Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
09-20-2011, 08:31 AM   #31
Veteran Member
Anvh's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 4,616
here comes the dilemma because are you now saying they should buy it, it's their money right?

The filters with the coatings are surely resistant but they just aren't make to take an impact, no matter how you look at it.
Besides that i've heard stories where the shatters of a broken filter actually caused the damage of the front element...

09-20-2011, 08:39 AM   #32
Veteran Member
ManuH's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Montreal
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,209
QuoteOriginally posted by Anvh Quote
The filters with the coatings are surely resistant but they just aren't make to take an impact, no matter how you look at it.
Besides that i've heard stories where the shatters of a broken filter actually caused the damage of the front element...
Yes, I agree with that except maybe for the new Hoya HD filters:
09-20-2011, 09:01 AM   #33
Veteran Member
Anvh's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 4,616
QuoteOriginally posted by ManuH Quote
Yes, I agree with that except maybe for the new Hoya HD filters:
Those look indeed promising.
Just want to know how they preform against something else then the edge of the table.
09-20-2011, 09:06 AM   #34
Site Supporter
Aristophanes's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Dartmouth, Nova Scotia
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,922
QuoteOriginally posted by Anvh Quote
If there was so much force applied that the front element broke then i'm highly doubtful a thin filter would make a difference...
Just look at the youtube video, he is even using the back side of a hammer, i'm now very curious what you did to your lens...

Filters simply aren't designed to take an impact, i don't know who started saying that?
I dropped it on the ground.

$1,200 lens. $60 filter. You do the math.

I also dropped a Nikon zoom and the filter broke but not the element. Cost me $80 to fix and not the $600 to replace. Filter saved me.

I did wreck my DA 35 Macro but nothing would have saved that except if I had put it on my bag.

09-20-2011, 09:09 AM   #35
Veteran Member
Anvh's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 4,616
QuoteOriginally posted by Aristophanes Quote
I dropped it on the ground. Filter broke, front element OK.

$1,200 lens. $60 filter. You do the math.
Very simple $60 down the gutter, who says the lens would be broken if you didn't had a fliter on it?

I challange you to find a story where someone broke the front element of their lens, you'll need to search quite hard.

Here is one at least.
http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2008/10/front-element-scratches


Just use a hood for protection i would say, they cost less then $60 and improve the image quality.
I would only use a filter as protection for the coatings, so salt, sand and things like that.
Also when playing in the mud a filter would be handy.

For the rest if you want to have a peace of mind then surely buy them but they don't work miracles.

ps. with the money you save by not buying an UV filter you can get a camera insurance

Last edited by Anvh; 09-20-2011 at 09:23 AM.
09-20-2011, 10:12 AM   #36
Site Supporter
Aristophanes's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Dartmouth, Nova Scotia
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,922
QuoteOriginally posted by Anvh Quote
Very simple $60 down the gutter, who says the lens would be broken if you didn't had a fliter on it?
I do. I was there. Hood on but cracked.

They are insurance and keep grit and sand off the main element. Many pros use them and swear by them.

You do not know insurance.
09-20-2011, 12:05 PM   #37
Veteran Member
Anvh's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 4,616
Do what you like, it's your money.

I'm still not convinced that 1mm thick piece of glass can make a real difference, i'm curious why you think it can but that does not matter.

Don't know what you want to proof with the many pro's, if everyone does it doesn't make it automaticly right.
I hope that many have evolved past that state by now...

Here is some noise from the other side.
The Filter Flare Factor

A part of it.
Do you use a "protective filter" on your lens? I encourage you to take that filter off your lens and leave it off.

In the old days, often the objectives (front elements) of lenses were made out of glass so soft that merely by cleaning it overenthusiastically you could make tiny scratches on it. (Especially if –and this shows the changing of social customs over time –you were in the habit of rubbing your lens with the end of your tie, as many working photojournalists did in ye olden days when men almost always wore ties when appearing in public.) Also in past times, lenses passed UV light, which could throw off TTL (through-the-lens) light meters and/or cause film to respond in weird ways.

The solution seemed both elegant and sensible: use a UV filter to both cut the UV transmission and protect the objective from scratches. That's been a part of photography's "received wisdom" ever since.

Here's the news flash, though, although it's not exactly news, since it's been true for a good long while now: good modern lenses have very hard glass objectives, and/or scratch-resistant coatings. They make it difficult to scratch or mar a lens. With reasonable care, and perhaps a decent lens hood for physical protection if the objective is not recessed, there is almost no chance you will scratch the objective of your lens. Empirically, this is confirmed when you survey used lenses for sale. How many do you find that are scratched? How many eBay auctions for lenses don't say "glass mint" or "glass perfect"? Don't overestimate lens owners: if it were so easy to scratch up a lens, there would be a lot more scratched lenses out there than there are.

Ironically, the better your lens, the more desirable it is not to have a filter on it. Also, if you commonly shoot with a zoom with more than ten elements, a filter, even if it's multicoated, isn't doing the lens's inherent flare and veiling glare characteristics any favors. The more glass surfaces, the less the transmission, period.
09-20-2011, 12:18 PM   #38
Veteran Member
Anvh's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 4,616
I thought since many use a filter for protection then surely someone might have tested them on that, strangely enough i couldn't find any.
Does anyone know off a lens protection test?

Not really a test...


The Hoya HD looks more promising.



Last edited by Anvh; 09-20-2011 at 12:27 PM.
09-20-2011, 05:01 PM   #39
Site Supporter
Aristophanes's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Dartmouth, Nova Scotia
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,922
QuoteOriginally posted by Anvh Quote
Don't know what you want to proof with the many pro's, if everyone does it doesn't make it automaticly right.
Not automatically, but the total knowledge of all those pros who have skin in the game is pretty compelling evidence for a good habit borne out of multiple experiences.

Your single opinion goes about 2".

Also, if a child's sneeze gets all over my lens, I would rater just unscrew the filter and clean that rather than the tedious and risky exercise of cleaning the actual front element. I try and NEVER touch the front and rear elements. Ever. It's bad optical karma.
09-20-2011, 10:15 PM   #40
Veteran Member
Spock's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Photos: Albums
Posts: 419
QuoteOriginally posted by Anvh Quote
...And with the coatings we have for decades there is no real need for a filter to protect the front element, i believe the front element is strong than a thin piece of glass where your filter is made out.
QuoteOriginally posted by Anvh Quote
...Besides that i've heard stories where the shatters of a broken filter actually caused the damage of the front element...
First you say that modern lens front elements are virtually indestructible then you say they can be scratched by a broken filter. Sounds like you are contradicting yourself.

Also, you seem fixated on breakage of the front element rather than scratching or scuffing - which is my major concern - and which happens all too often to lenses. The fact that some people are not pedantic enough to notice minor wear or damage is neither here nor there.

(btw - re: the comment about how come there are so many lenses on ebay described as 'mint glass'? IMHO, it's because many lenses just sit in cupboards unused for decades - or if they were used, they had filters on them!)

I have replaced quite a few filters over the years that got scuffed or scratched; if I hadn't had the protective filters (which I consider a disposable/replaceable item), my lenses would have been irreparably damaged.

Yes, insurance may be an option, but with insurance, there is always an excess and a loss of 'no claim bonus'. Anyway, how do you replace a lens like a A28/2 which only comes up for sale every few years? (if you're lucky).
09-21-2011, 02:06 AM   #41
Veteran Member
Anvh's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 4,616
QuoteOriginally posted by Aristophanes Quote
Not automatically, but the total knowledge of all those pros who have skin in the game is pretty compelling evidence for a good habit borne out of multiple experiences.

Your single opinion goes about 2".

Also, if a child's sneeze gets all over my lens, I would rater just unscrew the filter and clean that rather than the tedious and risky exercise of cleaning the actual front element. I try and NEVER touch the front and rear elements. Ever. It's bad optical karma.
Then name me some pro's that use an UV filter for protection, most i know actually don't use any.
I wonder who is right, the pro's with or without a filter...

With the later you're just being paranoid...
I wear glasses and they use the same kind of coatings a lens use, you've no idea what kind of hell they have been through
And for a year now i don't use any lens-caps any more beside for the rear element and there is still not a mark on them.

QuoteOriginally posted by Spock Quote
First you say that modern lens front elements are virtually indestructible then you say they can be scratched by a broken filter. Sounds like you are contradicting yourself.

Also, you seem fixated on breakage of the front element rather than scratching or scuffing - which is my major concern - and which happens all too often to lenses. The fact that some people are not pedantic enough to notice minor wear or damage is neither here nor there.
Just basic science.

Most things that would hit your lens or filter are probably quite a bit bigger, branches and things like those larger things have a bigger contact area so that wouldn't be a problem.
Now a small rock for example or something with a sharp edge like shards from a broken filter have a far smaller contact area so they apply much more force, those will/can scratch your lens but won't break it.
And a blunt object won't break the front element to pieces, like the metal ball you see in the youtube video.
The metal ball wouldn't do any damage at all to a lens but imagine you put the filter on the first video on it...
Also the youtube video on the second page shows the lens really can take quite a beating, if you need to hit the lens with the back end off a hammer to get some scuffing i wonder what kind of things you do with your lens if you need more protection then that...

But it's your money, do what you like with it.

As for the A28/2, yeah that's indeed a problem but i at least don't see that 1mm piece of glass offer you any sort of real protection although the Hoya HD looks promising though.
The insurances here are luckily different, i'm sorry it isn't the same were you live.
09-21-2011, 05:52 AM   #42
Veteran Member
ManuH's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Montreal
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,209
QuoteOriginally posted by Spock Quote
I have replaced quite a few filters over the years that got scuffed or scratched; if I hadn't had the protective filters (which I consider a disposable/replaceable item), my lenses would have been irreparably damaged.
The thing is that most filters are not as resistant as front elements, they will be scratched more easily. Moreover with some new protective coatings like dust and water repellent like the one found on modern Pentax WR lenses if you put a cheap filter in front, you lose these features.

Now if you plan to resell the lens, a filter is the way to go. It should avoid the smallest scuff. But IMHO money can be better spent.
09-21-2011, 08:23 AM   #43
Veteran Member




Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Taiwan
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,075
Oh great, this argument again.
09-21-2011, 08:42 AM   #44
Veteran Member
Anvh's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 4,616
QuoteOriginally posted by abacus07 Quote
Oh great, this argument again.
I had it done it yet here
09-21-2011, 11:46 AM   #45
Site Supporter
Aristophanes's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Dartmouth, Nova Scotia
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,922
QuoteOriginally posted by Anvh Quote
I had it done it yet here
Because you definitively lost it elsewhere I suspect.

It's a personal choice as to the protective benefit, but as for empirical results, you won't find anything but anecdotes, mine included. A good UV filter has negligible impact on IQ. They are designed that way.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
camera, pentax help
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:34 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top