Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
11-26-2013, 08:13 AM   #31
Senior Member
LXNights's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: New England
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 132
Original Poster
@Fat Albert: I understand your point, but I was more interested in a new discussion involving me directly. I am very capable of doing research, but I wanted the direct exchange on a thread of my own. For the most part, this has worked out fine for me.

12-04-2013, 07:23 PM   #32
Otis Memorial Pentaxian
RobG's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Canberra
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 7,587
FWIW I have always used some sort of filter to protect the lens. On one occasion it saved the lens, because it was the filter that got accidentally damaged instead of the lens itself. I understand what folks have said about loss of quality with a filter, but if I buy a lens worth over $1K I'd prefer for a filter to be exposed to the elements (interesting pun) than the lens itself. I'd rather not have to spend over $1K replacing the lens because of an accident that could have been avoided with a filter. I do however agree with a previous post suggesting taking off the filter for something critical. Lens hoods are only going to provide so much protection.
12-05-2013, 04:19 AM   #33
Veteran Member
Lloydy's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Shropshire, UK
Posts: 1,114
[IMG]
Filter ring damage par David Lloyd, on ipernity[/IMG]

This filter saved my mint Canon FD 50 / 1.8 the other day when a kid swung a door open and it hit the lens. The aluminium ring is broken, the lens is untouched.

I also take a lot of pictures in the woods around here and spend a lot of time off the paths, which means a lot of time on my butt sliding down muddy banks. I use the filter as protection and just wipe the mud and dirt off with a cloth I carry in my pocket. I have been known to remove the filter and wash it off in a stream. Filters are cheap, I don't care if I wreck them. I care about my lenses.

Last edited by Lloydy; 12-05-2013 at 04:25 AM.
12-05-2013, 04:41 AM   #34
Pentaxian
TaoMaas's Avatar

Join Date: May 2007
Location: Oklahoma City
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,461
QuoteOriginally posted by RobG Quote
FWIW I have always used some sort of filter to protect the lens. On one occasion it saved the lens, because it was the filter that got accidentally damaged instead of the lens itself.
That's great that your lens was saved, but could a metal hood have saved the lens, too? The post after yours describes a bumping incident where a filter protected a lens. But if the filter got hit by a door, that means there wasn't any hood on the lens. A hood could have provided 5+ times as much distance between the door and the bump as a filter did.

QuoteQuote:
I'd rather not have to spend over $1K replacing the lens because of an accident that could have been avoided with a filter.
In 35 years of shooting on the job and off, I've never had a situation where a filter would have saved a lens. Sorry...but I think it's an unfounded fear. We all have to do what we think is best, though, right? What has worked for me, may not work for you.

12-05-2013, 05:01 AM   #35
Otis Memorial Pentaxian
RobG's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Canberra
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 7,587
QuoteOriginally posted by TaoMaas Quote
That's great that your lens was saved, but could a metal hood have saved the lens, too?
Possibly, or it could have transferred more impact to the body of the lens. For me, one reason I don't tend to use a hood on a "standard zoom" or short prime is because I use a camera backpack where having the hood would make it harder to take the camera out and put away. On some lenses, a hood interferes with manual focus (or quick shift). Having said that, the hood is built into my DA 35 limited and always stays on the DA 55-300 and DA*300. I still use a filter to protect the glass however. When travelling, I usually alternate between the DA 16-45 and DA 55-300. Having the hood on the DA 16-45 would make it much harder to swap and store in the pack.

QuoteQuote:
In 35 years of shooting on the job and off, I've never had a situation where a filter would have saved a lens. Sorry...but I think it's an unfounded fear. We all have to do what we think is best, though, right? What has worked for me, may not work for you.
Exactly, each to their own. I was only stating what I do and why - and since it has helped me, I don't see it as an unfounded fear at all. I don't know what sort of photography you do - perhaps you'd not out in rough country as often as I am. Or perhaps you can afford to replace lenses if the wear and tear on the coatings takes its toll.
12-05-2013, 06:13 AM   #36
Pentaxian
TaoMaas's Avatar

Join Date: May 2007
Location: Oklahoma City
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,461
QuoteOriginally posted by RobG Quote
Possibly, or it could have transferred more impact to the body of the lens.
I don't see how an impact that could bend metal in 1/16" could be more severe when buffered over 2-3 inches.

QuoteQuote:
I don't know what sort of photography you do - perhaps you'd not out in rough country as often as I am. Or perhaps you can afford to replace lenses if the wear and tear on the coatings takes its toll.
It's a little of both. You're right...in my professional life, if a lens gets damaged, we just write it off as a business expense. Except...that hasn't happened. And we've shot from the back of moving dune buggies over sand dunes...speeding boats...planes with open doors...the back of pick-up trucks driving through open fields...you name it. I've even been thrown from the back of a 4-wheeler while holding my camera. The camera was fine...the driver got 3 broken ribs and I still haven't determined the damage to my body. I'm not saying we should just open our lenses up to the elements, but a good hood and a judicious amount of caution can go a long, long way. In my personal life, where I have to pay for replacements out of my own pocket, my findings are the same. The only time I've lost a lens due to damage was when I didn't double-check to make sure my quick-release was locked and my camera fell from about 4' onto concrete. The camera lived...the lens did not. I didn't have a filter nor a lens hood on the lens at that time so it doesn't tell us anything other than "lenses without any protection don't survive falls onto concrete".
12-05-2013, 02:41 PM   #37
Otis Memorial Pentaxian
RobG's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Canberra
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 7,587
QuoteOriginally posted by TaoMaas Quote
I don't see how an impact that could bend metal in 1/16" could be more severe when buffered over 2-3 inches.
It's something called mechanical advantage. The same thing which makes a long handled spanner able to turn a bolt that a short handled one can't.

QuoteQuote:
It's a little of both. You're right...in my professional life, if a lens gets damaged, we just write it off as a business expense. Except...that hasn't happened.
Well, people's experiences and levels of paranoia differ. YMMV.

12-05-2013, 02:52 PM   #38
Pentaxian
TaoMaas's Avatar

Join Date: May 2007
Location: Oklahoma City
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,461
QuoteOriginally posted by RobG Quote
It's something called mechanical advantage. The same thing which makes a long handled spanner able to turn a bolt that a short handled one can't.
I think you're looking at it backwards. It doesn't increase the leverage. It diffuses it.
12-05-2013, 03:06 PM   #39
Otis Memorial Pentaxian
RobG's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Canberra
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 7,587
QuoteOriginally posted by TaoMaas Quote
I think you're looking at it backwards. It doesn't increase the leverage. It diffuses it.
Maybe you know something about mechanical advantage I don't. I'll make a note to contact my engineering lecturer.
12-05-2013, 04:48 PM   #40
Veteran Member
Lloydy's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Shropshire, UK
Posts: 1,114
My 'advantage' was - the filter saved damage to the lens.
12-05-2013, 05:40 PM   #41
Otis Memorial Pentaxian
RobG's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Canberra
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 7,587
QuoteOriginally posted by Lloydy Quote
My 'advantage' was - the filter saved damage to the lens.
And for others, the lens hood may help. I just put a filter on my DA*300. Will I use the hood as well? Damn straight.
12-07-2013, 06:32 AM   #42
Pentaxian
TaoMaas's Avatar

Join Date: May 2007
Location: Oklahoma City
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,461
QuoteOriginally posted by RobG Quote
Maybe you know something about mechanical advantage I don't. I'll make a note to contact my engineering lecturer.
I'm just saying that I think you're looking at it as a single leverage point, when it's not really. A hood brings into play the opposite side of the lens, which helps absorb the impact. That doesn't really happen when all you have is a filter. Not enough leverage there.
12-07-2013, 11:36 AM   #43
Pentaxian




Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Oklahoma USA
Posts: 2,047
QuoteOriginally posted by Lloydy Quote
[/url]
Filter ring damage par David Lloyd, on ipernity[/IMG]

This filter saved my mint Canon FD 50 / 1.8 the other day when a kid swung a door open and it hit the lens. The aluminium ring is broken, the lens is untouched.

I also take a lot of pictures in the woods around here and spend a lot of time off the paths, which means a lot of time on my butt sliding down muddy banks. I use the filter as protection and just wipe the mud and dirt off with a cloth I carry in my pocket. I have been known to remove the filter and wash it off in a stream. Filters are cheap, I don't care if I wreck them. I care about my lenses.
Looks like a couple of my filters, actually.

But for hood fans, I'm not sure a mint FD 50/1.8 costs less than a mint 50mm FD hood. Seemingly more lenses were made and/or survived than hoods. The FD hoods, at least all of mine, were dedicated to fit lens flanges, not the always-disappointing filter-thread-mount hoods.
12-07-2013, 12:15 PM   #44
Veteran Member
Lloydy's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Shropshire, UK
Posts: 1,114
QuoteOriginally posted by tibbitts Quote
Looks like a couple of my filters, actually.

But for hood fans, I'm not sure a mint FD 50/1.8 costs less than a mint 50mm FD hood. Seemingly more lenses were made and/or survived than hoods. The FD hoods, at least all of mine, were dedicated to fit lens flanges, not the always-disappointing filter-thread-mount hoods.
Most of my old lenses that I've got the original hoods for, I don't use the original hoods, and most are brittle plastic anyway. Some hoods are worth more than the damn lenses as well!
I like the Hoya collapsible rubber hoods and have them for every size of lens I've got, which thankfully for 180 or so lenses is only about 10 hoods. And they are great protection as well, but I'd been in a wooded ravine on a rainy day and taken the hood and skylight off to use a ND filter to slow a waterfall, I changed the filter back to the skylight one but didn't put the hood back on. Back at the car park I went to the toilet and a kid came rushing out of the door and clattered the lens. Shit happens, so I've always got something on the front of the lens.
12-07-2013, 06:05 PM   #45
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
JimJohnson's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Summer:Lake Superior - Michigan Winter:Texas Hill Country
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,692
Folks can do as they like - they are your images, not mine. I used UV and skylight filters in the film days, primarily for tonality rather than protection - A UV filter is unnecessary on a digital camera because there are both UV and IR filters covering the sensor. If your intention is lens protection, what you want is clear optical glass. Good clear glass filters are not especially cheap.

Facts are facts, extra optical surfaces will always degrade the image - admittedly this degradation might be so minor as to be unnoticeable. Hoods on the other hand always improve an image - and admittedly this improvement might be so minor as to be unnoticeable.

And the following is only an observation with no scientific explanation .... When I use a hood, my front optical surface stays cleaner, even if I leave the lens cap off, Just a guess, is that air flow past the front of the hood creates a partial vacuum inside the hood and sucks most of the dust and mist out before it settles on the front optical surface. Regardless, I don't feel a need for a protection filter.

My advice is if you really want to use a UV filter, go ahead, but always use a hood. All my lenses have reversible bayonet mount hoods - even my pre-digital prime lenses - the Matin hood retrofits older lenses with a bayonet mount. It only takes a moment to reverse a hood before putting the lens (on or off the camera) into my camera bag.
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!
filter, front, impact, lenses, quality, tripod
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
lens filters CSL Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 3 10-15-2013 05:25 PM
UV Filters Pande Pentax Camera and Field Accessories 18 02-10-2013 12:40 AM
Neutral balance filters Eflytyer Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 10 12-08-2011 03:48 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:45 AM. | 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