Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
02-06-2020, 07:41 AM - 2 Likes   #61
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
Digitalis's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Adelaide.
Posts: 10,110
QuoteOriginally posted by rogerstg Quote
Apologies for not conforming to your group think mentality. I found it interesting how tough lens glass is compared with filters and felt others might also, though I don't have to defend myself to a self proclaimed elitist.
Cool it there.


PDL was merely summarizing the consensus here: Many of us are photographers of various degrees of experience and we all happened to have converged upon similar conclusions regarding filter use. This isn't a result of groupthink: It's a result of individuals experimenting and reporting conclusions. While glass elements in our lenses are indeed quite tough and resilient, there are certain substances that can call for aggressive solvents* to clean off, there are inquisitive children who leave fingerprints on glass, salt sea spray and particulate matter that can scratch glass if someone carelessly tries remove it, these things are best avoided and can be easily prevented from being a catastrophic disaster [particularly to image quality] with appropriate foresighted application of preventative measures.



* It is possible to remove lens coatings if undiluted solvents are used to clean lenses - it is recommended to dilute concentrated solvents the user is unfamiliar with to at least half strength to prevent cleaning mishaps.

02-06-2020, 07:47 AM   #62
Pentaxian




Join Date: May 2008
Location: London, UK
Posts: 1,283
PS to a much earlier post - I've had a couple of filters "sacrifice" themselves in accidental camera drops and the like. but the lenses and camera bodies survived undamaged, and I'm happy with that outcome as I'm not sure if the lenses would have survived on their own.

Thus, you can see on "which side of the fence" I am inclined to sit!
02-07-2020, 12:32 PM   #63
Pentaxian
rogerstg's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Rhode Island
Photos: Albums
Posts: 829
QuoteOriginally posted by Digitalis Quote
Cool it there.

PDL was merely . . .
You've failed to comprehend my post. Sorry to excite your sensibilities.
02-07-2020, 04:38 PM   #64
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Australia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,729
QuoteOriginally posted by Digitalis Quote
protective filters is purely situational, for the majority of situations I find a lens hood is a far more reliable way of protecting lenses
absolutely, I don't use filters at all these days unless the situation arises, back when I did solely film I used filters much more. High quality Marumi or B+W, various filters usually with black and white, sometimes a polarizer with colour.

02-07-2020, 09:51 PM   #65
Pentaxian
BruceBanner's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 5,198
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by rogerstg Quote
I came upon this test of the "protectiveness" of UV filters
UV Filters - Do You Need Them Or Not? - YouTube

In summary: UV filters are very fragile compared with front lens elements. In fact, lens elements are so tough that before an impact can damage the glass, severe damage is done to the lens anyway. The idea of a filter as a first line of defense from impact damage is specious.
I watched that clip and found some of it interesting and other parts just a bit silly. I don't know what he was expecting to see happen when dropping a weighted rod onto a filter but... yeh... ok. That's not entirely what I mean by 'protection'.

I'm talking about the UV filter taking the lighter wear and tear of usage, scruff marks, even on the rim of the filter as opposed to the lens rim taking the scratch or dink. I'm talking about small scratches, or when you clean the lens and miss a small grain of sand and accidentally wipe and scratch the filter, id rather than than a scratch on the front element. I think a UV filter also somewhat helps keep dust out? I also think resale value is pretty good if you can say the lens had a UV filter on from day one, I'd like to think some of my customers on this forum here have enjoyed that peace of mind when going through with the sale. I never expect the lens to be in any good shape at all from any of his 'protection' rod demonstrations. All I know is some of my filters are scratched lightly, maybe a rim of the filter dinked a bit. I'd rather a filter look cosmetically damaged than the lens itself. Now maybe its arguable that the front element and lens rim would be more durable than UV filter, but I'm not keen to try personally and I'm knowledgable about the times that I'd get into trouble with a UV filter on, and also more skilled in PP work to deal with any unwanted artefact caused by a UV filter should all that even happen.
02-08-2020, 12:11 PM - 1 Like   #66
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
newmikey's Avatar

Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 1,889
Here's a great link which sides with all of you, dedicated filter users. It make many solid points which you all made here as well.

My response is one of the statistical economics of insurance and I copy it here for ease of reading. I think it is abundantly clear where I stand.

This video does nothing to resolve the issue but it clarifies the difference between the two schools: this school would rather stick by an evolutionary instinct to avoid damage to a lens unless the negative impact of a filter on a shot becomes apparent. I rather prefer to not let myself be driven by some age-old instinct and do the exact opposite: use the lens bare to get the most of its optical quality unless i'm in a situation where front-element protection is apparent and required (dust storms, salt water spray etc.).

Both schools of thought have an outcome; the first which is defended here accepts a few ruined or degraded shots while having a 100% no-damage guarantee. The other school accepts a minor chance of damage while having a 100% image quality guarantee. Both are valid approaches but have entirely different starting and ending points.

I am into photography not to protect the resale value of my equipment but to get as much as I can out of the combination of body and lens. I want to get the maximum out of my equipment while respecting that "negativity bias" (after all, evolutionary impulses are part of me too) so I will spend no more than I'm willing to lose. If I were to buy a $2500 lens, I would never dare take it out of its packaging to use it.

Most of my lenses are around the $500 mark (with the sole exception of one Pentax "star" lens which cost me $900) and quite a number of them cost way less. I have bought and sold many a lens over the past 15 years of digital shooting - both new as well as used and when used always face-to-face. The buyers always knew what they were getting or I knew what I was getting. In 15 years I have rejected a purchase because of a heavily scratched front element one single time and I have never had catastrophic damage to any of my lenses.

Statistically speaking, taking into account the number of lenses I've used over the years and the various thread sizes, I could have spent upwards of $2000 in "quality protective" filters which on average would have paid for 4 brand-spanking new lenses over the years. Looking back over 15 years I have gained (or not spent, if you will) $2000 without any adverse effects. This is all about the statistics of insurance - people who buy filters are the same people who over-insure, exactly because of that evolutionary bias. I have learned to resist that bias and to only insure against costs I'm not able to bear. That does not only apply to camera gear, but to travel- and health insurance and anything else. I leave nothing that has the ability to bring me to my knees financially uninsured and I don't insure anything that I can reasonably easily refinance.
02-08-2020, 02:27 PM   #67
Pentaxian
BruceBanner's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 5,198
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by newmikey Quote
Here's a great link which sides with all of you, dedicated filter users. It make many solid points which you all made here as well.
UV Lens Filters: Necessary or Nuisance? - YouTube

My response is one of the statistical economics of insurance and I copy it here for ease of reading. I think it is abundantly clear where I stand.

This video does nothing to resolve the issue but it clarifies the difference between the two schools: this school would rather stick by an evolutionary instinct to avoid damage to a lens unless the negative impact of a filter on a shot becomes apparent. I rather prefer to not let myself be driven by some age-old instinct and do the exact opposite: use the lens bare to get the most of its optical quality unless i'm in a situation where front-element protection is apparent and required (dust storms, salt water spray etc.).

Both schools of thought have an outcome; the first which is defended here accepts a few ruined or degraded shots while having a 100% no-damage guarantee. The other school accepts a minor chance of damage while having a 100% image quality guarantee. Both are valid approaches but have entirely different starting and ending points.

I am into photography not to protect the resale value of my equipment but to get as much as I can out of the combination of body and lens. I want to get the maximum out of my equipment while respecting that "negativity bias" (after all, evolutionary impulses are part of me too) so I will spend no more than I'm willing to lose. If I were to buy a $2500 lens, I would never dare take it out of its packaging to use it.

Most of my lenses are around the $500 mark (with the sole exception of one Pentax "star" lens which cost me $900) and quite a number of them cost way less. I have bought and sold many a lens over the past 15 years of digital shooting - both new as well as used and when used always face-to-face. The buyers always knew what they were getting or I knew what I was getting. In 15 years I have rejected a purchase because of a heavily scratched front element one single time and I have never had catastrophic damage to any of my lenses.

Statistically speaking, taking into account the number of lenses I've used over the years and the various thread sizes, I could have spent upwards of $2000 in "quality protective" filters which on average would have paid for 4 brand-spanking new lenses over the years. Looking back over 15 years I have gained (or not spent, if you will) $2000 without any adverse effects. This is all about the statistics of insurance - people who buy filters are the same people who over-insure, exactly because of that evolutionary bias. I have learned to resist that bias and to only insure against costs I'm not able to bear. That does not only apply to camera gear, but to travel- and health insurance and anything else. I leave nothing that has the ability to bring me to my knees financially uninsured and I don't insure anything that I can reasonably easily refinance.
That was a good video.
02-08-2020, 03:08 PM - 1 Like   #68
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
BigMackCam's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: North-East of England
Posts: 15,109
QuoteOriginally posted by newmikey Quote
My response is one of the statistical economics of insurance and I copy it here for ease of reading. I think it is abundantly clear where I stand.

This video does nothing to resolve the issue but it clarifies the difference between the two schools: this school would rather stick by an evolutionary instinct to avoid damage to a lens unless the negative impact of a filter on a shot becomes apparent. I rather prefer to not let myself be driven by some age-old instinct and do the exact opposite: use the lens bare to get the most of its optical quality unless i'm in a situation where front-element protection is apparent and required (dust storms, salt water spray etc.).

Both schools of thought have an outcome; the first which is defended here accepts a few ruined or degraded shots while having a 100% no-damage guarantee. The other school accepts a minor chance of damage while having a 100% image quality guarantee. Both are valid approaches but have entirely different starting and ending points.

I am into photography not to protect the resale value of my equipment but to get as much as I can out of the combination of body and lens. I want to get the maximum out of my equipment while respecting that "negativity bias" (after all, evolutionary impulses are part of me too) so I will spend no more than I'm willing to lose. If I were to buy a $2500 lens, I would never dare take it out of its packaging to use it.

Most of my lenses are around the $500 mark (with the sole exception of one Pentax "star" lens which cost me $900) and quite a number of them cost way less. I have bought and sold many a lens over the past 15 years of digital shooting - both new as well as used and when used always face-to-face. The buyers always knew what they were getting or I knew what I was getting. In 15 years I have rejected a purchase because of a heavily scratched front element one single time and I have never had catastrophic damage to any of my lenses.

Statistically speaking, taking into account the number of lenses I've used over the years and the various thread sizes, I could have spent upwards of $2000 in "quality protective" filters which on average would have paid for 4 brand-spanking new lenses over the years. Looking back over 15 years I have gained (or not spent, if you will) $2000 without any adverse effects. This is all about the statistics of insurance - people who buy filters are the same people who over-insure, exactly because of that evolutionary bias. I have learned to resist that bias and to only insure against costs I'm not able to bear. That does not only apply to camera gear, but to travel- and health insurance and anything else. I leave nothing that has the ability to bring me to my knees financially uninsured and I don't insure anything that I can reasonably easily refinance.
Your stance is abundantly clear, Mike, and perfectly reasonable. It works for you, and that's what matters.

With respect, though, whilst your assumptions / conclusions over those with different approaches may apply to some, they certainly don't apply to all. I can say for sure they don't apply to me.

I'm not the kind to over-insure, and this isn't some learned enlightenment. I've always been this way, more-or-less. My home building and contents (including my photo gear) are covered, as is my car (for both liability and damage), and I make provision (not insurance) for other aspects of my life. I had photography equipment insurance for a couple of years when I was travelling quite often with a lot of gear, but I've long since cancelled that. I don't travel so much now, I carry only what I need, and I'm happy to self-insure. I don't take out extended warranties; I don't insure individual products. I take out travel insurance to cover healthcare when abroad. But many folks would, I think, consider me under-insured overall... I'm comfortable with my arrangements, though, and that's what matters.

I've always taken good care of my possessions (photography-related or otherwise). Not obsessively so; I use them for their intended purposes and expect to get full value from them... but I keep them clean, carry out routine maintenance where possible, and I'm not wreckless with them (this applies to everything from my home and car to my kitchen knives and dress shoes ). This isn't to protect resale value, but because I see no reason not to. It's a balance, though. Even with reasonable care, in normal use they'll occasionally pick up the odd mark, scratch or ding along the way - and that's fine; these items are meant to be used. Still, most of my possessions are in very good condition or better, even many years later. That I've been able to achieve good resale values when selling stuff is a nice consequence, but that's all it is (I haven't sold a lens in the last four years, nor a camera in the last seven ).

Specifically regarding lenses, my investment isn't inconsiderable - and it's even more significant to me now since I don't have the disposable income I once had. So, yes, I like to protect my investment within reason. More than that, though, almost every AF lens I own is a good-to-excellent copy optically, and that wasn't all good luck... I've been through several copies of various lenses to wind up with examples I'm happy with. Having done so, I'm even more inclined to look after them. By using protective filters when I feel the need to do so - mainly in wet / windy / sandy / gritty conditions - I can work the way I want to, including cleaning the front glass in the field with abandon... as and when - and how - I deem necessary. Whether I actually need to (which is both arguable and subjective) and whether statistically my chances of benefiting from that are tiny, really doesn't matter... The simple fact is, using a protective filter in those limited situations liberates me from worrying about the lens. I just need to remain aware of the IQ risks and mitigate or accept them, which I'm happy to do.

And that's the thing... The issue isn't whether we should or shouldn't use protective filters. Rather, it's that we should be fully aware of the potential benefits and shortcomings of our choices, so we can mitigate or accept the shortcomings accordingly


Last edited by BigMackCam; 02-08-2020 at 05:46 PM.
02-08-2020, 03:32 PM - 1 Like   #69
Pentaxian
BruceBanner's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 5,198
Original Poster
It's rather amusing that the start of this post was actually not anything to do with whether we should or should not use UV filters, I just asked if there is a difference between 'Protective filter vs UV', lol but we end up here all the same
02-08-2020, 03:41 PM - 1 Like   #70
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
BigMackCam's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: North-East of England
Posts: 15,109
QuoteOriginally posted by BruceBanner Quote
It's rather amusing that the start of this post was actually not anything to do with whether we should or should not use UV filters, I just asked if there is a difference between 'Protective filter vs UV', lol but we end up here all the same
Every UV / protective filter thread ends up this way... There's nothing more certain, save for death and taxes
02-09-2020, 02:06 AM   #71
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
newmikey's Avatar

Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 1,889
QuoteOriginally posted by BruceBanner Quote
It's rather amusing that the start of this post was actually not anything to do with whether we should or should not use UV filters, I just asked if there is a difference between 'Protective filter vs UV', lol but we end up here all the same
Come on, don't play innocent. You knew exactly what you were provoking with "I don't think I ever knew about 'Protector Filters' till just now." and "I typically use CPL on top of the UV filter, and then sometimes a ND filter on top of that." especially because you led in with "I shoot professionally, events and such".

I find it amusing that people time and again come up with the exact same questions, the answer of which is near the top of any Google search as well as on this forum's search function, yet they are so "serious about photography" they have to repost the question here.
02-09-2020, 11:35 PM   #72
Pentaxian
BruceBanner's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 5,198
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by newmikey Quote
Come on, don't play innocent. You knew exactly what you were provoking with "I don't think I ever knew about 'Protector Filters' till just now." and "I typically use CPL on top of the UV filter, and then sometimes a ND filter on top of that." especially because you led in with "I shoot professionally, events and such".

I find it amusing that people time and again come up with the exact same questions, the answer of which is near the top of any Google search as well as on this forum's search function, yet they are so "serious about photography" they have to repost the question here.
Ahahaha ! I swear... i honestly didn't know if there was a difference between protector and uv, I only heard about them as I was searching for a UV filter this last week and saw them as an option in the online shop... And I just asked a question about IR filters recently as well as I am ignorant to that side of photography also (I guess it's possible to do paid work and be still very ignorant ). I had already done my preliminary research on UV filters some time ago and decided to use them as they may assist with the Blue Mountains haze with some of the shots I take in the Blue Mountains, NSW region that I reside in and also as a level of protection (events and what not). I really just wanted feedback as to whether there was a good deal of difference. I had heard of Clear filters but never protection ones, perhaps I thought the glass was tougher?
People have gone on about not to stack filters but I have found it quicker and painless to sometimes do that and late last year bought into the Manfrotto Xume system which has somewhat thwarted my ability to screw a hood onto the lens for protection. I can still use them but as you can see from this video I created they would detach in a bag quite easily from the lens and thus I worried for unnecessary hood scratching;


I provided examples earlier in this thread of shots where I have stacked UV+CPL+ND and I think IQ wise they turned out absolutely fine. Bottom line is getting to know photography I guess and if shooting into the sun then maybe stacking could involve some PP nightmare, but to a waterfall maybes not so much
03-23-2020, 03:18 PM   #73
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Western Canada
Posts: 7,304
QuoteOriginally posted by BarryE Quote
I use B+W protective filters. Do they degrade the image? I haven't been able to conclusively say. When I started fitting them I tested in some very tricky lighting conditions and I could not perceive any differences. In fact in some flare conditions the end results might even have been aesthetically, slightly better. So I fitted them to all my quality lenses from new, reasoning that the benefits of protection, and probably resell, was worth it. I tried a Hoya filter and a Kenko and concluded I would not use these.

In some cases they imrove the weather resistance of a lens. I always use the added protection of a lens hood. Yes they are expensive, but I factor this in when I buy a new lens.

So I'm comfortable with fitting them and probably more relaxed about a lens' use, for instance when I forget to fit a lens cap and pop it back into my bag also with lenses that have short hoods, straps, branches, fingers etc would otherwise risk making the front elements.

The B+W filters are easy to clean I find.
I agree and do pretty well what you do. I generally use B+W F-Pro filters, generally clear filters to protect my lenses. I have tried a number of before and after tests...with/without filters...same subject, same weather/sun, etc. conditions and with the B+W have failed to notice any discernible difference.

In my many years of photography I have occasionally (very rare) dropped a camera. My K10D and 16-45 lens fell out of a poorly designed bag (dumped that one in a hurry) about 4 feet to the floor. I had a B+W on....the filter absorbed the impact as the camera hit the hardwood floor...lens first. Fortunately all was ok.

It maybe an unusual event , but even though I'm very careful with my equipment...sometimes (blank) happens, as they say.... not me though...I say (blank).

I do have some lenses that are impossible/ difficult to fit protective filters on...my 10-17 fisheye, my 40 and 70 Limiteds...so I go filterless.

I also believe that if you are going to put a protective filter on, use top quality filters. Why, put cheap glass on in front of expensive glass lenses ?

I also always attach my lens hood.

The discussion of the merits of filters is one of those perennial debates in the camera world . There will always be advocates pro and con. Who is right, I do not know.
03-23-2020, 03:50 PM   #74
Pentaxian




Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Oklahoma USA
Posts: 1,688
It seems that the newer filters are just so much easier to clean than most lenses, partly due to coatins, and partly due to being flat vs. some lenses having rounded front elements. Realistically many Pentax users use lenses in rain and snow and salt spray, so it seems to make sense to default to having the filter on, and remove it for particularly sensitive situations (such as backlight.) That also covers conditions like dropping the lens in a bag without a cap, etc. The coatings on the newer filters also seem harder than all but the very latest lens coatings, so damage is much less likely to occur.
03-23-2020, 05:08 PM   #75
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Western Canada
Posts: 7,304
QuoteOriginally posted by dlh Quote
I use nothing stronger than Palmolive dishwashing detergent.

I've always used a squeeze bottle horsehair brush to rid the lens surface of dust, etc. , then photographic lens cleaning fluid, lens cleaning paper. Does the job.

I used to use Kodak products, but haven't seen them for awhile, but now use Henry's lens cleaning fluid. Henry's is a large Canadian photo store chain.

Also finding the old style squeeze bottle horsehair brush is almost impossible to find.

I've been using this cleaning stuff for 50 + years and maybe this is why you can't find it as easily as before. Maybe this old guy (me) needs to update.
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!
base, caps, coatings, cpl, da*, filter, filter vs uv, filters, flare, front, hand, lens, lenses, light, protector, protector filter vs, source, tiffen, tripod, uv, yellowstone
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
K-5 vs MZ-S vs LX vs PZ-1p vs ist*D vs K10D vs K20D vs K-7 vs....... Steelski Pentax K-5 2 06-28-2017 04:59 PM
DA70 UV filter / lens protector + hood - thoughts? BigMackCam Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 10 05-09-2015 07:11 AM
For Sale - Sold: Panasonic LX-5 with Screen Protector, Filter Adapter Tube & UV Filter (Price Drop!!!) isb.deep Sold Items 6 09-19-2012 07:37 PM
UV filter or Clear Protector dazman Pentax Camera and Field Accessories 12 05-29-2008 05:15 PM
UV filter vs Protector Snowcat Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 7 12-12-2007 10:17 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:12 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