[bladerunner0427]

Yes, the filter debate is very old and it comes down to how much more security/protection one feels it contributes (whether it is actual or perceived). I don't have any expensive lenses (yet) so I don't think insurance is necessary for me anyhow. But if OregonJim is right about the UV coating on SMC lenses, then I guess one doesn't need the UV filter.

For me it's been about physical protection of the front element. In my very limited knowledge of cameras and lenses, I thought if the front element was damaged, one would have to replace the whole lens. I guess that's not the case.

I would love not to have to buy filters for every lens I buy. I keep the hood on almost all the time so having a filter may be redundant physical protection.

(Off to google SMC coatings and UV . . .)

---

Last edited by bladerunner0427; 06-05-2009 at 09:32 PM.

[Marc Sabatella]

Note while it might be possible to replace just the front element of some lenses, it probably isn't practical most of the time. So it really comes down to the factors I already mentioned - trusting that if you are reasonably careful, damage just isn't that likely.

As for the cost of insurance, I pay State Farm $40/year for a policy that covers my cameras, lenses, and laptops. Pays full replacement cost with no deductible - and not just for damage, but also theft, etc. That's a heck of a lot of coverage - *WAY* more than a filter (unless you know of a filter that will keep your camera from being stolen) - for about the price of one filter per year.

[simico]

trusting that if you are reasonably careful, damage just isn't that likely.

Exactly.
I know several local pro photographers (some of them work for newspapers), each of them having a lens collection worth $20000-50000. None of them use UV/protection filters at all.

[tibbitts]

Note while it might be possible to replace just the front element of some lenses, it probably isn't practical most of the time. So it really comes down to the factors I already mentioned - trusting that if you are reasonably careful, damage just isn't that likely.

As for the cost of insurance, I pay State Farm $40/year for a policy that covers my cameras, lenses, and laptops. Pays full replacement cost with no deductible - and not just for damage, but also theft, etc. That's a heck of a lot of coverage - *WAY* more than a filter (unless you know of a filter that will keep your camera from being stolen) - for about the price of one filter per year.

That's an interesting idea. Have you tried using the policy to replace front elements yet? I was cleaning the 52mm filter on my 50-200mm today and found two chunks of glass missing out of it (I always use the provided hard lens hood.) The filter is a Canon brand (I suspect it's an uncoated Tiffen Haze 1), so it's not just a scratch in some flimsy multi-coating. I'm wondering how much damage would have to be done before State Farm would replace that front element. And I'm wondering if, assuming this is some kind of addition to your homeowners policy, if making a claim would cause your other premiums to rise or your policy to be cancelled.

Paul

[bladerunner0427]

Note while it might be possible to replace just the front element of some lenses, it probably isn't practical most of the time. So it really comes down to the factors I already mentioned - trusting that if you are reasonably careful, damage just isn't that likely.

As for the cost of insurance, I pay State Farm $40/year for a policy that covers my cameras, lenses, and laptops. Pays full replacement cost with no deductible - and not just for damage, but also theft, etc. That's a heck of a lot of coverage - *WAY* more than a filter (unless you know of a filter that will keep your camera from being stolen) - for about the price of one filter per year.

Wow! That's it! I may have to look into this once I have more lenses. I've also got a laptop and a netbook. This sure beats some of those insurance/replacement plans at some electronics stores.

[Rondec]

Lens hoods are definitely useful in a lot of situations. They cut down on flare. Unfortunately, they also can make a long lens really long, but that's really their only down side. I think Pentax wanted to keep the k2000 kit as small and cheap as possible and so they didn't make a lens hood for the 18-55 DA-L.

As far as filters go, I do put UV filters on all my lenses, but I take them off in lower light settings. They can definitely slow down auto focus in that situation. They also significantly increase risk of flare when shooting into a light source (whether it is a candle, the sun or just a light bulb). They probably aren't necessary, but they don't seem to hurt as long as you take them off when they would get in the way.

[Marc Sabatella]

Have you tried using the policy to replace front elements yet?

No, I have not. Like I said, with even reasonable care, damage just isn't that common, and I've never seen any. But you're right, there could be issues with convincing an insurance company that a scratch was something they needed to fix. On the other hand, it actually takes quite a bit of damage to the front element before there is any *noticeable* effect on IQ.

I've had other claims on other State farm policies, and yes, of course do want to protect their interests and sometimes haggle over the specifics (that's the job of the claims adjuster). But in the claims I've had on a couple of other policies, it's actually always come out pretty fair.

And I'm wondering if, assuming this is some kind of addition to your homeowners policy, if making a claim would cause your other premiums to rise or your policy to be cancelled.

In my case, it's a separate Personal Articles policy. State farm generally doesn't cancel policies or raise rates after a single claim, but they might after several in a short period of time. Seems they even once told me the exact number of "allowed" claims before they start reevaluating rates, but the specifics probably differ for different kinds of policies.

In any case, the fact that a policy like this covers *far* more than just lens damage, for essentially the same cost as a filter per year (and I don't know about you, but I've averaged way more than one lens a year!) makes it kind of a no-brainer in my book. I'd do that even if I *weren't* concerned about lens scratches - the other types of losses they cover (theft, dropping from a height great enough to really shatter things, etc) are *far* more common and more of a cause for concern than lens scratches.

So the policy plus using a hood and just being careful seems more than good enough to me, but if you'd *like* to greatly increase your cost and potentially degrade IQ while you're at it, for what probably amounts to only minimal added protection against a problem that isn't that common in the first place, by all means, use filters too. But if you're going to pick one or the other, the insurance seems a *FAR* better way to go.

---

Last edited by Marc Sabatella; 06-06-2009 at 05:13 PM.

[Kerrowdown]

The use of hoods, reduces fingerprints on the glass too

[Canada_Rockies]

The use of hoods, reduces fingerprints on the glass too

And it reduces nose prints from friendly dogs, too.

[res3567]

You should be able to use the hood and filter together.

Yes you can and not only that; the hood that came with my 16-45 has a removable tab on the bottom. For polarizers? I think so!

[Agesconde]

Just want to let everybody (who participated with this discussion) know that I do appreciate all your input. They kinda make me see things in different perspectives and it did help! Many thanks