advertisement


Protective filter?

Don't think we are saying we have, we are saying we might...accidents do happen even to someone as lucky as you, so why take the risk, when a filter is £20 and a lens maybe hundreds, thousands even ESP since a good one makes no discernable difference to a shot. Just seems common sense to me?
 
I suppose if all my shots were with the sun over my shoulder, at a flint throwing show.

The riskiest place I've taken photos lately has been on the start line at Santa Pod. Nothing happened. No flying debris at all.
 

Well, just like someone posted earlier, I've been using an SLR since 1982 and in all sorts of situations, and the only time I've damaged a lens at all was when I dropped the bloody thing onto a stone tiled kitchen floor. Dusty gravel rallies in North Yorkshire? No problems. How does the front element get damaged? If a hood is fitted, you'd have to try very hard indeed.

I use a polariser on my 70-200, but my 16-35 is left naked.

I've just remembered. A penguin pecked the lens once while at Boulders, Cape Town, and even that violent assault did nothing.
 
hahahaha
the penguin story is good.
I'm not going through it all again...summary: I'm quite poor. Why take the risk?
ends :)
 
I'm quite poor. I won't spend money on something that I don't need.

I got my first camera - a Canon A1 with a nice 50mm lens - in 1980. The very first thing that I used it for was a beach trip. Some friends got a young lady and buried her up to her waist in the sand. I stepped up to take a picture and the little darling let fly with a handful of wet sand. That landed smack in the middle of the lens. I just brushed it off gently and carried on. No big deal.
 
I have them and use them on most of my lenses. However, when taking night shots I remove any filter. My macro lens lives without a filter.

Slowly I am migrating to only using a polarising filter or slot in filters.

Hoods are the best protection from dropping, having done that more than once.
 
I knew a bloke who drove 45000 a year, and had done for 25 years or so...a million and a quarter miles, and never a scratch. Guess what?:) My sister drives about 2000 miles a year, has had 13 accidents, and all her cars look like they've done 9 rounds with Mike Tyson in a biting mood.
Some people are just luckier, or more careful, than others.
 
The penguins were fine, but one must've caught sight of his own reflection in the lens. Once when scuba diving I saw some large barracuda passing overhead. I certainly wasn't going to allow them to see their reflections in my mask, seen the video, didn't like the end product :(
 
I read about Barracuda as boy in 'under the red sea'...was it Hans and Lotte Hass or somesuch?
Anyway, haven't relaxed in the water since:)
 
Protective filters or not? I don't use filters for protection. Generally replacing the front element of a lens is not a massive cost, quite possibly a similar cost to what you'll pay for a really high quality filter. We pay for great modern coatings on our lenses nowadays so why negate these with cheap filters or pay a lot for the best filters for protection when replacing the front element on the lens costs in.

Another thought - a big hit on a protective filter will probably result in front element damage too so extra cost to replace both items. Most lenses have to be very badly damaged for IQ to become a concern. Of course all this will vary by lens and focal length.
 
He did it again.


This was using a slegdehammer to crack a nut.

the filter wrench he was using would never work; it was too small, and creates two points of stress unless close to correctly sized. It expands the threads instead of contracting them. All he needed was a simple polycarbonate or ABS filter wrench of the correct sizing (one that grips the outside and presses in (taking pressure off of the threads), and presto!

Anyway, if you've dropped a lens and the pressure of the fall has dissipated in the filter - breaking it - you'll still need the lens to be checked over for operation, focus, linearity etc.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Protective filters or not? I don't use filters for protection. Generally replacing the front element of a lens is not a massive cost, quite possibly a similar cost to what you'll pay for a really high quality filter. We pay for great modern coatings on our lenses nowadays so why negate these with cheap filters or pay a lot for the best filters for protection when replacing the front element on the lens costs in.

Another thought - a big hit on a protective filter will probably result in front element damage too so extra cost to replace both items. Most lenses have to be very badly damaged for IQ to become a concern. Of course all this will vary by lens and focal length.

Good post :)
 


advertisement


Back
Top