Lens caps, filters, and me

[PhotoJim]

Just one thought. If it's a good idea to always use a skylight filter (and I'm not arguing either way). Why don't lenses come with this coating on the front (or any) element as standard?

Some lenses have a clear glass front element for protection. The idea is that it is cheaper to replace than an element that forms part of the optical formula.

The filtration isn't always desirable, but is rarely harmful.

 

[panastasia]

I fully expect a filter ring to be softer then my wimpiest lens. If it isn't then normal use of the filter will damage the lens.

Just because the filter was damaged doesn't mean the lens would have been. It's possible the filter could even have made things worse.

?????

Nick,

Believe me, I'm trying to understand you.

If the filter ring is made of a softer material, that's a good thing because softer material will absorb any impact better than hard material. Besides, filter rings are made of brass, like most lenses. It's not really a materials issue - or, do you mean damage to the screw threads?

 

[Sirius Glass]

The times you all ended up with damaged filters. How do you know the lens would have been damaged?

Did the filter protect the lens? Or would nothing have happened without the filter?

If I tape an egg to my bumper will the egg protect the car?

Of course if your filters come with built in shock absorbers.

This is the same logic used to justify not using a seat belt because someone does not want to be trapped in a car if it were to catch on fire. Of course that ignores the fact that with the seat belt one is less likely to get knocked out and they would be conscience and able to unlatch the belt. Usually, these people get thrown out of the car and end up seriously dead!

YMMV, but you will do what you want to do with full disregard for logic and facts. Enjoy.

Steve

 

[wheelygirl]

Alright, I gotta add my 2 cents worth: I believe the more chances a "shooter" takes with their preferred lens without any UV filter attached to that lens. the more possibilities of having damage done to that lens. At this point of my photographic 'hobby', I've paid no money for any of my leses; however, I treat these as though I did indeed pay for them, and attach a UV filter on most. Oddly enough, it was only a few months ago, I realized I had a UV filter on my standard [55mm] lens!! Talk of being unobservant and grateful as well!!

 

[IloveTLRs]

When I was a kid I dropped my parents camera and luckily only broke the filter. They had a fit because they thought I'd broken the lens (which would've cost plenty to fix - Canon 35AF.)

I always try to fit filters on myself since You Never Know when something might happen. I look at it like pushing the elevator button more than once: you know the elevator's coming but you do it anyway. I know I may never bang/drop my lens, but I fit filters on anyway.

Er, that wasn't so good but you get the picture.

 

[declark]

No one has yet really commented on whether image quality takes a hit. I really don't care to do the testing but I was hoping someone more analytical than myself had gone to the great lengths to see if it does make any difference optically.

Personally it is just economics to me. If a lens costs less than the filter, I don't care, I'll just buy another lens. Usually anything less than $100 I don't worry too much about. I did drop a Nikon 200mm F4 smack on a rock at the beach from about 3 ft up and the filter did save the lens, because had it not been on, it surely would have had dented filter threads just like the filter's dent. I have a 50mm F2 with the metal lens hood and never bother to cap it or keep a filter on, but it only cost $25, same goes for the 75-150mm that also cost less than a good filter. I do put a filter on my Rollei 35s, only because it's just asking for finger prints and it gives it a bit more meat to grab for focusing.

 

[John Koehrer]

Interesting point regarding image quality.
Brings up the differences between lens brands doesn't it
I think most of the hypercritical amongst us would defend NOT using a filter because they imagine they see a difference. Certainly it has some minor effect but other than using a microscope to examine the negative, I believe they're delusional.

DUCK!

 

[23mjm]

Well I think a filter is like a condom---when you need it you need it. I think a filter is cheap protection for the lens. I shoot 90% B&W so I normally use a colored filter anyway. As far as degrading image quality----poppycock. I shoot outdoors and all my favorites used filters extensively. Galen Rowell and Ansel Adams use filters most all the time---no image issues there. But a filter is like anything else--you get what you pay for. Personally I like Hoya Multicoated have had great results with those. But the bottom line is it's your gear and pic so to what You want. I like to keep skylight filters on all my lenses for a little protection and to cut some haze.