# UV Filters, Do They Really Protect You?



## Canon Rumors Guy (Sep 1, 2015)

```
<iframe src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/P0CLPTd6Bds" width="728" height="409" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe></p>
<p><strong>From Steve Perry</strong></p>
<p>So, do you need a UV filter for your camera or not? In this video, I put UV filters to the test.</p>
<p>We find out if UV filters REALLY protect your lens with a series of smash tests (yes, I bust of a bunch of lenses and filters) – with some REALLY surprising results!</p>
<p>We’ll also examine…</p>
<ul>
<li>If it’s necessary to use them to filter out UV haze with a digital camera.</li>
<li>If UV filters hurt image quality.</li>
<li>When you should ALWAYS remove them.</li>
<li>If they really are cheap insurance.</li>
<li>And so much more…</li>
</ul>
<p>This is one video every photographer needs to see! Forget theories and anecdotal evidence. Watch this video and see EVERYTHING about UV filters put to the test (plus hey, it’s fun to watch lenses get smashed)! You may be in for a few surprises!</p>
```


----------



## wopbv4 (Sep 1, 2015)

Hi Steve,

thanks! Very interesting and as you say, unexpected results.
What about the "weather and dust sealing" claim that is often quoted e.g 16-35 F2.8 II needs UV filter to improve weather sealing


----------



## Random Orbits (Sep 1, 2015)

I use filters for all my lenses. Not for the protective aspect shown in the video, but for ease of cleaning and resale value. I usually don't bring a full cleaning kit with me, so I'd much rather clean the filter rather than the front element with whatever is at hand. Sometimes it's salt spray, sometimes it's dust, and sometimes it's sand. On my more heavily used lenses, the filters have developed pinprick-sized coating scratches with repeated "cleanings" in the field. I've had my camera/lens come off the BR strap unexpected a couple times (with and without hood attached), and both times, the front landed in wet muddy water. In one case, the filter came off and I continued shooting. In the other, the filter was run under water and cleaned with paper towels. This is even more important when using something like the 16-35 f/4 IS, where the front is not sealed.


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Sep 1, 2015)

The use of a protective filter is really an individual choice.

I still use clear filters on my lenses when I am outside. When shooting inside, I usually take it off. I really have not experienced any appreciable degradation of the image.

Others prefer not to use protective filters.

It is all up to what the individual wants to do. I don't think there is any "ultimate" answer that applies to everyone.


----------



## unfocused (Sep 1, 2015)

Random Orbits said:


> I use filters for all my lenses. Not for the protective aspect shown in the video, but for ease of cleaning and resale value. I usually don't bring a full cleaning kit with me, so I'd much rather clean the filter rather than the front element with whatever is at hand.



Yeah, I'm a filter guy as well. Intellectually, I know that the front element of a lens is much more durable today than it used to be and I also know that a front element can be pretty badly scratched without it affecting the image. But, if I'm going to use my breath and a handkerchief to clean something off, I'd rather it be a filter than a front element.


----------



## tolusina (Sep 1, 2015)

At 7:36;
"..._Let's go ahead and smash some stuff_.."!! LOLZ!!

Mr. Perry put fair effort into his test procedure and execution, a not insignificant expense as well.
I think a very well done video from start to end, I quite appreciate the bias confirmation.



.


----------



## tron (Sep 1, 2015)

unfocused said:


> Random Orbits said:
> 
> 
> > I use filters for all my lenses. Not for the protective aspect shown in the video, but for ease of cleaning and resale value. I usually don't bring a full cleaning kit with me, so I'd much rather clean the filter rather than the front element with whatever is at hand.
> ...


+1


----------



## GammyKnee (Sep 1, 2015)

That's a really good little video; the fast-paced, no-nonsense presentation style kept me watching pretty much through to the end. 

I do have protective (clear rather than UV) filters, which I tend to use when shooting in adverse weather conditions (and in one past case, to slow down dust accumulation in my EF-S 17-55 before I went full frame). I've never really seen them as a worthwhile protection against knocks/bumps etc. but even I was surprised to see just how fragile they were in the test.

Glad to see the advice about hoods though - that's the one thing I always use when the situation permits.


----------



## AlanF (Sep 1, 2015)

dilbert said:


> There's one thing that this review doesn't consider and that is material hardness.
> 
> In terms of material hardness, glass is rated stronger than steel:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohs_scale_of_mineral_hardness#Intermediate_hardness
> ...



I think technically the breaking of a filter depends on "toughness" - the ability of a material to absorb energy and plastically deform without fracturing - rather than "tensile strength", which refers to stretching or pulling.


----------



## Random Orbits (Sep 1, 2015)

dilbert said:


> Random Orbits said:
> 
> 
> > ...
> ...



Read what I wrote next time. I'm talking about coating scratches. You get some grit on the lens, and you rub it off and it WILL get scratched.

And where did I say waterproof? Read it again, I didn't. The watery mud was about an inch deep. I did not say submerged... now did I?


----------



## Random Orbits (Sep 1, 2015)

tron said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > Random Orbits said:
> ...



The tester also stated that the lens can be repaired, but for scratches and not worrying about wiping off the front of the lens, replacing a scratched filter is much cheaper than replacing the front element.


----------



## chromophore (Sep 1, 2015)

I don't use filters to protect my lenses from impact. That a filter is used for impact protection is the misconception that is assumed in this video.

I use filters on some of my lenses because depending on their construction, it is not feasible or convenient to clean them in the field. Some lenses have deeply recessed front elements, and crevices that are really hard to get clean. I don't want to waste time and energy trying to get my lenses clean every few weeks. So I put a filter on, and forget about it.

Lenses I keep a filter on: 85L.

Lenses I don't keep a filter on: 35L, 100/2.8 macro IS.

Lenses I would keep a filter on if I owned them: 50L, 135L.

When I find that the filter will produce ghosting or unacceptable flare, I remove it temporarily and replace it when I'm done. This happens even with the best multicoated filters--it is unavoidable in certain situations, so it is pointless to buy a super expensive filter.

I also always use a lens hood. A good lens hood will protect the lens from frontal impact more than any filter, and it even offers some protection from a filter shattering.

Anyone with any sense at all knows that a curved, thick piece of glass is stronger than a thin, flat piece of glass, no matter its molecular composition, so long as both are properly tempered (which all optical glass is). The front element is strong not because it's special, but because it is dome-shaped and typically quite thicker than a filter.


----------



## AdjustedInCamera (Sep 1, 2015)

I thought this video was great. Any attempt to investigate something systematically like this means we can take the conclusions or know why we are rejecting them. 

Slightly OT, but one thing I was told was that you should always remove filters for taking pictures of the Northern Lights. The reason I was given is that the coatings on the filters absorb light at the same green colour the Lights are. Taking pictures of the Lights with a filter on is supposed to give a halo effect which upsets the image. Does this make sense and has anyone tested this?

Also, when people are doing astro work, do they take the filters off?


----------



## arthurbikemad (Sep 1, 2015)

I use filters to protect against minor damage, swirling wet dust and sand around on the front of your lens while out shooting will scratch the front in the end, personally I'd rather do that on my filter than the glass of my lens.

I do think about IQ but still choose to run a filter for above reasons.


----------



## bedford (Sep 1, 2015)

arthurbikemad said:


> I use filters to protect against minor damage, swirling wet dust and sand around on the front of your lens while out shooting will scratch the front in the end, personally I'd rather do that on my filter than the glass of my lens.
> 
> I do think about IQ but still choose to run a filter for above reasons.



+1


Same for me. Usually I don't buy the most expensive filter (but also not the cheapest ones).


----------



## Pookie (Sep 1, 2015)

This topic is about as blown out as DR and DXO scores... aka The proverbial dead horse.


----------



## chromophore (Sep 2, 2015)

dilbert said:


> arthurbikemad said:
> 
> 
> > I use filters to protect against minor damage, swirling wet dust and sand around on the front of your lens while out shooting will scratch the front in the end, personally I'd rather do that on my filter than the glass of my lens.
> ...



More often than replacing a front element due to such damage, since the latter never happens to me as a result. End of story.


----------



## Random Orbits (Sep 2, 2015)

dilbert said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > Random Orbits said:
> ...



Let's see. Filters are thinner than most front elements and breaker before most front elements, but they are not fragile. Many of the coatings that are on the front element are also on filters. If they can scratch off the filter, they will also scratch off the lens element. Replacing filters is typically much cheaper than replacing the front element of a lens. I don't have to pay shipping/insurance to/from the repair facility and I don't have to pay hundreds of dollars for the cost of the front element and labor. I'm not talking about a $100 filter on a $100 lens. I don't use a filter on any of my EOS-M lenses (not used in harsh conditions anyway) nor the EF 40. It also affects resale value. People are willing to pay a price premium for lenses that are in cleaner or pristine condition. It is an indication that the owner takes care of his own equipment.


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 2, 2015)

Purely anecdotal from shooting full and part time since 1978, in all those years I have used UV filters a minimal amount of times, certainly less than 5%, indeed I only own one 77mm because it fit my three f2.8 zooms. I have shot in deserts, mountains and a lot of times at sea, I do not baby my gear but generally I am not a clutz and in all that time I have broken lenses seven times. I have never scratched or damaged a front element.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Sep 2, 2015)

Although the test did not really simulate a lens / camera drop, which usually hits a corner of the lens, I do agree with the general findings.

A UV filter can prevent a lens filter thread from bending, assuming the drop was survivable. If a lens happens to hit squarely, then the impact is on the outside ring of the lens, so the strength of the glass is not as big a factor as the lens construction.

A hood will absorb some of the energy from a drop as well as usually keeping the glass from direct contact, so its more likely to survive.

The cost of front element replacement varies due to the fact that some elements are just clear glass, and some are ground optical elements.

In any event, the fact that a lens appears to survive a impact really means little, since internal damage is a likely possibility.


----------



## Hjalmarg1 (Sep 2, 2015)

That's a really good little video; I do have protective with UV filter all my lenses. I never saw them as a real protection against knocks/bumps etc. and that's the reason I normally put the hoods on.
To be honest, UV filters have saved two lenses from serious damages after falling to ground.
Recently I have purchased B+W Pro Nano filters and Hoya HD filters that are more scratch resistant, easier to clean and better light transmission.


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 2, 2015)

Hjalmarg1 said:


> That's a really good little video; I do have protective with UV filter all my lenses. I never saw them as a real protection against knocks/bumps etc. and that's the reason I normally put the hoods on.
> To be honest, UV filters have saved two lenses from serious damages after falling to ground.
> Recently I have purchased B+W Pro Nano filters and Hoya HD filters that are more scratch resistant, easier to clean and better light transmission.



I doubt that, particularly after watching the video..............


----------



## Maximilian (Sep 2, 2015)

chromophore said:


> I don't use filters to protect my lenses from impact. That a filter is used for impact protection is the misconception that is assumed in this video.


+1000

If someone would want REAL impact protection they would need a roll cage.
And that'll have too much effect on the IQ 

So to me this vid is useless. Sorry.

I see the use of protection filters as a scratch protection and easy cleaning. 
To protect lens front element, lens thread, and coatings against light hits, scratching and dirt/spray/fingerprints but only maybe l ight drop.

I two times droped my equipment from less than 1 meter. 
Both times the filter got damaged and had to be replaced. 
Both times i was really happy that the dent was in the filter thread (front) and not in the lens thread. 
Otherwise it would have needed repair to use filters again.


----------



## siegsAR (Sep 2, 2015)

Somebody here must've remembered during the film days at the early years when the uv filter was just released.
What was its "main" purpose? Or rather the 1st talking point at that time it was released to the market.

I would like to know, thank you.


----------



## Maui5150 (Sep 2, 2015)

May be the biggest idiot on the face of the earth. What a complete waste.

I use filters to protect the lens surface from scratches, nicks and sometimes I have been in some semi hostile environments like color runs.

Seriously. How hard is it to look at a front element and see how thick the glass is and then a filter and see how thin the glass is and not know that the filter will have a lower breaking point?

Now what would have been useful if this guy had any clue, would have been to test the SCRATCH resistance of a filter versus a lens (i.e. does a lens have more scratch resistance as well as testing for dust, water and other elements (does a filter provide better weather sealing)


----------



## Random Orbits (Sep 2, 2015)

dilbert said:


> Wrong. Watch the video. The filters scratch in situations where the lens's front element does not. Actual physical experimentation does not back up that statement.



Yes, Dilbert, watch the video. It is an impact test, not a scratch resistance test. I says nothing about coating toughness, and coatings are not inherently tough. We're not talking about scratching the underlying glass, we're talking about the coatings. Go to LensAuthority and see how many used lenses they sell that have coating scratches on the front element. It happens all the time. There would be a lot less scratches if filters were used. And the cost of replacing a front element is still often much more costly than filter.


----------



## siegsAR (Sep 2, 2015)

dilbert said:


> siegsAR said:
> 
> 
> > Somebody here must've remembered during the film days at the early years when the uv filter was just released.
> ...


Already did, probably watched this ahead most of you here. I subbed to Steve last year. 

But that doesn't really answer my question. I was looking for someone from here that can tell me about it personally.


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Sep 2, 2015)

What I don't understand is why do people who choose not to use a protective filter feel it necessary to try to convince other people not to use protective filters?

If you wanna use a protective filter, great
If you don't wanna use a protective filter, great


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 2, 2015)

Maui5150 said:


> Now what would have been useful if this guy had any clue, would have been to test the SCRATCH resistance of a filter versus a lens (i.e. does a lens have more scratch resistance as well as testing for dust, water and other elements (does a filter provide better weather sealing)



The lens elements are much more scratch resistant than filters, I don't have a single cleaning mark or swirl on any of my front elements despite the fact they have been 'cleaned' hundreds, if not thousands of times, my UV filter does have cleaning marks.

Regarding 'weather sealing', that was the main reason I got mine, the 16-35 f2.8 instructions specifically state a filter is needed to complete weather sealing so in particularly harsh and wet situations I'd use it mainly on the 16-35, very rarely on the 24-70 and never on the 70-200, all three front elements look the same, well the 16-35 f2.8 did until I sold it!


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 2, 2015)

AcutancePhotography said:


> What I don't understand is why do people who choose not to use a protective filter feel it necessary to try to convince other people not to use protective filters?
> 
> If you wanna use a protective filter, great
> If you don't wanna use a protective filter, great



I'm not, what I do try to do is illustrate that the reasoning people use for 'choosing' might well not be sound. I have no issue with people using, or not, 'protective' filters, but do so from a basis of sound information. My anecdotal evidence strongly suggests UV filters do not need to be used as 'protection', but if they are that use does have as many negatives as positives.


----------



## Maximilian (Sep 2, 2015)

dilbert said:


> Maximilian said:
> 
> 
> > ...
> ...


Oh, dilbert! : : :

Even you should be able to understand that I do not want to protect the filter but the front element.
And I am quite sure that you are.
If the filter gets scratched: So be it! Replace it! 
If the front element has to be repaired or replaced, you can get several high quality filters for the same money instead.
Okay?



> > To protect lens front element, lens thread, and coatings against light hits, scratching and dirt/spray/fingerprints but only maybe light drop.
> 
> 
> 
> Since you've only changed the filter when the lens has fallen and damaged the thread it is therefore apparent that scratching/dirt/spray/fingerprints is not a concern for you?


Man! : : :
I only answer to your question so that you see that I saw it.
The answer is obvious. If not for you, so be it! 

_
Edit: This is my personal real world experience and opinion. 
If you have a different point of view, that's okay. But I won't change mine here._


----------



## Random Orbits (Sep 2, 2015)

dilbert said:


> If someone treats a piece of equipment badly and it gets damaged, that's their prerogative. You and I don't get to tell them what to do or not do. There's also no guarantee that the filter would have prevented the lens from being scratched. If the filter breaks, there's a good chance that the glass fragments from that will scratch the lens surface.
> ...
> 
> 
> Why am I trying to persuade people that filters aren't really that necessary? Well, it is like trying to tell people that taking antibiotics isn't how you get over a common cold or the flu (antibiotics can only treat diseases, not viruses and both the flu and common cold are viruses.) In a manner of speaking, in many cases whilst the UV filter is considered to be a panacea, it is really nothing more than a placebo.



Funny that what you are saying in the last paragraph is in contradiction to what you said in the first.

You still don't get it. I never talked about scratched glass, I've talked about scratched coatings. It's you who is inferring something that I did not write. I have replaced several filters over the years. I have yet to replace a front element, but then none of them have been scratched/coatings degraded since I've had them either. The value of a lens higher with a pristine front end higher than with coating or glass scratches. Take a look at Ebay and LensAuthority. You can argue until you're blue in the face that coating failures don't impact IQ, but it does affect resale value, and that is undeniable.


----------



## Maximilian (Sep 2, 2015)

dilbert said:


> ...
> 
> One might therefore conclude that due to filters not being replaced very often it means that either the scratches in the lens coatings on filters don't matter or those lens coatings don't exist to be scratched or that filters don't get scratched nearly as often as people (who buy filters) want us to believe.
> 
> ...


Hi again, dilbert! 

Let's face it and let's try to come to a point. That'll save you and us some time and keeps some from cracking up.

Your opinion is, that protection filters are useless/not needed/money making/etc. because the IQ is getting worse and there is no real use for them, because in 99% of your estimated cases, there is no real damage and the filter doesn't have to be replaced or the impact with be that hard that protection filters are useless or making the situation even worse. Is that right?
If yes, okay! Copy that!
And I respect you and all others that think so.

My opinion (an the one of some others here) is that I don't see any real impact on the IQ and that I am willing to pay for a good protection filter for the remaining 1%, which I belive to be much greater, even if it is not.
Copy that, too?

If yes, thank you! Because neither of us is right or wrong. It's about weighing up probabilities against costs and IQ.
If no, so be it. But then I'm out of this discussion, because life is much more than protection filters.
Thank you for your understanding.


Edit: And back to OT: I think that video gives everybody a good understanding of the mechanical limits of protection filters, although the main purpose of protection filters is not to help lenses to survive base jumping.


----------



## StudentOfLight (Sep 3, 2015)

Hypothetical scenario... 
John Smith goes onto the beach every weekend during summer to shoot images of kites. Ideal conditions for flying kites is quite windy weather. After a couple of years John will sell his lens for an updated version

Should John use a filter to protect the front element from the impact of tiny highly-abrasive sand particles (which would be blown around by the wind) or would the front element be best protected by being left uncovered?


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Sep 3, 2015)

StudentOfLight said:


> Should John use a filter to protect the front element from the impact of tiny highly-abrasive sand particles (which would be blown around by the wind) or would the front element be best protected by being left uncovered?



It is up to the individual photographer. Some would prefer a protective filter and others would prefer not using one.


----------



## Random Orbits (Sep 3, 2015)

dilbert said:


> Random Orbits said:
> 
> 
> > ...
> ...



Seriously? It's not hard. Light reflects of a scratch or coating failure differently. If the reflection off the surface is not uniform, then you know. Both cases will affect resale value anyway.

[quote author=dilbert link]
You are right that the test isn't a scratch test but an impact test, although the impact does give some idea of the force required to scratch a lens. Refer back to the link on page 1 of this thread - glass is harder than steel so you'll have an easier time scratching steel with glass than glass with steel (strange but true.) However people here say they buy the filter to protect the lens from scratches so that must also be true, right? Oh, you're referring to the lens coating (which isn't of the same hardness as the filter) being scratched. That's likely not perceptible to a human but if that happens often then it is likely it also happens to filter coatings (which others in this thread equate to lens coatings.) One might therefore conclude that due to filters not being replaced very often it means that either the scratches in the lens coatings on filters don't matter or those lens coatings don't exist to be scratched or that filters don't get scratched nearly as often as people (who buy filters) want us to believe.
[/quote]
But of course you has stated earlier that glass is very hard and highly resistant to scratches, so it *must* be a coating failure.


----------



## takesome1 (Sep 3, 2015)

Filters are like condoms;
I prefer the look and feel I get without one.
But occasionally in nasty dirty situations it can offer some protection for your equipment.


----------



## RGF (Sep 3, 2015)

StudentOfLight said:


> Hypothetical scenario...
> John Smith goes onto the beach every weekend during summer to shoot images of kites. Ideal conditions for flying kites is quite windy weather. After a couple of years John will sell his lens for an updated version
> 
> Should John use a filter to protect the front element from the impact of tiny highly-abrasive sand particles (which would be blown around by the wind) or would the front element be best protected by being left uncovered?



This is one of the few cases where I would use a protective filter. Mostly leave off


----------



## FTb-n (Sep 4, 2015)

I'm guessing Steve didn't test the Hoya HD filters. There are impressive video demos of this filter that suggests it would with stand Steve's tests, or most of them.

I agree that hoods do more to deflect a lens from harm than filters, which is why all my lenses have hoods on them. But, I still like the filters to keep out dust and to protect the front element coating from smudges and dirt. Well, not exactly smudges and dirt, but from the effort to clean off the smudges and dirt...not that I often smudge up my lenses...but if I did...plus, the Hoya HD filters are extremely easy to clean. Seriously, fingerprints are very easy to wipe off of these filters.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Sep 4, 2015)

I have at least two dozen filters, I virtually never use them. I should sell them before everyone catches on.


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 4, 2015)

StudentOfLight said:


> Hypothetical scenario...
> John Smith goes onto the beach every weekend during summer to shoot images of kites. Ideal conditions for flying kites is quite windy weather. After a couple of years John will sell his lens for an updated version
> 
> Should John use a filter to protect the front element from the impact of tiny highly-abrasive sand particles (which would be blown around by the wind) or would the front element be best protected by being left uncovered?



Not hypothetical, I used a 300mm f2.8 L IS for shooting surf photography from a point break within 15ft of breaking waves for years, I cleaned the lens every day after use and there isn't one single speck, swirl mark, or anything else on the 'front element'.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Sep 6, 2015)

I had a case where the UV filter saved the lens.
Shooting a post national championship crowd reaction and there were lots of giant bonfires in the streets and tons of embers floating around the air. When I got back, I was stunned to see a number of holes burned into the coatings on the front of the filter. Had I not had the filter on, I imagine the coatings on the front element would've had nasty scar marks and the front element would've been a mess.

Also, once some little kid with insanely greasy pizza fingers reached out suddenly and pressed against the filter. It was coated with so much gloppy grease that it was almost unreal. That would've been a heck of a beast to get off the front element.

And when in deserts or the shore sometimes harsh grit gets on the lens and occasional there is some little bit that is sharp enough to leave a scratch if you wipe it off in the field without an ultra delicate blow off first (and even then it still happened once).

And sometimes salt is so much in the air, especially on the eastern seaboard, far less often on the west by a radical amount, that any surface is caked in salt like every 15 minutes at most and you need to constantly wipe in the field again and again and it's probably nice to have filters on in that scenario.

Sometimes you end up in a scenario where didn't expect that stuff to happen and/or just need to wipe even with a shirt or whatever and a filter can save the odd occasional scratch and pit.

So as he says, in special scenarios, it can help (as well as even the somewhat rare time otherwise). And sometimes you don't even know there will be a special scenario such as the post game celebration or perhaps the pizza finger one (although for the latter I guess you can assume when doing some PJ shooting and there is any chance there might remotely be kids around it's safer with the filter).

But they certainly add flare as he says, so in those conditions, unless something else insists on it, filters off.
And even with top filters sometimes there can be a slight loss in microcontrast, mostly it's all but imperceptible, but for whatever reason, with a few particular lenses the hit is just enough to make a small but real enough difference that it's maybe better to keep them off much of the time on those rare, few lenses.

So yeah I guess I more or less agree with the video, although I somewhat more lean towards having them on these days. I originally started out almost never using them. Not I tend to mostly use them, although have been shifting a bit back towards using them not quite as much unless it's known bad conditions.

Also, they can sometimes help complete the seal on some lenses so when shooting in rain I put them on.

Although he did forget resale value. If you can say there is not the slightest hint of any mark permanently left to front coatings or not even the finest scratch anywhere and that is was protected you can get more money on resale that can easily make up the filter cost. Although does such damage occur often enough to make up for the filter prices? Depends, also upon how many lenses you go through and sell. I've sold and swapped around quite a lot over the years.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Sep 6, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> Not hypothetical, I used a 300mm f2.8 L IS for shooting surf photography from a point break within 15ft of breaking waves for years, I cleaned the lens every day after use and there isn't one single speck, swirl mark, or anything else on the 'front element'.



I did the same, only for likely less years and quite a few less times, and actually do see a few long, very fine scratches though.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Sep 6, 2015)

Also, in some cases, certain filters actually wipe off more quickly and completely than the front element, which can be convenient in the field.
A few also repel water better.

(although some more recent Canon lenses have some very grease and water repellent coatings now, maybe as good as anything)


----------



## YuengLinger (Sep 7, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> StudentOfLight said:
> 
> 
> > Hypothetical scenario...
> ...




Not buying this, PBD. Perhaps you didn't inspect carefully--or, over time, didn't notice changes to the front element.

Those who rant against filters are simply venting their own anxieties about not using them. ???

It's up to the lens's owner!

Yawn...Really a zzzzlow night.


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 7, 2015)

YuengLinger said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > StudentOfLight said:
> ...



Don't care if you are buying it, I'm not selling it. Here is a full sized untouched jpeg focused on the front of the front piece of glass, the only way I could get accurate focus was to leave some dust on it, there is dust, but no cleaning marks.

I'm creating/running monthly screen profiles so I have loads of time..................

Click on the image and it will open in another window, click on again and you get 100% view.

P.S. 100% agree it is up to the owner, just do it from a place of knowledge not internet hyperbole. I am certainly not telling people not to, just pointing out that I haven't for 35 odd years and have never damaged a front element, broken lots of other stuff, but never front element damage.


----------



## YuengLinger (Sep 7, 2015)

Ok--you clean your front element with exceptional care. I'll accept that. You never had to do an urgent field cleaning only to discover too late you had abrasive grit in the mix.

A driver might say he has never had an accident in 35 years, so doesn't need seatbelts. Not convincing.

The effectiveness of front filters was established long before there was such a thing as internet hype. Their quality and lack of impact on IQ has improved greatly in that time.


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 7, 2015)

YuengLinger said:


> Ok--you clean your front element with exceptional care. I'll accept that. You never had to do an urgent field cleaning only to discover too late you had abrasive grit in the mix.
> 
> A driver might say he has never had an accident in 35 years, so doesn't need seatbelts. Not convincing.
> 
> The effectiveness of front filters was established long before there was such a thing as internet hype. Their quality and lack of impact on IQ has improved greatly in that time.



Well maybe not as good as you think, if you take the time to look you will see a couple of tiny marks, they aren't cleaning swirls but they are there. They are not visible to the naked eye and having seen damaged front element tests I know there is no impact on IQ. But no, I take no special care and often wipe off moisture in the field with my shirt tail or sleeve, modern coatings are very tough.

But, the effectiveness of front filters was established back in an era when they actually did something, film records UV so UV filters improved IQ, now sensors have UV filters on them so an additional UV filter doesn't do anything.

As another personal anecdote, I got something on the front element of my 100L Macro, don't know what it was but it was tough, like dried sap, as I tried to clean it I just made it worse and it looked like I had made a hole in the coatings, I gave up and left it in the bag. I tried again with way too much force thinking I either clean it or send it in for a new one, I rubbed until the element was warm, it looked horrific, I left it in the drawer. I came back to it one day when I was cleaning something else with some liquid ammonia and isopropyl alcohol, again thinking I killed it so nothing to lose, but it cleaned everything off perfectly, no rub marks or scratches just a perfect front element again, I was happy. The image of the 300 element was taken with the 100L Macro.

Again, not trying to convince anybody one way or the other, and I certainly have no anxieties about not using them, however my practical experience has been they don't do anything useful on today's cameras that have UV filters on their sensors.


----------



## Ozarker (Sep 7, 2015)

AcutancePhotography said:


> What I don't understand is why do people who choose not to use a protective filter feel it necessary to try to convince other people not to use protective filters?
> 
> If you wanna use a protective filter, great
> If you don't wanna use a protective filter, great



Can you imagine being the spouse or child of these types?


----------



## Ozarker (Sep 7, 2015)

When I bought my Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II USM it came with a set of three Pro Optic filters (UV, ND, Slim CPL). First thing I did is take the UV filter and bust all the glass out of it. I use the metal ring that used to house the glass filter to protect the plastic filter threads of my lens.

I choose not to use UV filters, though I _might if I ever shoot at a beach._


----------



## chromophore (Sep 7, 2015)

dilbert said:


> Canon market their lenses as "weather resistant."
> 
> If a Canon lens were to be affected by blowing sand or sea spray, wouldn't that indicate that it wasn't weather resistant?



Sure, because when was the last time you checked the weather forecast, and it said that tomorrow morning would have a 30% chance of blowing sandstorms, followed in the afternoon by a 60% chance of a saltwater shower?

Sand is not weather. Salt is not weather. Next you will be claiming that "weather-resistant" should include being impervious to crude oil because you might go out the door one day and find yourself on a sinking oil tanker.


----------



## Kristofgss (Sep 7, 2015)

chromophore said:


> Sand is not weather. Salt is not weather. Next you will be claiming that "weather-resistant" should include being impervious to crude oil because you might go out the door one day and find yourself on a sinking oil tanker.



Acid rain would count as weather. ;D I remember that from before all the air-pollution rules were enforced. And living close to a soap factory, there were days when it foamed in the streets when it rained at the time too. It smelled nice though.

I use filters on the more expensive lenses as protection. it's cheaper to replace than a lens front element if I get it scratched. I'd love to have something like that for my glasses though, no matter which coating they have, I always end up getting nicks and scratches on them.


----------



## Ozarker (Sep 7, 2015)

dilbert said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > ...
> ...



NO. You are pretty weather resistant yourself Dilbert. However, stuff enough sand down your throat or take you far enough out to sea and dump you off, or leave you naked in the arctic... and you'll find out the difference between weather proof and weather resistant real fast.

What the heck is wrong with you?


----------



## Digbydriver (Sep 7, 2015)

All pro television news photographers use a UV filter. Why? One guy did not have one, went to Ocean Beach in San Francisco on a windy day. and ended up with a sandblasted front element. Repair? $1400.00.


----------



## Ian_of_glos (Sep 7, 2015)

When you have been out taking photos, has anyone ever fired a steel bolt at your lens? It has never happened to me, but I have dropped lenses on 3 separate occasions. Each time the UV filter shattered but the lens was undamaged. Now I don't know whether the lens would have been damaged if there had been no UV filter in place, but personally I am not prepared to take that risk.
Although I like Steve Perry's presentation style, the video would have been far better if it had used a test scenario that was likely to happen - such as dropping the lens, or suffering damage from another lens or a gadget in a camera bag.


----------



## unfocused (Sep 7, 2015)

CanonFanBoy said:


> ...You are pretty weather resistant yourself Dilbert. However, stuff enough sand down your throat or take you far enough out to sea and dump you off, or leave you naked in the arctic... and you'll find out the difference between weather proof and weather resistant real fast.
> 
> What the heck is wrong with you?



I can't tell if this is a hypothetical or a recommended experiment. I am sure many on this forum would be willing to chip in to underwrite the cost of such an experiment.


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 7, 2015)

unfocused said:


> CanonFanBoy said:
> 
> 
> > ...You are pretty weather resistant yourself Dilbert. However, stuff enough sand down your throat or take you far enough out to sea and dump you off, or leave you naked in the arctic... and you'll find out the difference between weather proof and weather resistant real fast.
> ...



I'd be official photographer, but we'll have to wait until I can afford a Sony so if I underexpose I can save the exposure in post :

Seriously, I know dilbert can be annoying sometimes, and very obtuse almost all the time, but he does raise some interesting points on occasion and he keeps his unemotional persona going long after I can.


----------



## FTb-n (Sep 8, 2015)

For another perspective, Kai, at DigitalRev did his own test. WARNING: Kai's language can be a bit salty.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-e9TUIC-Dtk


----------



## Ozarker (Sep 10, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > CanonFanBoy said:
> ...



Very true.


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 12, 2015)

I am, much to my wife's annoyance, the guy in front that doesn't run the orange light, and I am never late.

The frustrating thing in discussing trying to discuss things with you is too often you are in complete denial, like the 600mm thread where you believe it is a 400 MkII, even though the geometry is completely wrong. It is there right in front of your own eyes and you still deny it. You also refuse to answer simple questions and when your points are shown to be wrong you just throw up other equally fallacious stretches of your imagination non issues.

Also, this is s gear forum, I appreciate that, but the gear is there to create a visual medium. In general I don't post images but I have posted hundreds of illustrative examples that clearly demonstrate the point or issue I am talking about, you don't and I wish you did. Heck you won't even say if you have your Sony yet!


----------

