Lens protection when lens cap removed

[1HappyHiker]

Looked but unable to find a VFTT thread regarding the topic in title of this posting.

1) Is it better to rely solely on a lens hood to protect the camera lens from dings, etc when shooting photos; or is it better to rely on a UV lens filter to prevent damage?
(Or, perhaps use both??)

2) If a UV filter is used for lens protection, what qualities should one look for when choosing this type of filter?

Regarding question #1 above, perhaps it's a "tom-ay-to" vs. "tom-ah-to" thing, i.e. merely a matter of personal preference??

 

[Tom Rankin]

Looked but unable to find a VFTT thread regarding the topic in title of this posting.

1) Is it better to rely solely on a lens hood to protect the camera lens from dings, etc when shooting photos; or is it better to rely on a UV lens filter to prevent damage?
(Or, perhaps use both??)

2) If a UV filter is used for lens protection, what qualities should one look for when choosing this type of filter?

Regarding question #1 above, perhaps it's a "tom-ay-to" vs. "tom-ah-to" thing, i.e. merely a matter of personal preference??

Since you are talking outdoors go with the uv filter.

 

[nartreb]

Call me crazy, but I haven't felt the need for any kind of equipment to help me avoid rubbing the camera lens against the scenery.

I like the first couple sentences here:
http://www.dpreview.com/articles/8049091537/the-uv-filter

Beginners continually ask whether they should buy and fit a UV filter. It's like they feel their iPhone needs a rubber skin or case.

(Yes, I know, some phones are reportedly so badly designed that a rubber case makes the antenna work better.)

 

[1HappyHiker]

Thanks Tom and Nartreb for your responses!

Nartreb, I loved your dpreview link, as well as the following line that you quoted from it.

"Beginners continually ask whether they should buy and fit a UV filter. It's like they feel their iPhone needs a rubber skin or case."

As you might suspect from the nature of my question, I am (and perhaps always will be) a true "beginner"!
At least for now, I'm thinking I'll forego the UV filter and just use a lens hood. But who knows, I might eventually "go all the way" and strip my lens down to "bare"!

P.S. Forgot to mention that the link (Click HERE) within the dpreview article was interesting. Looks like there's a wide variation among the various UV filters that are on the market!

 

[mtruman]

On any camera that I have that will take a filter I always have either a UV or Skylight 1A installed to protect the lens. Both are neutral enough to leave on the time (I'm sure that I'll get dinged for that but I'm more interested in protecting the lens than being a purist).

 

[MichaelJ]

If I ding the filter it's $60-80 to replace it.
If I ding the lens it's $300+ to repair it or $1000+ to replace it.
I always use a skylight or uv filter.

 

[DougPaul]

If I ding the filter it's $60-80 to replace it.
If I ding the lens it's $300+ to repair it or $1000+ to replace it.
I always use a skylight or uv filter.

Same here: cheap insurance... (Cheap uncoated filters can be at little as $15.)

UV can also cause haze in pics--the UV, and skylight filters can reduce it without altering the colors. Haze filters are even stronger, but may give a yellowish cast (by blocking some of the blue).

* Standard filters on some wide-angle lenses can cause vignetting. Special thin filters are available for such situations. (Actually all wide-angle lenses have some vignetting when wide open--the filter only increases it.)
* Filters are uncoated, single-coated, or multi-coated (in order of increasing cost and reflection reduction). More info at http://www.canonrumors.com/tech-articles/all-about-lens-coatings/, http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/lenstech.htm#coating,

General info on filters, including use for protection: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lens_filter

Doug

 

[Kevin Judy and Emma]

Filter, yes!

What MJ and Doug say. Much cheaper to replace a filter than a lens. I constantly take the camera out and sometimes move again before it's completely put away. Bad habit, I know, but the filter has saved what would definitely have been a scratched lens more than once.

KDT

 

[yvon]

John, I have a filter on all my lenses. And every time I buy a new lens, I buy a filter with it.

 

[MichaelJ]

Same here: cheap insurance... (Cheap uncoated filters can be at little as $15.)

They can, but I'll tell you that when I sprang for a high-end filter ($70 or so) my photos got a *lot* sharper, and despite use and abuse it's still in fine shape. A really cheap one may affect the quality of your photos and require replacement sooner, too.

 

[yvon]

I always buy a high quality filter. Otherwise, it's not worth to invest in a high quality lens. High or regular quality lens, you have to think, your camera look thru this filter.

 

[DougPaul]

They can, but I'll tell you that when I sprang for a high-end filter ($70 or so) my photos got a *lot* sharper, and despite use and abuse it's still in fine shape. A really cheap one may affect the quality of your photos and require replacement sooner, too.

The filters are generally fine optically--the primary difference is the reflectivity of the surfaces:
* uncoated: ~4% (reflection from front surface of lens down ~11 stops)
* single coated: ~1.5% (down ~13 stops)
* multicoated can reduce the reflectivity down to as little as .2% (down ~15 stops)
* nanocoatings: <~.1%
(ref: http://www.canonrumors.com/tech-articles/all-about-lens-coatings/)

A modern lens can have as many 20 to 30 surfaces--coatings on these surfaces are far more important than the coatings on a filter (for both internal reflections and overall transmittance).


Actually the uncoated filter may be more robust than a coated filter because there is no coating to damage. They are also trivial to clean...


BTW, B&H's current price for a Canon uncoated 52mm UV filter is US$17.95. I rather doubt that it is of poor optical quality...

Doug

 

[MichaelJ]

BTW, B&H's current price for a Canon uncoated 52mm UV filter is US$17.95. I rather doubt that it is of poor optical quality...

Have you used and compared? My comments are based on experience. Canon may not make poor optics, but they do make varying qualities and the difference is dramatic. Just look at an L vs a non-L lens. That $500-$1000 (or more) price jump is a huge leap in resulting image quality. The same thing happened when I moved from el cheapo to good filters.

Filter quality is as important as lens quality. If the light's distorted before it even hits the first lens element, it's over. A bad filter makes my L lenses look like a point and shoot.

 

[DougPaul]

Have you used and compared? My comments are based on experience. Canon may not make poor optics, but they do make varying qualities and the difference is dramatic. Just look at an L vs a non-L lens. That $500-$1000 (or more) price jump is a huge leap in resulting image quality. The same thing happened when I moved from el cheapo to good filters.

We are talking about filters, not lenses. A filter is just a flat piece of glass with selected impurities and/or coatings while a lens consists of multiple pieces of glass with curved surfaces which must be accurately positioned and aligned. Lens designs also involve multiple trade-offs between differing forms of distortion. Its like comparing apples and nuts... (See http://www.canonrumors.com/tech-articles/lens-genealogy/ for a primer on lens design.)

While, I'm sure that one can find optically poor (ie high distortion) filters, it isn't hard to find inexpensive good optical quality filters from the good quality manufacturers. The primary gain from the more expensive filters is better coatings.

I just made a four quick-and-easy comparisons with and without a 58mm Tiffen uncoated UV filter (300mm, F8, 1/800sec, tripod, autofocus): the resolution of three was indistinguishable and the other was slightly better with the filter. (This isn't enough shots to factor out the statistics of the autofocus and vibration.)

It isn't hard for a manufacturer to make good optical quality (low distortion) UV filters and they come in 3 basic points on the coating-type vs cost curve. Take your choice, however the difference may not be visible in many images. No matter which you choose, they will still protect your lens...

Doug

 

[sardog1]

The difference between a truly good quality filter of the type that MichealJ and I use and ordinary filters is demonstrated in this multipage comparison of a Tiffen and a Hoya. I once dinged a $100 Hoya and was quite relieved to have the damage occur to the filter and not the Nikkor lens behind it that's worth ten times that.

 

[DougPaul]

The difference between a truly good quality filter of the type that MichealJ and I use and ordinary filters is demonstrated in this multipage comparison of a Tiffen and a Hoya.

Yawn.

Yes, this is the expected result when you test the filters under intentionally extremely high dynamic range conditions. Note that it compares only dynamic range, but not resolution. However it gives me no way of determining what the actual dynamic range is (for instance, the white surround in the first image is saturated) so I have no idea if it is relevant to photography in the real world. He doesn't even say if his exposures were consistent within each set of images (I'm guessing that they probably were).

So the study says that multi-coated is better than uncoated, but it does not show that you need anything better than uncoated in most real world pics...

If you want to take lots of pictures into the sun, by all means get a multicoated filter (or just take the filter off). FWIW, I learned long ago to shade my lens (if possible) when there is sun on the lens... (A good idea no matter what kind of filter you use.)

One of my drafts of an earlier post included comments to the effect that the better coatings would primarily be useful under high dynamic range conditions. (This was hinted at by my notes on the strength of the reflection off the front surface of the lens.)

One of my sets of test images includes a white spot in direct sunlight and a dark object in fairly deep shade--under normal viewing conditions either image is fine. The difference is only noticeable in directed comparison. Also, after I took the pictures I noticed that the filter was somewhat dirty and needed cleaning, so I cannot tell if the effect was due to the dirt or reflections from the filter. The ISO was also 400 which was too high for measuring dynamic range. So this test shows that the effect is at most minor for a normal dynamic range image--it may be less for a clean filter.

Keeping your lens and filter clean is also very important in high-dynamic range situations--scatter off dirt and smudges can overwhelm the darker sections of the image.

I once dinged a $100 Hoya and was quite relieved to have the damage occur to the filter and not the Nikkor lens behind it that's worth ten times that.

I'll bet a $20 filter would have protected your lens just as well...

My fundamental point is that a buyer has 3 basic grades of filter at 3 different price points. The primary difference between the grades is the anti-reflection coatings which perform differently under high dynamic range conditions, but all should perform reasonably well under normal dynamic range conditions. All grades generally have the same resolution and all will protect your lens.

Doug

 

[MichaelJ]

Last I checked, being out hiking on a peak *is* a high dynamic range situation. And whether you shield the direct sun or not with a lens hood, you can still get reflections and artifacts just from the general brightness of the scene.

Buy whatever filter you want. When your photos with a cheap filter look smeared, blurry, or have reflections in them, throw out the cheap one and try a good one. I can only testify that it made a huge difference in the photos that I shoot in the real world.

End of line.

 

[Tim Seaver]

A Reliably Contentious Subject

I don't use UV or haze filters, not for any reason other that they get in the way of using polarizers and other filters that actually do something. ( Little gas for the fire there )
In 20+ years of outdoor photography, I have scratched a lens perhaps once or twice, but on the front element where this is generally not a big issue and won't be noticeable in images - it's the rear element you want to keep pristine.
It's pretty much a personal preference thing.

Now, back to the cage match...

 

[DougPaul]

A link to an independent informed opinion (includes a bunch of general info on filters): http://www.kenrockwell.com/hoya/filters.htm Also includes a link to purchasing Hoya filters... (The prices are significantly less than I thought--either I misremembered or prices have come down since I last looked...)

This page is about polarizers, but it also contains info on filters that some might find useful: http://www.kenrockwell.com/hoya/hd-filters.htm

And finally, how to clean filters: http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/cleaning.htm

Doug

 

[Chip]

for a canon s100 or s95, are these kits standard/normal/advisable if I'm interested in adding a filter ? thanks.