re-igniting the UV filter debate!

[ameerat42]

Living on the coast it's a constant battle with salt & sand & I figure I'll eventually damage the lens element

...and that's because time and tide wait for no-one - Darn sayings!

I'd be using a UV filter

[arthurking83]

Living on the coast it's a constant battle with salt & sand & I figure I'll eventually damage the lens element

there is a summary down below!

I'm fairly confident you most likely won't. (unless you are seriously heavy handed with it).
I'm not a light fingered person by any means(but also not overly heavy handed either).
My Sigma 10-20mm lens is my most heavily used lens I have. It was my staple lens to have on the camera at any one time, and I think has resulted in well over 75% of all my 100K images over a 9 year period. It's seen much sea salt spray desert sands(mostly) some wet grass(oops! ) and my fist one day when it simply refused to work on the D70s wayy back(a dirty connection issue).
Lens is still good(although a few knocks have probably misaligned some internal elements over time) .. but the main point is front element is as good as the day I opened the packaging.
Being a wide angle lens .. of course this also means photos of kids almost always resulted in hand and finger prints on the front element too. Nothing that a drop of Eclipse fluid on a pecpad won't easily remove
I once had a broken Nikon 18-35 lens to 'play with', and used a dish scourer sponge(green scotch brite type, supposedly heavy duty) on the front element to see how hardy they are. Result was that with light rubbing(wet of course) no visible damage.
Generally speaking my lens cleaning method was mostly .. a bit of (bad?) breath and a wipe with a microfibre cloth. For badly smeared fingerprints tho, Eclipse and a pecpad was always easier to do in minimal time.

Summary: as Steve Perry points out in his video .. the front element of a lens is quite hardy .. and probably a lot more hardy than you think, or dare to prove yourself.

[Fruengalli]

Thanks A83....but I'll stick with my insurance

[Brian500au]

Now I have finally settled into Singapore after my move from Belgium I decided to pay a visit to the orchard display at the Singapore botanical gardens. My lenses of choice here this time was a 70-200 and my beautiful 85f1.2.

When I arrived I grabbed my 85mm out of my bad and mounted it - I then pulled off the lens cap and this is what greeted me.



I vaguely remember picking up my camera bag in Belgium as I was leaving and a lens fell out - it was in a soft lens case and I was in a rush so I did not check at the time for damage. All my lenses are L lenses so they will take a bit of a battering - and I really did not want to be worried about a lens when I was already under the pump moving anyway.

Now I am not in either camp when it comes to filters - I use them sometimes in adverse conditions and at other times I would prefer to shoot without them. If the filter is on the lens and it causes no distractions then I leave it there - but if I buy a lens without a filter then I just leave it without.

In this case I wonder did the filter save the lens or did it just make things worse? Did the lens just fall on the right spot at the right angle to dint the filter just enough to break the glass (it is a heavy lens) or could it have been worse if no filter was attached. I am not sure and I am not going to try to recreate the experiment to come up with a definite answer

Anyway the filter is now stuck on the lens and I will need to drop it off at Canon here in Singapore to get it removed and checked out for any other damage. This won't change my attitude towards filters, but it will change my attitude about picking up a camera bag when in a hurry.

[ameerat42]

We've got a thread running on this topic somewhere... Looking...

- - - Updated - - -

Yep... Found it. Will shift your post into that thread as it is relevant to the discussion there.

- - - Updated - - -

Done.

[Mark L]

Yep... Found it. Will shift your post into that thread as it is relevant to the discussion there

Done.

But what if that's not a UV filter on the front of Brains lens??
People who are not interest in a re-ignited UV filter debate will not see Brains question about "Is this a argument for or against filters"
There may be some things relevant to both discussions, but I reckon they are two separate discussions.

And Brain, front of the lens would have survived the impact that broke the filter. The broken filter probably wouldn't scratch lens, but if it wasn't there it definitely wouldn't scratch the lens. Then there's lens hoods as possible protection. But of cause that's got nothing to do with the OP.

[Brian500au]

Just a follow up from my previous post re my broken filter.

I dropped it into Canon (literally speaking of course) in Singapore and asked them to remove the broken filter and check the lens for any further damage. The result was a small mark (not a scratch) on the front element but nothing to concern myself with - it is really not noticeable and has no effect on the shots taken with the lens. The lens was pulled apart and checked over for any other damage. The result was a clean bill of health.

Total cost of the repair - zip, zero, nada. Canon Singapore did if free of charge letting me know if I want the front element replaced give them a call and they will do it for me (but reiterated it was not necessary). That is what I call service with a capital "S". I knew there was a reason I have stuck with canon for the last 35 years.

[Mark L]

^ that's all good to hear Brian
But what's it got to do with a UV filter debate?

[Brian500au]

^ that's all good to hear Brian
But what's it got to do with a UV filter debate?

Asked the mods to send it to the review panel but still come back sin binned