September 22, 2014, 08:40:25 PM

Author Topic: Same ole, same ole' Filters vs no filters...  (Read 5829 times)

chromophore

  • Power Shot G16
  • **
  • Posts: 25
    • View Profile
Re: Same ole, same ole' Filters vs no filters...
« Reply #30 on: November 12, 2013, 10:31:36 AM »
I disagree with your statement. 
A filter is indeed an extra insurance against impact damage to the lens front element. If it wasn't for the extra insurance of the filter on my EF 16-35 f/2.8 L II lens, I would have had to spend almost US$2000 to get a new lens or wait for about a month and spend at least US$1000 to get the front element replaced.

And I disagree with yours.  Your experience does not prove that it was the filter that saved your lens.  Your lens may not have been damaged by that same impact.  Furthermore, there are cases where the broken glass from the filter actually contributes to scratching and pitting of the front element.  Your single anecdote does not account for the variety of failure modes.

My point is that a filter was never designed to be a form of impact protection.  A filter is an optical flat that is thinner and structurally weaker than the curved front element of a lens.  It would be unwise to rely on it or count on it in any fashion to save your lens in a fall.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Same ole, same ole' Filters vs no filters...
« Reply #30 on: November 12, 2013, 10:31:36 AM »

neuroanatomist

  • CR GEEK
  • ********
  • Posts: 14463
    • View Profile
Re: Same ole, same ole' Filters vs no filters...
« Reply #31 on: November 12, 2013, 10:51:24 AM »
What I *do* use filters for, however, is for convenience.  If the design of a lens makes it hard to get the front element clean (e.g., recessed front element, delicate coating, or large diameter), I am more likely to keep a filter on it just so that I don't have to waste so much time being careful to keep it dust free.  This lets me go out and shoot in salty or dusty conditions without a lot of downtime.

+1
EOS 1D X, EOS M, and lots of lenses
______________________________
Flickr | TDP Profile/Gear List

Zv

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1240
    • View Profile
    • Zeeography (flickr)
Re: Same ole, same ole' Filters vs no filters...
« Reply #32 on: November 12, 2013, 11:26:26 AM »
I feel like we have this filter debate about once a month and it goes around in circles with no conclusion. Ever.

I've seen people with filters on a kit lens with a lens cap on top of that!! :o

I've seen bare lenses, no hood (or hood reversed!) no filter, when they prob shoulda used somethin!  :(

Why do we care what other people do with their stuff? Let's never see this thread again (until next month!) :D

Btw - I use hoods for bumps and general protection but filters only when there's sand or water involved. Reason? I paid for L lenses and don't want another piece of glass in front of it. If it breaks it breaks. I'll (cry and) buy another one!
« Last Edit: November 12, 2013, 11:30:29 AM by Zv »
5D II | 17-40L | 24-105L | 70-200 f4L IS | 135L | SY 14 2.8 | Sigma 50 1.4

EOS M | 11-22 IS STM | 22 STM | FD 50 1.4

Rienzphotoz

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 3322
  • Peace unto all ye Canon, Nikon & Sony shooters
    • View Profile
Re: Same ole, same ole' Filters vs no filters...
« Reply #33 on: November 13, 2013, 01:29:40 AM »
I disagree with your statement. 
A filter is indeed an extra insurance against impact damage to the lens front element. If it wasn't for the extra insurance of the filter on my EF 16-35 f/2.8 L II lens, I would have had to spend almost US$2000 to get a new lens or wait for about a month and spend at least US$1000 to get the front element replaced.

And I disagree with yours.  Your experience does not prove that it was the filter that saved your lens.  Your lens may not have been damaged by that same impact.  Furthermore, there are cases where the broken glass from the filter actually contributes to scratching and pitting of the front element.  Your single anecdote does not account for the variety of failure modes.

My point is that a filter was never designed to be a form of impact protection.  A filter is an optical flat that is thinner and structurally weaker than the curved front element of a lens.  It would be unwise to rely on it or count on it in any fashion to save your lens in a fall.
1. It is NOT an "anecdote"  ::) ... there are plenty of people whose lens front element was saved due to a filter.

2. I know what happened to my lens coz I was there and saw it happen, unless of course you are claiming to be an accomplished prophet or soothsayer who can see things beyond the scope of your eyes. ::)
I do agree that "a filter was never designed to be a form of impact protection" however it is one of the benefits of using a filter.
Canon 5DMK3 70D | Nikon D610 | Sony a7 a6000 | RX100M3 | 16-35/2.8LII | 70-200/2.8LISII | 100/2.8LIS | 100-400LIS | 40/2.8 | 50/1.4 | 85/1.8 | 600EX-RTx2 | ST-E3-RT | 24/3.5 T-S | 10-18/4 OSS 16-50 | 24-70/4OSS | 55/1.8 | 55-210 OSS | 70-200/4 OSS | 28-300VR | HVL-F43M | GoPro Black 3+ & DJI Phantom

wfmiller

  • Power Shot G16
  • **
  • Posts: 12
    • View Profile
Re: Same ole, same ole' Filters vs no filters...
« Reply #34 on: November 14, 2013, 01:11:12 PM »
What a coincidence! ... just yesterday, my 5D MKIII with EF 16-35 f/2.8 L II mounted on Manfrotto 055CXPRO4 got flung out about 10 feet from a height of 6 feet ... when I saw it fall, I was pretty certain everything must've died ... but to my great relief, the 5D MK III had two tiny scratches, one bottom leg of my Manfrotto broke (http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=18004.msg333840#msg333840), and the EF 16-35 L II lens had a dent on the filer thread. But what protected the front element of the lens was the 82mm B+W XS-Pro filter, which cracked after hitting a metal hook on the shipyard floor. I borrowed a Plier from one of the electricians at the shipyard and gently broke the glass of the B+W filter (as I could not remove it from the lens due to it being stuck real bad) and continued on with my shooting.
While I understand and agree with Richard's point of view about cheaper filters, I think it is important to have the best filters you can afford on your better lenses ... had I not to have a filter on (or even with a cheap filter) I am pretty certain I would have damaged a lens, that would have cost me almost $2000 to replace, instead I'm only looking at $150 to $175 to replace the filter ... but most importantly I would not have been able to complete the shooting.
My view on having filters on all the time (on all my lenses) is that it is one less thing for me to worry about when I take the lens out ... if I keep removing filters and putting them on (for normal / not so safe places), I most likely will forget to put the filter on one day and that could be the day, like yesterday, when the lens fells down ... its like my insurance, better to have it and not need it than to not have and need it.


Amen to that, I had a similar experience in that I was doing a shoot in a stream with a waterfall and I slipped on a mossy rock. I thought for sure that I cracked the lens of my 16-35 L II lens when I looked at it. Luckily the only thing that cracked was my ND filter which I had a heck of a time getting off. I did not wince at all while purchasing a replacement filter of the same ilk!!  ::)
5DIII, 7D, 40D, 60mm f/2.8 Macro, 17-55mm f/2.8, 16-35 f/2.8L II, 85mm f/1.8, 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L, 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5, 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II, 24-70mm f/2.8L II, 24-105mm f/4L, 70-300mm F/4-5.6L, 580EX, 600EX-RT, ST-E3-RT

dstppy

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 900
    • View Profile
Re: Same ole, same ole' Filters vs no filters...
« Reply #35 on: November 14, 2013, 01:19:43 PM »
I feel like we have this filter debate about once a month and it goes around in circles with no conclusion. Ever.

Not quite monthly, but it seems that way.  Hell, at least it's been more civilized and productive than the last three Canon announcement threads.
Canon Rumors is presently creating photographer shortages in Middle Earth (all the trolls emigrated here)

Richard8971

  • 7D
  • *****
  • Posts: 381
  • "There is no spoon" - Neo
    • View Profile
Re: Same ole, same ole' Filters vs no filters...
« Reply #36 on: November 15, 2013, 11:14:46 PM »
I guess you didn't try my suggested test.  I shoot indoors a lot, there are usually strong light sources (ceiling light fixtures, floor lamps, etc.) in the frame.  In that situation, a cheap filter is a bad idea (I did try a cheap Tiffen once, since it came on a used lens I bought - if you'll pardon the New Englandism, wicked bad flare; no issues with my B+W MRC filters).

No offence but this wasn't about a controlled test using blah, blah and doing blah, blah. I picked up my camera with the filter on, took a shot. Took the filter off and took the same shot. Did the same thing with the other two. Just random shots that anyone of us could take. I DID take these indoors, with normal indoor lighting conditions, using my onboard flash. Nothing special...

Again, if you don't like filters, then don't use them. My test was to show that even though under very close examination you can spot a difference, but just viewing a photo normally, its a lot harder.

Life is too short. Go out and take some photos!

D
« Last Edit: November 15, 2013, 11:19:04 PM by Richard8971 »
Canon 5D2, 7Dv2.03, 50D, 40D, T1i, XTi...XT (& lenses, flahses), various powershots... You get the idea... I have a problem. :)

Wife shoots Nikon, D7000, D7100, (lenses and flashes)... we constantly tease each other that our cameras are better than each others!

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Same ole, same ole' Filters vs no filters...
« Reply #36 on: November 15, 2013, 11:14:46 PM »

Richard8971

  • 7D
  • *****
  • Posts: 381
  • "There is no spoon" - Neo
    • View Profile
Re: Same ole, same ole' Filters vs no filters...
« Reply #37 on: November 15, 2013, 11:17:10 PM »
I feel like we have this filter debate about once a month and it goes around in circles with no conclusion. Ever.

I've seen people with filters on a kit lens with a lens cap on top of that!! :o

I've seen bare lenses, no hood (or hood reversed!) no filter, when they prob shoulda used somethin!  :(

Why do we care what other people do with their stuff? Let's never see this thread again (until next month!) :D

Btw - I use hoods for bumps and general protection but filters only when there's sand or water involved. Reason? I paid for L lenses and don't want another piece of glass in front of it. If it breaks it breaks. I'll (cry and) buy another one!

I did this a little differently. I used some photo examples of why its not overall a big deal if you use filters or not.

I have to wonder, if you are so tired of these threads, why do you open them and read/respond to them? Hmmm.... ???

D
Canon 5D2, 7Dv2.03, 50D, 40D, T1i, XTi...XT (& lenses, flahses), various powershots... You get the idea... I have a problem. :)

Wife shoots Nikon, D7000, D7100, (lenses and flashes)... we constantly tease each other that our cameras are better than each others!

Zv

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1240
    • View Profile
    • Zeeography (flickr)
Re: Same ole, same ole' Filters vs no filters...
« Reply #38 on: November 16, 2013, 04:22:37 AM »
I feel like we have this filter debate about once a month and it goes around in circles with no conclusion. Ever.

I've seen people with filters on a kit lens with a lens cap on top of that!! :o

I've seen bare lenses, no hood (or hood reversed!) no filter, when they prob shoulda used somethin!  :(

Why do we care what other people do with their stuff? Let's never see this thread again (until next month!) :D

Btw - I use hoods for bumps and general protection but filters only when there's sand or water involved. Reason? I paid for L lenses and don't want another piece of glass in front of it. If it breaks it breaks. I'll (cry and) buy another one!

I did this a little differently. I used some photo examples of why its not overall a big deal if you use filters or not.

I have to wonder, if you are so tired of these threads, why do you open them and read/respond to them? Hmmm.... ???

D

 :P
5D II | 17-40L | 24-105L | 70-200 f4L IS | 135L | SY 14 2.8 | Sigma 50 1.4

EOS M | 11-22 IS STM | 22 STM | FD 50 1.4

RLPhoto

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 3453
  • Gear doesn't matter, Just a Matter of Convenience.
    • View Profile
    • My Portfolio
Re: Same ole, same ole' Filters vs no filters...
« Reply #39 on: November 16, 2013, 07:36:00 AM »
All my lenses have b&w filters and I don't see degradation. When I'm slipping lenses in and out of bags the front gets dirty with dust, fingerprints. I have no worry wiping them off with a tshirt or a cloth. They have saved my lenses from liquids before and some impacts. If you baby your gear sure but as a pro I don't have time to be worrying about my front element.

Don Haines

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 3208
  • Posting cat pictures on the internet since 1986
    • View Profile
Re: Same ole, same ole' Filters vs no filters...
« Reply #40 on: November 16, 2013, 07:58:19 AM »
All my lenses have b&w filters and I don't see degradation. When I'm slipping lenses in and out of bags the front gets dirty with dust, fingerprints. I have no worry wiping them off with a tshirt or a cloth. They have saved my lenses from liquids before and some impacts. If you baby your gear sure but as a pro I don't have time to be worrying about my front element.

I have decent multicoated filters on all of my lenses too... I try to baby my gear, but S___ happens.... I placed an order last week to B+H and it included a 77mm UV filter to replace one with a big scratch down the middle. I have no idea how I scratched it or what I was doing when it happened... but I am a lot happier buying a new filter than sending a lens across international boundaries for a new front element.....

I also have some polarizing filters.... One is a "Henry's special" and the other is a Sigma Multicoated.... there is an immediately visible difference between the two.. If you think cheap filters are bad idea for UV and clear filters,  then you are really going to hate a cheap polarizing filter.

HINT: When buying "specialty filters", such as polarizing, ND, infa-red, etc... buy them for your biggest lens size, and then get some step-up rings for the smaller lenses.
« Last Edit: November 16, 2013, 08:39:17 AM by Don Haines »
The best camera is the one in your hands

neuroanatomist

  • CR GEEK
  • ********
  • Posts: 14463
    • View Profile
Re: Same ole, same ole' Filters vs no filters...
« Reply #41 on: November 16, 2013, 08:06:32 AM »
I guess you didn't try my suggested test.  I shoot indoors a lot, there are usually strong light sources (ceiling light fixtures, floor lamps, etc.) in the frame.  In that situation, a cheap filter is a bad idea (I did try a cheap Tiffen once, since it came on a used lens I bought - if you'll pardon the New Englandism, wicked bad flare; no issues with my B+W MRC filters).

No offence but this wasn't about a controlled test using blah, blah and doing blah, blah. I picked up my camera with the filter on, took a shot. Took the filter off and took the same shot. Did the same thing with the other two. Just random shots that anyone of us could take. I DID take these indoors, with normal indoor lighting conditions, using my onboard flash. Nothing special...

Again, if you don't like filters, then don't use them. My test was to show that even though under very close examination you can spot a difference, but just viewing a photo normally, its a lot harder.

Life is too short. Go out and take some photos!

It's as if someone handed you a $20 digicam and said it rendered purple/magenta hues as blue...and you compared it to your dSLR and concluded the cheap camera was fine...and showed pictures of a green lawn as 'proof'.

Your point was that a cheap filter is basically just as good as an expensive one, so there's no need to pay more, and you supported that point by showing a pair of images that were taken under conditions that would not reveal the major problem caused by cheap filters - flare.

Maybe you don't find the flare you get with cheap filters objectionable...but it is evident, and easily spotted even in normal viewing of a web-sized image. 

Life is too short.  Go out and take some photos...but be sure not to have any strong light sources in the frame!
EOS 1D X, EOS M, and lots of lenses
______________________________
Flickr | TDP Profile/Gear List

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Same ole, same ole' Filters vs no filters...
« Reply #41 on: November 16, 2013, 08:06:32 AM »