It was in its case and landed lens first. The lens cap was smashed in to the filter, and the filter was shattered. I couldn't remove the lens cap so I gently unscrewed the filter from the lens. Some horrible sounds were made during this process! When it was finally removed, there were some glass fragments left on the front element, but they were from the filter, not from the front element! I was able to gently blow them off, and the front element, amazingly, was not scratched one bit! </p>

<p>I think the filter absorbed some of the impact, saving the lens. I don't put a filter on all my lenses, but most. I was glad this one had a filter! It was a Hoya HMC Super UV filter. Now this lens needs a new cap, I had a spare filter to put on it (Hoya HMC but not the Super). </p>

<p>Now if I buy any filters at all I usually spring for a B+W Multicoated.</p>

[Two23]

<p>But, if you had no filter on at all, in all likelihood you would have had no damage at all. The filter shattered because it is flimsey. You did have damage--you are out the cost of a not so cheap filter.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

[joe_user3]

<p>Kent, I feel that had I no filter on the lens, the cap would have been smashed in to the front element, possibly resulting in permanent damage ruining the lens. The filter sacrificed itself and the lens survived because it had a filter installed.</p>

[michael_bradtke]

<p>Optical glass is stronger then you might think<br>

http://filmmakeriq.com/2013/07/can-a-dslr-lens-take-a-hit-from-a-hammer/</p>

[jonb]

<blockquote>

<p>But since 'those cheap filters' aren't named and shamed, it's pretty useless advice to say not to use them.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>RJ, I don't agree. It was clear from the blog post that he lacks comprehensive data. At best he could only point out the couple of filters that he found problematic and in doing so, possibly tar an entire brand of filters unfairly. Knowing that this kind of damage can happen should induce people to check for it, and that's hardly useless.</p>

 

[frank_skomial]

<p>"<em>The lens in question was a Canon, but Nikon lenses may have the characteristics</em>" -</p>

<p>Has Canon lens and trying to derive opinion on Nikon. </p>

<p> </p>

[kevin_beretta]

<p>I've been traveling around the world with a full camera bag for the last two years (D700, 14-24, 24-70, 70-200 and 50). A few years ago, I bought B+W XSPro slim filters for all the lenses that could take them (not the 14-24). Those filters are something else. They seem to repel dirt and everything else. I've not had to touch the filter on any of the lenses but blow off the dust once in a while with a Giotto. I look at them in sunlight and they are perfectly clean. Worth the extraordinary cost....</p>