Protective filters - latest from Lensrentals

[AlanF]

https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2016/12/front-element-lens-protection-revisited/

Roger has posted a new appraisal of filters for protection. After reading it, I bought 3 Marumi protect filters for my EF-M lenses (less than £30, I am a fan of Marumi).

 

[Click]

Thanks for sharing, Alan.

 

[GammyKnee]

Thanks for for posting - I always enjoy Roger Cicala's articles and this is no exception.

 

[Loswr]

I've used filters on most of my lenses from day one, always B+W MRC/Nano UV. The only exceptions are lenses that don't take them (600/4 II, 11-24L, Roki 14/2.8), and the two pancake lenses (40/2.8, M22/2) with their tiny front elements.

 

[Zeidora]

Have also always used them, on most, except MPE 65 with hood, and the "impossible" ones like 300/2.8, TSE 17, F-Distagon 16. I used B&W MRC, lately got a couple from Breakthrough, which I would live to see tested by an independent outfit.

There is one recent lens with no front filter, the Nikkor EL 80/5.6. Finding a 34.5 mm thread quality UV filter may be tricky. Given the price of that lens ($25-40), it is much cheaper than the 2" Baader U-Venus filter I put on it ;-)

One think Cicala did not mention is the hidden cost of packaging/shipping and having the lens out. I assume few people have two of each, just in case.

 

[AvTvM]

I've used filters on most of my lenses from day one, always B+W MRC/Nano UV. The only exceptions are lenses that don't take them (600/4 II, 11-24L, Roki 14/2.8), and the two pancake lenses (40/2.8, M22/2) with their tiny front elements.

similar. except i don't use UV filters but "multicoated clear protective glass"-type filters. B&W "Type 007 clear" and Hoya/Kenko "Protector".

in rare cases i have noticed negative effects - typically ghosting from small lightsources in dark scenes. if i notice while shooting i take filter temporarily off. or when i use other filters, esp. pol circ or ND, ND grads.

 

[rfdesigner]

I've always used UV filters to protect my lenses. I use the cheap hoya filters, the AR coatings are good enough and in 99% of cases it has no impact (I've taken comparative shots of various things including resolution targets). If I'm being really really picky about a shot then the filter comes off for the shot then goes back on.

The only time I've ever seen any impact is when shooting into bright lights, night time with unshielded lights and, sunsets and astrophotography (where you get extra fake stars)

 

[Loswr]

I've used filters on most of my lenses from day one, always B+W MRC/Nano UV. The only exceptions are lenses that don't take them (600/4 II, 11-24L, Roki 14/2.8), and the two pancake lenses (40/2.8, M22/2) with their tiny front elements.

similar. except i don't use UV filters but "multicoated clear protective glass"-type filters. B&W "Type 007 clear" and Hoya/Kenko "Protector".

in rare cases i have noticed negative effects - typically ghosting from small lightsources in dark scenes. if i notice while shooting i take filter temporarily off. or when i use other filters, esp. pol circ or ND, ND grads.

Since a dSLR is insensitive to UV light, there's really no performance difference between clear and UV (unless you're also shooting film, in which case UV is preferable). However, in many cases there are differences in price and availability. Here, UV is cheaper than clear...so I use UV.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

Alan did not do this, but be forewarned ---

As I predicted, and Roger concurred, there will probably be people posting links to his comments for another 10 years to prove that filters protect your lenses. Using a filter is not a bad thing, but people read into what he says according to their perceptions and what they want it to say. Don't expect protection from dropping your lens 3 ft onto a hard surface.

The article talks about protecting lenses from scratches, but not as protection for things like a drop.

 

[LDS]

The article talks about protecting lenses from scratches, but not as protection for things like a drop.

Scratches and inclement environments that could damage the front element or the lens itself - let's remember some Canon lenses are fully "weather sealed" only when a filter is mounted.

As the articles says, hoods may be a better protection from hits (but WA ones).

Filters may be easier to clean when there's risk to collect some kind of "dirt" on the front surface.

 

[ahsanford]

I've used filters on most of my lenses from day one, always B+W MRC/Nano UV. The only exceptions are lenses that don't take them (600/4 II, 11-24L, Roki 14/2.8), and the two pancake lenses (40/2.8, M22/2) with their tiny front elements.

Myself as well: a B+W UV or CPL is on my lenses (other than the 40mm pancake) at effectively all times.

Two exceptions to this rule:

1) If I'm shooting into the sun on a tripod in a 'particulate/weather safe' situation (not in the tide, not in the rain, not on the beach, not in the desert, etc.), I will pull the UV as I tend to see more flare with it in place.

2) If I am shooting with my Lee holder setup, I avoid the front filter completely as I just use the wide-angle adaptor ring and do all my filtering with the holder. I'd ideally like a weather sealed solution with the Lee holder as well -- and I certainly could put a UV on the lens before using the WA adaptor, but this would increase vignetting, which I try to avoid.

- A

 

[ahsanford]

Alan did not do this, but be forewarned ---

As I predicted, and Roger concurred, there will probably be people posting links to his comments for another 10 years to prove that filters protect your lenses. Using a filter is not a bad thing, but people read into what he says according to their perceptions and what they want it to say. Don't expect protection from dropping your lens 3 ft onto a hard surface.

The article talks about protecting lenses from scratches, but not as protection for things like a drop.

...agree, but scratches are a very real phenomenon. They may/may not affect IQ, but they certainly affect resale price.

Also, in many cases you need to front-filter to seal a number of sealed lenses. The filter threads are a source of fluid and particulate ingress.

- A

 

[rs]

I have one slight issue with this article (and especially the previous incarnation of this); while looking at the pure cost of a new front element makes perfect sense for guys who's day job it is to strip down and rebuild lenses and are equipped with optical benches to ensure they rebuild them shimmed/adjusted to perfection, how can the likes of any of us successfully replace a front element for the price of the parts alone? Once you factor in labour, shipping and additionally time without the lens, not to mention the possibility of it not being adjusted or assembled correctly, surely to us a filter makes more sense in an even greater number of scenarios than Roger indicates?

Having said that, I don't filter all of my lenses that could be - the cost/size benefits of pancake lenses are somewhat defeated with the addition of a filter in my mind, and the EF-M 18-55 is so rarely used (and cheap) that again I can't justify that.