I don't have a protective filter on my fast 85mm which is mostly used for shooting in dim light inside. I normally have UV filters on my "outside" lens. Oh, and almost always use hoods.
A hood is much better protection against a drop, anyway.
**Photography Talk**
- Thread starter rickashay
- Start date
I don't have a protective filter on my fast 85mm which is mostly used for shooting in dim light inside. I normally have UV filters on my "outside" lens. Oh, and almost always use hoods.
A hood is much better protection against a drop, anyway.
zopperman
Moderator
problem is my hood doesn't fit in my camera bag unless its backwards which does me no good
problem is my hood doesn't fit in my camera bag unless its backwards which does me no good
Mine doesn't too, which is why I automatically do the "twist-off -- flip -- twist-on" sequence when I take my camera out of the bag
zopperman
Moderator
Mine doesn't too, which is why I automatically do the "twist-off -- flip -- twist-on" sequence when I take my camera out of the bag
ya, me too, but it was dropped in the bag..
eddiebx
New member
This was my point. Pictures forthcoming, but my GF dropped my camera and my polarized shattered but the lens is OK, thank God. I was so scared when I saw that...
Do you have a zoom lens and if so, does it pump in and out? If it does pump in and out, you better check the zoom and AF operation to make sure all is well. An impact hard enough to crack the polarizer might've knocked the internals around a bit...
Offroader5
New member
I have never used a filter purely to be sacraficial. I do usually have my CP on when I'm outdoors, unless it's really overcast or low light. I do take a lot of photos though without a filter at all. One issue I have though is that my CP is an ultra thin for use on wide angle lenses. Because of this, it has no outer lip (or outer threads) that allow me to use a typical lens cap. i want to get one of those rubber boot type caps for my good lens, but I have yet to do it.
I am just really careful when handling. When I'm walking/hiking/climbing with it in hand to be ready, more often than not I have the strap looped around my arm or wrist so that at elast if I do drop it, it will only go so far and I have a chance to catch it.
Admittedly though, you never think you would drop it even being careful, but when you do, you wish you had done something to try and keep damage to a minimum. I'd much rather replace a $200 CP filter than a $1200 lens.
I am just really careful when handling. When I'm walking/hiking/climbing with it in hand to be ready, more often than not I have the strap looped around my arm or wrist so that at elast if I do drop it, it will only go so far and I have a chance to catch it.
Admittedly though, you never think you would drop it even being careful, but when you do, you wish you had done something to try and keep damage to a minimum. I'd much rather replace a $200 CP filter than a $1200 lens.
leftyguns21
New member
i keep a UV filter on all of my glass at all times. and almost always have a lens hood on.
my dad is super careful with all his gear but accidents still happen. he had his camera on a tripod and i cant remember the details of what happened but the tripod went down and the lens hit the ground. all that was damaged was the filter. once he took it off he was good to go.
having a little fun with 'selfies'
these are harder than i thought. i didnt stand very still
f/4 15secs ISO400
my dad is super careful with all his gear but accidents still happen. he had his camera on a tripod and i cant remember the details of what happened but the tripod went down and the lens hit the ground. all that was damaged was the filter. once he took it off he was good to go.
having a little fun with 'selfies'
these are harder than i thought. i didnt stand very still
f/4 15secs ISO400
Last edited:
NYRT4R
New member
Why does wanting the best image quality out of your glass make you a bumbling moron? If you have a $3000 lens how about you treat it like it's a $3000 lens? The answer isn't to put a cheap, low quality $60 filter on your expensive high end glass. Your lens is only as good as the weakest link. Maybe you just need to be a little more careful with your equipment. Even if you are careless and get a small scratch on your front element, you won't see it in your photos. I've seen photos from a lens with a spider crack covering half of the front element and only if you zoom to 1:1 do you notice it's a bit soft.
I've never used anything other than a lens hood on all my lenses (which I use 100% of the time). Only if I were shooting something like motocross or something along those lines where stuff is being flung into the air would I use a UV filter.
J Hoss
New member
heading back to page one to read this ...but until I catch up/can do some chiming...Im into photography for over a year now...currently shooting a bit of everything. my portfolio is @ Open Mind Imagery | The Art of Eclecticism... Constructive criticism always welcome
***Now that I've read the thread(sorting by 40 posts/page made it way faster ) ...Here's a couple of my fav shots.
Austin Landscape
Jay-Z out at Candlestick park this Summer (taken with an S95!) --now hanging in my living room
Obligatory moonroof psuedo Macro shot.
Budoir
What I'm selling for a 5th Gen Runner
***Now that I've read the thread(sorting by 40 posts/page made it way faster ) ...Here's a couple of my fav shots.
Austin Landscape
Jay-Z out at Candlestick park this Summer (taken with an S95!) --now hanging in my living room
Obligatory moonroof psuedo Macro shot.
Budoir
What I'm selling for a 5th Gen Runner
Last edited:
Heh. The argument about protective filters has been raging for quite a few years looks like it found its way to T4R boards :-D
My own position is kinda intermediate. If I am shooting on a beach or, say, in a dust storm I will make sure to put on a filter. It is *much* easier to wash off salt spray from a filter than from the front element.
If I am shooting in a situation where I care about the flare, I will take off the filter -- it's another air-glass-air transition and even though my filters are multicoated it's not doing any good for certain.
Otherwise I rarely bother. By default my "mostly outside" lenses have UV filters and my "mostly inside" lenses don't and that's how it usually works.
looks like it found its way to T4R boards :-DMy own position is kinda intermediate. If I am shooting on a beach or, say, in a dust storm I will make sure to put on a filter. It is *much* easier to wash off salt spray from a filter than from the front element.
If I am shooting in a situation where I care about the flare, I will take off the filter -- it's another air-glass-air transition and even though my filters are multicoated it's not doing any good for certain.
Otherwise I rarely bother. By default my "mostly outside" lenses have UV filters and my "mostly inside" lenses don't and that's how it usually works.
the great him
Elite Member
im just saying if you have a $3000 lens, maybe you should treat it like its a $3000 piece of equpment and take care of it... id much rather be replacing a uv filter than the front element on my lens... idk about you but a uv filter is cheap insurance... sure if you live in a studio that is the next best thing to a clean room then i could see someone saying "pfft waste of money..." and not use one.
but over time dust, and other particulates in the air will collect on the lens itself and every time you go to wipe it off or clean it, you start to wear at the coatings on your nice $3000 lens... not cool in my book
UV Filters | BH inDepth
The UV filter: Digital Photography Review
good article that addresses both points.
UV filters test - Introduction - Lenstip.com
looks like hoya is making the best UV filters and bang for buck as well...
sorry i wasnt trying to say that you are an idiot. just from my point of view i see no reason why someone should not have a uv filter on their lens, especially if its a spendy piece of glass
Because a filter can compromise the optical quality. A cheap filter can make a good lens look pretty awful.
Intruder
New member
Yeah, somewhere in this thread I posted about trying a UV filter for protection but I wasn't happy with the image results. I run CPs since when I'm outdoors I'm often around water or snow. When I bought a CP for my $2000 lens I bought a high end one. I'd say if you're going to run a filter on an expensive lens then at least go with a high end filter.
This was taken with a CP just a few weeks ago...
DSC_2097.jpg by BurningChr0me, on Flickr
NYRT4R
New member
You're more likely to see a degradation in image quality with expensive glass. UV filters used to have a place in photography back when lenses weren't coated with UV protection. UV filters and Skylight filters will just add unnecessary flare/glare and loss of contrast and sharpness. They're also something you'd probably have to take off when you put on a polarizer and/or neutral density filter to avoid vignetting. You could also make an argument that if you crack your filter it could scratch your lens much easier. Filters will break WAY sooner than a high end lens will; quality glass is very durable.
If you do use a UV/Skylight filter buy the absolute best one you can afford.
Last edited:
malibu7tss
New member
my chevelle
<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/107878570@N03/10750689683/" title="IMG_1761_edited-2 by malibu7tss, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7332/10750689683_05113ed37a_c.jpg" width="800" height="534" alt="IMG_1761_edited-2"></a>
dually from a local show
<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/107878570@N03/10750641854/" title="IMG_1750 copy by malibu7tss, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3786/10750641854_b9f10cc760_c.jpg" width="800" height="534" alt="IMG_1750 copy"></a>
<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/107878570@N03/10750689683/" title="IMG_1761_edited-2 by malibu7tss, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7332/10750689683_05113ed37a_c.jpg" width="800" height="534" alt="IMG_1761_edited-2"></a>
dually from a local show
<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/107878570@N03/10750641854/" title="IMG_1750 copy by malibu7tss, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3786/10750641854_b9f10cc760_c.jpg" width="800" height="534" alt="IMG_1750 copy"></a>
NYRT4R
New member
There's an amazing deal on the Canon 70-200 2.8L IS II at B&H right now. The lens normally costs $2500 but it's at $1825 right now. Here's the breakdown:
List: $2500
Canon mail-in rebate: $300
B&H instant rebate: $300
4% rewards back: $75
Total: $1825
You have to add the lens to your cart and start the checkout process to see the updated price. This deal won't last long.
http://www.canonrumors.com/2013/11/deal-canon-ef-70-200-f2-8l-is-ii-1899-after-rebates/
List: $2500
Canon mail-in rebate: $300
B&H instant rebate: $300
4% rewards back: $75
Total: $1825
You have to add the lens to your cart and start the checkout process to see the updated price. This deal won't last long.
http://www.canonrumors.com/2013/11/deal-canon-ef-70-200-f2-8l-is-ii-1899-after-rebates/
leftyguns21
New member
^ that is a good deal too bad its not a lens im looking for...can you find me a similiar one on the 16-35 or 24-70 
NYRT4R
New member
^ that is a good deal too bad its not a lens im looking for...can you find me a similiar one on the 16-35 or 24-70
Actually the 24-70 has a similar deal. Add the lens to your cart and start to checkout to see the price. I believe the final price also comes in at $1825 with all the rebates and rewards back.
Similar threads
