Filters I think I know NOW why they matter...

Sagitta · 01-23-2017, 02:52 PM

IMHO if you're that scared you're going to drop a lens and need protection, get a decent stiff hood. If you drop your gear badly enough that something makes it past the hood to break the front element, that filter is just going to get blown through by whatever you drop it on and you're still going to wind up with a busted lens, only you'll have a lot of bits of shattered filter glass adding insult to injury as it scratched the thing up even more.

Obin Robinson · 01-23-2017, 04:22 PM - **2 Likes**

Originally posted by Brooke Meyer

From the experience of both my sons, Marines who served in Iraq and Afghanistan respectively, you needed a lot of compressed air. Al Waleed on Iraq- Syrian border a lot, Camp Leatherneck not so much. All they had were Sony P&S's. But yeah, in the desert I would use a prophylactic filter. Topside, I wouldn't but what do I know, I rode Boomers.

It's funny you mention the compressed air because somewhere I have a photo of the cans of air I used in Iraq, Kuwait, and Bahrain. On the flight deck I usually have a "rocket blower" and a microfiber cloth. The aircraft carrier is the most harmful environment for a camera lens. The fixed wing aircraft kick up lots of grease and bits of non-skid that you can feel peppering your face constantly. They also vent lots of JP5 when they turn up for a catapult shot. Helos are constantly blowing bits of flight deck at you with hurricane force winds. For certain photos I actually would crouch down and a person would use their knee to prevent me from blowing over while they held the shoulders of my float coat as well.

The thing that sort of bums me out is that out of the tens of thousands of photos taken only very few I can share.

For what it's worth I recommend a filter when you take a photo similar to the attached one. It's easier to clean grease and JP5 off of the filter rather than try to chase it out of the front element nooks and crannies.

obin

gm4life · 02-12-2017, 09:30 AM

Well several weeks later... The clear Hoya HD filters delivered, I have put them on all my glass. Including my new 20-40! I haven't used my 1B Skylights that I bought for my 55* or 300* yet though. The 300 was just like night and day the difference in the quality. No more ultra cheap Hoya Alpha MC UV filters for me!

Wheatfield · 02-12-2017, 09:44 AM

Some years ago I purchased a used A*600/5.6. It came with a very large Tamron UV filter. I'm in the no filter camp, but this lens had cost a lot of money, so I decided to leave the filter on.
I mounted it to my heaviest tripod, a Zone VI standard wooden one that weighs 15 pounds and started shooting. It didn't matter what I did, I couldn't get a sharp image out of the thing. I took the filter off, and it was like a different lens.
Suddenly the images were sharp, and contrasty.
I don't see a lot of point in putting something onto the lens that makes the lens unusable.

photoptimist · 02-12-2017, 10:53 AM - **1 Like**

I'm in the "no filter" camp and I hike everywhere with a camera (and occasionally drops things). Most accidents produce no damage (so the filter protection wasn't needed). Some accidents produce overwhelming damage (so a filter would not have provided any protection). I've only had one accident in which a filter might have prevented a scratch on the front element but one could argue that having a filter on the lens is like always having a scratch on the lens (protection, but no benefit).

Why ruin every photo on the highly unlikely chance that the filter might (or might not) protect the lens?

normhead · 02-12-2017, 11:51 AM

Originally posted by photoptimist

Why ruin every photo on the highly unlikely chance that the filter might (or might not) protect the lens?

Ya, I know, all these pictures I post are ruined. It's so sad.

Seriously, show me an image you claim is ruined by the addition of a filter. You know, the one that inspired this opinion.

I'm in the "good composition makes technical IQ moot camp." so talking micro image degradation due to filters seems almost like a joke to me.

bwDraco · 02-12-2017, 02:50 PM

All my lenses have B+W clear (#007) filters on them.

I rarely, if ever, notice any significant degradation of image quality using the filter. I've had a few cases of filter-induced flare in the face of car headlights at night with my DA 50mm f/1.8, but that's a rather extreme situation and a quality filter will make no visible difference in everyday shooting. To me, eliminating the need to clean the front element directly and having an extra layer of protection against dust ingress and fingerprints outweighs the cost of the filter or the (generally undetectable) loss in image quality.

Draco

gm4life · 02-12-2017, 07:21 PM

Originally posted by Wheatfield

Some years ago I purchased a used A*600/5.6. It came with a very large Tamron UV filter. I'm in the no filter camp, but this lens had cost a lot of money, so I decided to leave the filter on.
I mounted it to my heaviest tripod, a Zone VI standard wooden one that weighs 15 pounds and started shooting. It didn't matter what I did, I couldn't get a sharp image out of the thing. I took the filter off, and it was like a different lens.
Suddenly the images were sharp, and contrasty.
I don't see a lot of point in putting something onto the lens that makes the lens unusable.

Would not have believed this could happen if nearly the same thing didn't end up happening to me with my 300 *. Sounds like we had similar experiences.

r0ckstarr · 02-13-2017, 02:42 AM

On the *300, the lens hood is all the protection you need.

MarkJerling · 02-13-2017, 02:56 AM

Filters have saved the front element of a number of lenses of mine.

Sandy Hancock · 02-13-2017, 03:01 AM

Originally posted by Obin Robinson

Yes I did need a filter.

Unless you replicate all that using a lens without a filter, and sustain damage which did not happen to the lens with a filter, you do not know you needed a filter at all.

MarkJerling · 02-13-2017, 03:08 AM

Originally posted by Sandy Hancock

Unless you replicate all that using a lens without a filter, and sustain damage which did not happen to the lens with a filter, you do not know you needed a filter at all.

I know that a scratched or cracked filter is not a problem, but a scratched or cracked front element is.

Sandy Hancock · 02-13-2017, 03:11 AM

Originally posted by MarkJerling

Filters have saved the front element of a number of lenses of mine.

Once again, unless you have also dropped the same lens, in the same conditions, with a hood and no filter, you can not empirically say that the filter saved your lenses.

I'm not saying filters DON'T protect front elements, just that anecdote and faith doesn't PROVE anything.

MarkJerling · 02-13-2017, 03:15 AM

Send me your lens and I'll test it for you. All I know is that the front element would not have come through the knocks unscathed. Hoods are pretty useless when you're in the bush and a stick meets the front of your camera by accident.

gm4life · 02-13-2017, 10:30 PM

Originally posted by MarkJerling

Filters have saved the front element of a number of lenses of mine.

This is exactly why I fall into the filter camp.

02-12-2017, 11:51 AM	#36
normhead Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Near Algonquin Park Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 40,451	Originally posted by photoptimist Why ruin every photo on the highly unlikely chance that the filter might (or might not) protect the lens? Ya, I know, all these pictures I post are ruined. It's so sad. Seriously, show me an image you claim is ruined by the addition of a filter. You know, the one that inspired this opinion. I'm in the "good composition makes technical IQ moot camp." so talking micro image degradation due to filters seems almost like a joke to me. Last edited by normhead; 02-12-2017 at 12:13 PM.

02-13-2017, 03:15 AM	#44
MarkJerling Moderator Site Supporter Join Date: May 2012 Location: Wairarapa, New Zealand Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 20,406	Send me your lens and I'll test it for you. All I know is that the front element would not have come through the knocks unscathed. Hoods are pretty useless when you're in the bush and a stick meets the front of your camera by accident. Last edited by MarkJerling; 02-13-2017 at 03:52 AM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Macro Now I know...........	eaglem	Post Your Photos!	5	08-24-2016 07:21 PM
ND Filters: I know what I want to do, but not what filter I want	applejax	Pentax Camera and Field Accessories	7	03-17-2016 09:11 AM
Nature Whose woods are these I think I know	CreationBear	Post Your Photos!	36	09-26-2015 08:30 AM
I think I got CBA now! Another body bought!	GerryL	Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras	7	05-15-2011 03:13 PM
Now I Know How They Will Do It	Parallax	General Talk	50	11-23-2009 07:18 AM

01-23-2017, 02:52 PM	#31
Sagitta Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2011 Location: Maine Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,081	IMHO if you're that scared you're going to drop a lens and need protection, get a decent stiff hood. If you drop your gear badly enough that something makes it past the hood to break the front element, that filter is just going to get blown through by whatever you drop it on and you're still going to wind up with a busted lens, only you'll have a lot of bits of shattered filter glass adding insult to injury as it scratched the thing up even more.

01-23-2017, 04:22 PM - 2 Likes	#32
Obin Robinson Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2014 Photos: Albums Posts: 272	Originally posted by Brooke Meyer From the experience of both my sons, Marines who served in Iraq and Afghanistan respectively, you needed a lot of compressed air. Al Waleed on Iraq- Syrian border a lot, Camp Leatherneck not so much. All they had were Sony P&S's. But yeah, in the desert I would use a prophylactic filter. Topside, I wouldn't but what do I know, I rode Boomers. It's funny you mention the compressed air because somewhere I have a photo of the cans of air I used in Iraq, Kuwait, and Bahrain. On the flight deck I usually have a "rocket blower" and a microfiber cloth. The aircraft carrier is the most harmful environment for a camera lens. The fixed wing aircraft kick up lots of grease and bits of non-skid that you can feel peppering your face constantly. They also vent lots of JP5 when they turn up for a catapult shot. Helos are constantly blowing bits of flight deck at you with hurricane force winds. For certain photos I actually would crouch down and a person would use their knee to prevent me from blowing over while they held the shoulders of my float coat as well. The thing that sort of bums me out is that out of the tens of thousands of photos taken only very few I can share. For what it's worth I recommend a filter when you take a photo similar to the attached one. It's easier to clean grease and JP5 off of the filter rather than try to chase it out of the front element nooks and crannies. obin

02-12-2017, 09:30 AM	#33
gm4life Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2016 Posts: 602 Original Poster	Well several weeks later... The clear Hoya HD filters delivered, I have put them on all my glass. Including my new 20-40! I haven't used my 1B Skylights that I bought for my 55* or 300* yet though. The 300 was just like night and day the difference in the quality. No more ultra cheap Hoya Alpha MC UV filters for me!

02-12-2017, 09:44 AM	#34
Wheatfield Moderator Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: The wheatfields of Canada Posts: 15,981	Some years ago I purchased a used A*600/5.6. It came with a very large Tamron UV filter. I'm in the no filter camp, but this lens had cost a lot of money, so I decided to leave the filter on. I mounted it to my heaviest tripod, a Zone VI standard wooden one that weighs 15 pounds and started shooting. It didn't matter what I did, I couldn't get a sharp image out of the thing. I took the filter off, and it was like a different lens. Suddenly the images were sharp, and contrasty. I don't see a lot of point in putting something onto the lens that makes the lens unusable.

02-12-2017, 10:53 AM - 1 Like	#35
photoptimist Pentaxian Join Date: Jul 2016 Photos: Albums Posts: 5,122	I'm in the "no filter" camp and I hike everywhere with a camera (and occasionally drops things). Most accidents produce no damage (so the filter protection wasn't needed). Some accidents produce overwhelming damage (so a filter would not have provided any protection). I've only had one accident in which a filter might have prevented a scratch on the front element but one could argue that having a filter on the lens is like always having a scratch on the lens (protection, but no benefit). Why ruin every photo on the highly unlikely chance that the filter might (or might not) protect the lens?

02-12-2017, 02:50 PM	#37
bwDraco Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: New York Photos: Albums Posts: 1,071	All my lenses have B+W clear (#007) filters on them. I rarely, if ever, notice any significant degradation of image quality using the filter. I've had a few cases of filter-induced flare in the face of car headlights at night with my DA 50mm f/1.8, but that's a rather extreme situation and a quality filter will make no visible difference in everyday shooting. To me, eliminating the need to clean the front element directly and having an extra layer of protection against dust ingress and fingerprints outweighs the cost of the filter or the (generally undetectable) loss in image quality. Draco

02-12-2017, 07:21 PM	#38
gm4life Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2016 Posts: 602 Original Poster	Originally posted by Wheatfield Some years ago I purchased a used A600/5.6. It came with a very large Tamron UV filter. I'm in the no filter camp, but this lens had cost a lot of money, so I decided to leave the filter on. I mounted it to my heaviest tripod, a Zone VI standard wooden one that weighs 15 pounds and started shooting. It didn't matter what I did, I couldn't get a sharp image out of the thing. I took the filter off, and it was like a different lens. Suddenly the images were sharp, and contrasty. I don't see a lot of point in putting something onto the lens that makes the lens unusable. Would not have believed this could happen if nearly the same thing didn't end up happening to me with my 300 . Sounds like we had similar experiences.

02-13-2017, 02:42 AM	#39
r0ckstarr Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: Texas Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,507	On the *300, the lens hood is all the protection you need.

02-13-2017, 02:56 AM	#40
MarkJerling Moderator Site Supporter Join Date: May 2012 Location: Wairarapa, New Zealand Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 20,406	Filters have saved the front element of a number of lenses of mine.

02-13-2017, 03:01 AM	#41
Sandy Hancock Moderator Site Supporter Join Date: Feb 2012 Location: Adelaide Hills, South Australia Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 11,272	Originally posted by Obin Robinson Yes I did need a filter. Unless you replicate all that using a lens without a filter, and sustain damage which did not happen to the lens with a filter, you do not know you needed a filter at all.

02-13-2017, 03:08 AM	#42
MarkJerling Moderator Site Supporter Join Date: May 2012 Location: Wairarapa, New Zealand Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 20,406	Originally posted by Sandy Hancock Unless you replicate all that using a lens without a filter, and sustain damage which did not happen to the lens with a filter, you do not know you needed a filter at all. I know that a scratched or cracked filter is not a problem, but a scratched or cracked front element is.

02-13-2017, 03:11 AM	#43
Sandy Hancock Moderator Site Supporter Join Date: Feb 2012 Location: Adelaide Hills, South Australia Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 11,272	Originally posted by MarkJerling Filters have saved the front element of a number of lenses of mine. Once again, unless you have also dropped the same lens, in the same conditions, with a hood and no filter, you can not empirically say that the filter saved your lenses. I'm not saying filters DON'T protect front elements, just that anecdote and faith doesn't PROVE anything.

02-13-2017, 10:30 PM	#45
gm4life Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2016 Posts: 602 Original Poster	Originally posted by MarkJerling Filters have saved the front element of a number of lenses of mine. This is exactly why I fall into the filter camp.