# Another strike against UV filters



## mifho (Dec 10, 2013)

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.


----------



## mackguyver (Dec 10, 2013)

Wouldn't the front element have shattered instead?


----------



## bholliman (Dec 10, 2013)

mackguyver said:


> Wouldn't the front element have shattered instead?



That is the key question. Front elements are much thicker and tougher than the thin glass of a UV filter, so it depends.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Dec 10, 2013)

mackguyver said:


> Wouldn't the front element have shattered instead?


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.


----------



## Marsu42 (Dec 10, 2013)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Most of the time, front elements are cheap to replace



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.


----------



## mifho (Dec 10, 2013)

bholliman said:


> mackguyver said:
> 
> 
> > Wouldn't the front element have shattered instead?
> ...



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.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 10, 2013)

mifho said:


> ...the filter broke due to the force of the fall,



That kind of force can also damage internal components that you can't see. You may want to send the lens in to be checked, or at least test it very thoroughly yourself.


----------



## Ripley (Dec 10, 2013)

My advice would be to not rely on anything to safeguard a lens from a three foot fall. It's not the filters fault you incurred damage.


----------



## mackguyver (Dec 10, 2013)

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!


----------



## BozillaNZ (Dec 11, 2013)

Not too many days since you got the new lens and you've dropped it? Oops... That's slumpy. Whether there is a UV filter on it or not doesn't matter. A drop is a drop and there might be some internal damage.


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Dec 11, 2013)

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.


----------



## Pitspics (Dec 17, 2013)

These are the moments when i love watching this video 
Starts getting interessting at 0:40 8)

Canon Glass


----------



## privatebydesign (Dec 17, 2013)

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.


----------



## RLPhoto (Dec 17, 2013)

I've broken filters before and they've always kept me shooting. Usually though it's from a object flying into my lens hood like a rock.


----------



## Don Haines (Dec 17, 2013)

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


----------



## Ruined (Dec 17, 2013)

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.


----------



## privatebydesign (Dec 17, 2013)

Ruined said:


> 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.



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.


----------



## Ruined (Dec 17, 2013)

privatebydesign said:


> Ruined said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...



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.



> 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.



Okay, I was not personally responding to you


----------



## Sporgon (Dec 17, 2013)

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 .


----------



## Marsu42 (Dec 17, 2013)

Ruined 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.



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:


> And they don't .



... 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?


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Dec 17, 2013)

Sporgon said:


> 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 .



Why would you think that? Once you pay Canon for the lens, why would they really care? They make money off of repairing lenses and selling lenses. 

Canon does not currently provide protection for the front element and it does not seem to adversly affect their sales of lenses.


----------



## sagittariansrock (Dec 17, 2013)

Sporgon said:


> 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 .



Some points to note:
1. Until recently Canon and Nikon used a front meniscus protective element on their super-telephotos that cannot take filters.
2. Most non-L lenses require a hood, but Canon doesn't include one in the package.
3. If on point 2 you comment "well, Canon makes them"- Canon also makes UV and clear filters (http://shop.usa.canon.com/shop/en/catalog/product-accessories/ef-lens-accessories/lens-filters). While you're at it, you should also read the description- These filters can also help protect your lens against dust, moisture, fingerprints, scratches and damage and can be kept on your lens at all times.
What do you think, eh? 

What I always marvel at is how one camp tries to convince the other that they are right. If you like to use a filter, use it. If you don't, well, don't. I am sure everyone's uses differ, and there is probably not one solution that fits all.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 17, 2013)

Ruined said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > Ruined said:
> ...



Ahh, yes...everyone's know-it-all friends, Common Knowledge and the Internet. 

Hoya, Zeiss, and B+W all publish their transmission curves. No filter has a perfectly vertical cutoff on a transmission curve - most good commercial multicoated filters that 'block' wavelengths ramp from ~0% transmission to their max of >99% over a 25-125 nm range (although some of the longpass and bandpass filters I use in microscopy are close to vertical, with a slope covering <5 nm - and they come with a price tag commensurate with that performance). 

The Zeiss has the steepest slope of the three, ramping up over the 410-435 nm range (in fact, it's cutting out some blue light, which is considered to start at 400 nm). The Hoya has the least steep slope, running from 350-460 nm or so, meaning its passing some UV in the 350-399 nm range, and blocking a bit of blue light as well. The B+W is intermediate, ramping up from 360-430 nm, but at 400nm (the start of the visible range) the B+W UV transmission is >90%, and the sensitivity of the CFA blue channel on the sensor is very low below 420nm anyway. 

Of course, while that might be good to know if you're shooting film, none of that matters if you've got a dSLR. The dSLR's sensor is insensitive to UV light, so there's no difference between a UV filter (be it the 410 nm Zeiss or the 360 nm B+W) and a clear filter that fully passes the long end of the UV spectrum. I have empirically tested my 7D and 5DII for UV sensitivity with calibrated UV/Vis light sources and some of those precise bandpass filters mentioned above (running a lab that has such equipment comes in handy sometimes) - there's no need for a UV filter. I do use UV filters for protection (B+W MRC or Nano), instead of clear - but that's only because every time I've needed to buy one, the UV version was cheaper than the clear one (although that's not the case with all brands or in all geographies). 

So, my advice is to just buy whichever is cheaper, clear or UV. I'd still pass on the Hoya - it blocks a bit too much blue (and that's the least sensitive color channel). Since it blocks less of the visible blue light, the B+W is actually a bit better than the Zeiss in that regard. 

From an IQ standpoint, there's really no difference between UV and clear on a dSLR, at least in the B+W MRC/Nano line.


----------



## Sporgon (Dec 17, 2013)

sagittariansrock said:


> What do you think, eh?



Pretty much same as before really.


----------



## sagittariansrock (Dec 17, 2013)

Sporgon said:


> sagittariansrock said:
> 
> 
> > What do you think, eh?
> ...



And I shall keep using protective filters irrespective of well-meaning experts advising against it.
To each his own.


----------



## privatebydesign (Dec 17, 2013)

sagittariansrock said:


> Sporgon said:
> 
> 
> > sagittariansrock said:
> ...



Hey I swing both ways so am criticised by both. I use them when I deem it prudent, I don't as a rule, I don't give a damn what anybody else does, though hate an uneven or one sided diatribe.


----------



## surapon (Dec 17, 2013)

Pitspics said:


> These are the moments when i love watching this video
> Starts getting interessting at 0:40 8)
> 
> Canon Glass



THANKSSSS, Dear Pitspics.
Now, I am very safe, When I walk in the night time with my 600 mm and 1DS---Yes, That can us as the big stick/ Weapon, against the robbers with Knifes---NO, Not With the Gun, Because The Bullets can damage the front piece of Glass.---Ha, Ha, Ha---
Surapon


----------



## Albi86 (Dec 17, 2013)

mifho said:


> 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.



You drop the lens, you get away with a few scratches... and you blame it on the filter? 

That's the spirit! Consider a career in politics :


----------



## Marsu42 (Dec 17, 2013)

Canon Rumors said:


> Had these people had lens hoods on, there's a very good chance their filter rings wouldn't have been dented.



True enough, though the hood on an uwa (or pancake 40mm) is not long enough to offer sufficient protection, you don't need a nail to get to the glass, a stone is more than enough - so I'd always use a filter there, in addition to the lens sealing requiring it.

Personally, I also use clear b+w filters on my other lenses simply because I feel they are easier to clean than the lens front itself. I often quickly store the lens with the hood reversed in a less-than-suitable place like my jacket pocket, and lens caps tend to fall off or disappear altogether  so my filters often get dirty or dusty.


----------



## jebrady03 (Dec 17, 2013)

Isn't it a fairly short list of lenses which require a filter of some sort (doesn't have to be a UV filter) to complete the weather sealing?


----------



## Ruined (Dec 17, 2013)

jebrady03 said:


> Isn't it a fairly short list of lenses which require a filter of some sort (doesn't have to be a UV filter) to complete the weather sealing?



Basically any weathersealed L lens where the physical length between the front & rear lens element is variable requires the filter to seal. So, the 70-200 II does not require a filter, but the 16-35 II does.


----------



## Zen (Dec 17, 2013)

Ruined said:


> 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.
> 
> ...



+1. I use the UV filters to protect against air-borne dust, small scratches and nicks, and sundry dangers on the windy western plains, deserts and mountains . . . NOT against dropping the whole thing on a hard floor or rock. Plus, as others have said, cleaning a filter of dust is a lot easier and safer than cleaning the lens. A filter is cheaper than the lens . . .

Zen


----------



## RomainF (Dec 17, 2013)

My 35L would be literally dead without the filter. That was during a pretty hot gathering. A thug tried to hit me with his telescopic truncheon...
It has been the most violent drop ever. I was even unable to unscrew the filter. Canon had to do it for me... And my lens isn't even hurt.

That's why i EVER have a filter on all my lenses. Sometimes you want your camera to be the smallest possible and you don't attach your hood...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 18, 2013)

Ruined said:


> jebrady03 said:
> 
> 
> > Isn't it a fairly short list of lenses which require a filter of some sort (doesn't have to be a UV filter) to complete the weather sealing?
> ...



The list of lenses that require a filter to complete the sealing, according to Canon, is quite short - just three current lenses, the 16-35/2.8L II, 17-40/4L, and 50/1.2L.

Chuck Westfall (Canon USA's technical mouthpiece) _recommends_ using a front filter on any sealed lens that has front threads.


----------



## RustyTheGeek (Dec 18, 2013)

I've always felt more reassured with the protection of a filter. I do most of my shooting outdoors, camping, hiking and around youth. The filter takes some abuse. Dust, humidity, moisture, chlorinated pool water, frequent wiping (often with cotton, polyester, napkin, leaves, dog's ear/ass, sandpaper or whatever else is handy).

IMO, the biggest threat to that front element is the abuse it takes with every wipe of cleaning. So I use a filter.


----------



## thgmuffin (Dec 18, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> Ruined said:
> 
> 
> > jebrady03 said:
> ...


I thought the 24-105 also requires a filter to complete the sealing..?


----------



## candc (Dec 18, 2013)

A filter is easier to clean than the front element so its useful for that. I don't think the seal on the front element is a place that water or dust entering would be a concern. A pumper/extending type zoom lens can't be airtight or it would act like an air spring so "weathersealing" really means "splash resistance" if you really want to keep dust out then don't use pumper zooms.


----------



## Etienne (Dec 18, 2013)

There's a ton of dust and grime in the city, including hot asphalt, painting going on, kids with can's of coke. A filter gives me peace of mind from difficult to remove flying debris as much as anything else. Walking in a crowd or on a trail can risk your lens element brushing against something sharp enough to scratch it. Not to mention zippers: yours or someone else's.

There was hot sticky asphalt smoke in the air when I took this shot. I don't know if I would have taken my lens cap off if it wasn't protected with a filter:


----------



## MrFotoFool (Dec 18, 2013)

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.


----------



## East Wind Photography (Dec 18, 2013)

I rarely use filters simply because they are generally not needed for MOST L glass lenses and because I spent big bucks on them for high IQ. Why would I put another piece of glass in front and ruin what I paid for? Even Canon's filters are not as good as the glass the lenses are made with.

The 70-200 f2.8L IS II has a flourine coating on the front element, most anything will easily wash off, salt water, fingerprints, gravel dust. I use distilled water and a sprayer, then lens cleaning solution and a lens cloth. The front element is as pristine as the day I bought it.

No need for a filter.

Now the one sensitive part of these lenses is the IS module. They are VERY and I mean VERY easy to mess up with a fall like that. You should test that every which way in both portrait and landscape in both positions, yes even upside down. Make sure its smooth and no jerkiness. The modules can be replaced but it's costly. Depending on the lens I would say anywhere from 400.00 to 800.00 and most of that is labor as the lens must be re-collimated back to spec once the module is replaced. I had one replaced in a 300mm f2.8 IS. Was 400.00 with the CPS discount but it was worth it.

If you fear the worst, just send it in to Canon for cleaning and a checkup. Tell them what happened and they will set you up...even give you an estimate to replace the front element so you can decide what to do. That's the easiest element to replace too so it's mostly the cost of the glass and not so much labor.

Hope all goes well for you.




mifho said:


> 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.


----------



## Etienne (Dec 18, 2013)

MrFotoFool said:


> 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.



Newer filters have anti-reflective coatings, so you would never see doubled images. I use B&W MRC .


----------



## East Wind Photography (Dec 18, 2013)

AcutancePhotography said:


> Sporgon said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...



Ah but Canon now provides flourine coatings on almost all of their newer L lenses and should be standard fare going forward. IMHO, the flourine coating obsoletes the need for any additional glass in front. The argument for using one in case you drop the lens is a moot point. If you spend 3000.00 on a lens you should take care of it. period. No excuses for dropping it....really.


----------



## EdB (Dec 18, 2013)

In 40 years of shooting I have had a total of one lens scratched on the front element and it never showed in a print. Filters are a waste of money.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 18, 2013)

thgmuffin said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Ruined said:
> ...



Nope. The lenses that require a filter have a statement to that effect in the manual. The 24-105L does not.


----------



## pwp (Dec 18, 2013)

mifho said:


> 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


----------



## pwp (Dec 18, 2013)

Sporgon said:


> 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 (Dec 18, 2013)

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 (Dec 18, 2013)

I crashed my car and my seatbelt left a bruise. Another strike against seatbelts!


----------



## tron (Dec 18, 2013)

AJ said:


> I crashed my car and my seatbelt left a bruise. Another strike against seatbelts!


 ;D


----------



## pwp (Dec 19, 2013)

AJ said:


> I crashed my car and my seatbelt left a bruise. Another strike against seatbelts!


 ;D ;D ;D very good...

-pw


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Dec 19, 2013)

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.


----------



## Ruined (Dec 19, 2013)

MrFotoFool said:


> 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.


----------

