Protecting a lens

[pikey]

Dear all,

I have recently become the proud owner of a rather superly spiffing lens and being quite a pricey piece of Carl Zeiss' finest am naturally keen to protect it from scratches.

I note that some people have a protective filter they leave on all the time. What's the general feeling on this - leave it as is and be extremely careful or put an extra piece of glass over the front?

A photographer friend says to put the filter on, but somehow it doesn't seem right to have light travelling through something else before reaching the precision lens?

Thoughts?

Ben

PS. This lens is absolutely amazing - completely transforms the camera's performance over the kit one.

[DavidY]

pikey

There are many schools of thought here:-

Some use a UV filter or clear glass filter, and keep it on all the time, but if you do this buy a filter to match the quality of the lens, a cheapo filter will degrade your lens performance - look at top end Hoya and B+W for instance

Some use hoods all the time, reasoning that if they drop it then the hood will take the brunt of the impact

Some use their insurance policies (all risks cover)

I don't use any of the above, it focuses (no pun) the mind and you just are more careful, if I do damage a lens, I'll put it down to experience and get another one sorted (but then my most expensive lens is circa £500, not thousands).

davidy

[beano500]

A Mr Z's finest, eh!!? You lucky, lucky, lucky...

I wouldn't prostitute it with a filter, personally.

[bramley]

FWIW I've stopped using UV filters for protection, I have lens hoods for each of my lenses so I put those in place instead, figuring they will just take a knock and worst case scenario they break so I'd just get a new one. The only time I've put my uv filters on recently was on a beach just cos the lens hoods would do nothing about sand.

Generally speaking though, a good quality Hoya or B+W filter shouldn't cause any noticeable loss in image quality. IMO you get what you pay for with filters.

[pikey]

Thanks.

Think I'll go with the hood + filter for dusty/sandy days

[Famous Graham]

Depends on the role of the lens. If it was mainly used for landscape/architecture etc, ie stuff it takes time to compose, shoot etc, then I'd keep a UV on it and remove it for shooting.

If it's use is for more reactive shooting, then I'd just use a hood.

[te51cle]

I've just swapped all the protective filters on my lenses to Hoya's Pro-1 "Digital" UV filters having had the super multi-coated filters on there before. I'd been toying around with the idea for a while and a long thread on here where someone had removed all their protective filters inspired me to carry out the experiment.

I tried the Pro-1 filter on one lens first and noticed that there was a significant improvement to sharpness compared to the previous filters so changed all the others. I was pleasantly surprised and it wasn't too pricey buying them all from the bigger Chinese ebay merchants - they were the genuine article too.

[TonyHetherington]

I asked the same question, my good man;

http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...

Basically, to summarise, in conclusion, without beating around any bushes or gulding any sort of lillys; there's no straight answer.

[pikey]

TonyHetherington said:

Basically, to summarise, in conclusion, without beating around any bushes or gulding any sort of lillys; there's no straight answer.

Right.

Thanks then - it will allow me to dither over a decision without looking like I am!

(will still get something for those shitty days)

[pikey]

Hoya filter purchased and installed.

I now have an excuse for crap pics

[Furyous]

Without going into mega detail, surely its optically purer sans filter ?

[beano500]

...anyway, which lens is it?

[TonyHetherington]

Furyous said:

Without going into mega detail, surely its optically purer sans filter ?

Without going into any details; yes, it is.

BUT...

(that thread I linked to is probably a good discussion on the subject)

[_dobbo_]

The only argument "for" that I'm aware of is protecting the front element of the lens. That's what insurance is for...

[pikey]

beano500 said:

...anyway, which lens is it?

This one

[_dobbo_]

pikey said:

beano500 said:

...anyway, which lens is it?

This one

That front element looks like it's already a protective one, based on it being flat rather than curved. Unless in that image the lens already has a filter on it.

[pikey]

_dobbo_ said:

pikey said:

beano500 said:

...anyway, which lens is it?

This one

That front element looks like it's already a protective one, based on it being flat rather than curved. Unless in that image the lens already has a filter on it.

In that image the lens already has a filter on it. As supplied it's the convex lens itself exposed.