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.
Another strike against UV filters
- Thread starter mifho
- Start date
We can't know, of course, but the front element is many times stronger than a filter. If the blow was strong enough to destroy the front element, its extremely likely that there would be a lot of internal damage as well. Most of the time, front elements are cheap to replace, but some are expensive. I'm not sure what the cost of a new 70-200mm element is.mackguyver said:
Upvote
0
Mt Spokane Photography said:
What you probably mean is the item is cheap? The problem at least in Germany is that the labor fee is very high making damage to cheaper lenses outside warranty a complete lost case esp. since a new item would have warranty again.
For this reason I'm using filters, not because they're cheap (I recently managed to put a dent into my B+W) but I can exchange it myself, and that's the money saver.
Upvote
0
bholliman said:
Yes, that was my point. In my case, the front element would not have been damaged if not for the filter. The lens dropped about 3 feet onto a relatively soft hardwood floor (harder than a thin carpet but not asphalt) with both lens caps on. Thus, the filter broke due to the force of the fall, not that any item on the floor punctured the filter. In my case, if any protection was gained from the filter it was from the metal ring and not the glass. However, i feel the plastic lens cap provided more cushion to the blow than the aluminum ring. I know aluminum bike frames transmit a lot of the force from the road to the rider, so the aluminum of the ring transmitted the force directly to the filter glass and shattered it - scratching the front element.
Upvote
0
I haven't destroyed a filter yet, but I've taken out a couple of lens hoods. I use filters to prevent scratches and after looking at some of my filters I've had on my lenses for 3+ years, I'm sure glad I use them. Some of them are so bad they need to be replaced!
Upvote
0
This is why anecdotal evidence should not be used to make decisions.
Is it possible for an accident to occur where the inclusion of a filter caused damage where if a filter were not used, there would be no damage? Sure, I guess.
But the odds are against it. It is more likely that a lens would be protected by the use of a filter than harmed.
Is it possible for an accident to occur where the inclusion of a filter caused damage where if a filter were not used, there would be no damage? Sure, I guess.
But the odds are against it. It is more likely that a lens would be protected by the use of a filter than harmed.
Upvote
0
In many of these threads I have pointed out the two points illustrated by the OP, that when filters break they can damage the front element because the glass is so sharp, and Pitspics, that front elements are considerably more durable than most people believe them to be (rubbing broken glass on them excepted).
I do not use filters for protection other than on my 16-35 occasionally for environmental sealing purposes, in 33 years of pro and semi pro shooting I have never damaged a front element. I do always use lens hoods.
I do not use filters for protection other than on my 16-35 occasionally for environmental sealing purposes, in 33 years of pro and semi pro shooting I have never damaged a front element. I do always use lens hoods.
Upvote
0
Pitspics said:These are the moments when i love watching this video
Starts getting interessting at 0:40 8)
Canon Glass
I think he needs a bigger hammer....
For a small peice of glass, that seems reasonable... but a large peice will be more vulnerable... but on the other hand, so is a large filter.
The only conclusion we can reach here, is not to loan that person a lens
Upvote
0
First of all, I would not get a UV filter for protection, I would get a CLEAR filter. UV filters adversely affect the color on a DSLR plus UV filtering is unnecessary.
BUT that being said, there are PROs and CONs to protective filters. I think sometimes it is exaggerated on both sides.
Some say lens front elements are quite durable. They are, but they still can be damaged, and if that happens even if it doesn't affect the IQ the value of your lens gets decimated even with minor damage if you ever plan to resell or trade it in. While the rear element has a much larger impact on image quality, most buyers prioritize the condition of the front element.
Some say lens front elements are a relatively cheap part. Often, they are. However, unless you rebuild the lens yourself (unlikely in most cases) you will have to pay potentially expensive service fees on top of the parts fee, making the repair more expensive than projected.
Some say lens filters degrade image quality. Cheap ones can, but good ones like B+W XS-PRO 007m CLEAR have virtually no impact on quality with exception of slightly increased flare in select circumstances. However, if you shoot a lens for 5 years with no filter regularly, the front element glass even if you don't drop it will be weathered by environmental elements which could also impact quality. If you have a filter, you could just put in a new one with minimal cost and the front element remains pristine.
Some say you might scratch a front element if a filter breaks. Sure, but you might also scratch a front element without a filter because there is no protection - and I would say that is more likely because photographers don't have catastrophic drops every day, but they do expose their lens to other risks every day. Also, the filter absorbs the initial blow, so something that may have severely damaged the lens may only have minimal impact. Also, filters are often required to complete the lens' weather sealing, thus without the filter you could get damage in the lens or body from the elements.
Some have the perception that a CLEAR filter's only use is protection. On the contrary, high quality filters are often far easier to clean than a lens element making them hugely useful in the field. They also keep a front element looking pristine as it will never be exposed to the elements or cleanings which helps retain lens value. Yes, the filters are an additional expense but you can always reuse them on another lens.
So, I believe those stating CLEAR filters are not useful or detrimental are very much overstating their case. There are some pitfalls to CLEAR filters, but if you just want to shoot and have a few less things to worry about they are a big benefit in my opinion.
BUT that being said, there are PROs and CONs to protective filters. I think sometimes it is exaggerated on both sides.
Some say lens front elements are quite durable. They are, but they still can be damaged, and if that happens even if it doesn't affect the IQ the value of your lens gets decimated even with minor damage if you ever plan to resell or trade it in. While the rear element has a much larger impact on image quality, most buyers prioritize the condition of the front element.
Some say lens front elements are a relatively cheap part. Often, they are. However, unless you rebuild the lens yourself (unlikely in most cases) you will have to pay potentially expensive service fees on top of the parts fee, making the repair more expensive than projected.
Some say lens filters degrade image quality. Cheap ones can, but good ones like B+W XS-PRO 007m CLEAR have virtually no impact on quality with exception of slightly increased flare in select circumstances. However, if you shoot a lens for 5 years with no filter regularly, the front element glass even if you don't drop it will be weathered by environmental elements which could also impact quality. If you have a filter, you could just put in a new one with minimal cost and the front element remains pristine.
Some say you might scratch a front element if a filter breaks. Sure, but you might also scratch a front element without a filter because there is no protection - and I would say that is more likely because photographers don't have catastrophic drops every day, but they do expose their lens to other risks every day. Also, the filter absorbs the initial blow, so something that may have severely damaged the lens may only have minimal impact. Also, filters are often required to complete the lens' weather sealing, thus without the filter you could get damage in the lens or body from the elements.
Some have the perception that a CLEAR filter's only use is protection. On the contrary, high quality filters are often far easier to clean than a lens element making them hugely useful in the field. They also keep a front element looking pristine as it will never be exposed to the elements or cleanings which helps retain lens value. Yes, the filters are an additional expense but you can always reuse them on another lens.
So, I believe those stating CLEAR filters are not useful or detrimental are very much overstating their case. There are some pitfalls to CLEAR filters, but if you just want to shoot and have a few less things to worry about they are a big benefit in my opinion.
Upvote
0
Ruined said:
Do you have proof of that? An illustrative sample? And as I stated I do use "protective" filters in limited situations don't lump me in with the "those stating CLEAR filters are not useful or detrimental are very much overstating their case" group.
Upvote
0
privatebydesign said:
I personally don't, but it is quite common knowledge if you throw it in a search engine and there are plenty of samples comparisons online. Generally a UV filter will add a slight yellow cast to the picture, or attenuate blues, while a CLEAR filter will be neutral in balance. Thus if you just want protection and not your colors affected, CLEAR is the way to go, as DSLR sensors are not as sensitive to UV as film was. Some UV filters are worse than others in terms of color impact. B+W UV for instance alter colors less than Hoya UV from what I have seen w/ online comparisons (Hoya has greater yellow cast), but B+W Clear is even more neutral than either of the two.
Okay, I was not personally responding to you
Upvote
0
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 .
And they don't .
Upvote
0
Ruined said:
This approach to get valid information is rather courageous if you don't mind me saying so :-> ... you will also find proof that aliens rule the world or every other theory you might come up with.
Sporgon said:
... because some smart people might ask Canon if each lens they sell requires a separate Canon screw-in "protector", why don't they add it right away?
Also repairing lenses because the front element is damaged brings much more revenue to Canon's service than competing with other quality filter suppliers (or license them to put "Canon" on them) - ever wondered why car bumpers are painted?
Upvote
0
Similar threads
