September 21, 2014, 04:30:55 PM

Author Topic: Another strike against UV filters  (Read 6838 times)

pwp

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1544
    • View Profile
Re: Another strike against UV filters
« Reply #45 on: December 18, 2013, 02:57:37 AM »
I just received my new 70-200 f2.8 IS II a few weeks ago and put on a Hoya filter I had been using on my 24-105.  Well, the other day, the 70-200 fell off the table onto the hardwood floor.  I heard glass break and was fearing my $1900 investment was just ruined.  Luckily, it was just the filter.  I thought I had escaped damage but after gently cleaning out the glass, I noticed there are now some scratches on the front element.  If I had not had a UV filter on there, the lens would have been undamaged.  I think I'm going to reserve filters for situations where I'm shooting in dirty, dusty, sandy, snowy or rainy conditions but leave them off until then.
Isn't that a bit like throwing out the baby with the bathwater? That's a really unfortunate drop, but only carelessness would have let your lens roll off the table. I shoot most days of the year in all sorts of physical environments and experience has taught me that when push comes to shove, UV or protective filters are a good idea, primarily for their protective function. I've smashed filters in biffs that would have either damaged the front element, or at the very least damaged the filter thread. I'm always with a hood for the same reason. They make great shock absorbers.

Filters also offer the real-world option of cleaning the dust/dirt/water/smear/sludge that will inevitably land on the front element from time to time with your t-shirt, tie, facial tissue, spare sock or whatever without having an anxiety attack about damaging the front element. Give it a good quick scrub and keep shooting.

I routinely replace the UV/protective filters every 3-4 years or sooner if they're showing that unmistakable patina of fine scratches.

-pw
« Last Edit: December 18, 2013, 05:08:12 AM by pwp »

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Another strike against UV filters
« Reply #45 on: December 18, 2013, 02:57:37 AM »

pwp

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1544
    • View Profile
Re: Another strike against UV filters
« Reply #46 on: December 18, 2013, 05:13:23 AM »
It's always seemed to me that if 'protecting' the front element was a genuine requirement the likes of Canon would be pleased to supply something suitable.  ;)
And they don't .
Lens cap, hood...

-pw

suburbia

  • Power Shot G16
  • **
  • Posts: 10
    • View Profile
Re: Another strike against UV filters
« Reply #47 on: December 18, 2013, 06:51:44 AM »
funny this thread has come up, I've installed UV filters and kept lens hoods attached to my lens religiously for 10 years often wondering why exactly but I don't make money from my photography so have always felt slightly more cautious about my equipment.

Last month I bought a 24-70 Mk II which was a huge sweat enducing sum of money for me and the UV filter was quite expensive and I ummmed and ahhhed but went with it anyway. I was on holiday and hadn't got round to insuring the lens but went out with my new lens anyway as I have never damaged a lens before in my life.

The next morning I was walking along the street and the lens hood fell off and shattered on the floor, oh well its just plastic, but then literally 15 minutes later in the hotel hobby I dropped something on the floor and crouched down in a twisting motion with enough momentum to send my heavy camera, lens first swinging into the corner of a marble desk. Crunch.

Heart stopping moment for sure but by a miracle the impact on the UV filter was enough to stop the momentum of the swing and the actual lens was completely unscathed. The UV filter cracked and I had to replace it with another £70 filter but rather that than £1500!

AJ

  • 7D
  • *****
  • Posts: 409
    • View Profile
Re: Another strike against UV filters
« Reply #48 on: December 18, 2013, 02:16:43 PM »
I crashed my car and my seatbelt left a bruise.  Another strike against seatbelts!

tron

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1827
    • View Profile
Re: Another strike against UV filters
« Reply #49 on: December 18, 2013, 04:36:18 PM »
I crashed my car and my seatbelt left a bruise.  Another strike against seatbelts!
;D

pwp

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1544
    • View Profile
Re: Another strike against UV filters
« Reply #50 on: December 18, 2013, 07:13:04 PM »
I crashed my car and my seatbelt left a bruise.  Another strike against seatbelts!
;D ;D ;D very good...

-pw

AcutancePhotography

  • 5D Mark III
  • ******
  • Posts: 696
    • View Profile
Re: Another strike against UV filters
« Reply #51 on: December 19, 2013, 01:27:55 PM »
My father's life was saved because he did not wear a seatbelt.

When he was a young man, he spun his '55 T-bird into a ditch.  He was ejected and broke his arm.  The steering wheel went through the driver's seat...  If he had been wearing a seatbelt, he would have been killed.

To this day, my father always wears a seatbelt.  Why?  Because he knows that despite that one instance, wearing a seatbelt is the odd on favourite for staying safe.

I use the same logic when it comes to protective filters. 
I shoot with a Camera Obscura with an optical device attached that refracts and transmits light

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Another strike against UV filters
« Reply #51 on: December 19, 2013, 01:27:55 PM »

Ruined

  • 5D Mark III
  • ******
  • Posts: 646
    • View Profile
Re: Another strike against UV filters
« Reply #52 on: December 19, 2013, 05:17:32 PM »
Years ago I used to use them. But one night I was doing city night photography and noticed the lights were being doubled (i.e. reflected) due to bouncing off the inside of the filter. This was with the old 80-200L and a cheap UV filter. Has anyone else experienced this? Anyway, I personally have never used them since (well over ten years) and have had no problems. But I am pretty careful with my stuff and do not often shoot in extreme conditions.

Yes, cheap UV filters introduce a lot of flare.

A nice filter like a B+W XS-Pro Clear 007M is virtuallly flare free, though not 100% as good as without the filter.  Still, 99.9% of times you would not see the difference.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Another strike against UV filters
« Reply #52 on: December 19, 2013, 05:17:32 PM »