Originally posted by newmikey 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