Got a scratch on the front of your lens ?

[crmcatee]

All is not lost.

I'm sure the lens is pretty usable. I mean how bad does the scratch have to be until it affects the picture ?

Here's an example.

[Silver Smudger]

Saw this a while back - One reason why I don't bother doing what some togs do, keeping a filter on to protect the lens! A filter you don't actually want to use for the photo you are taking can just add problems like extra reflections etc.

[RobDickinson]

Most working togs I've seen seem to have the lenses in the bag with no filters or end caps at all.

I guess there tough and almost consumable for business.

[itsnotarace]

RobDickinson said:

Most working togs I've seen seem to have the lenses in the bag with no filters or end caps at all.

Only the ones who don't buy their own equipment

[Simpo Two]

itsnotarace said:

RobDickinson said:

Most working togs I've seen seem to have the lenses in the bag with no filters or end caps at all.

Only the ones who don't buy their own equipment

I do buy my own kit, but never use UV filters or lens caps - except on the 10-20 because the front element is so vulnerable. The rest go face down in the bag with a rear cap. It's simply for speed, and fewer things to drop, lose or go bouncing down a church aisle. A lens cap falling a church floor during a service may as well be an atom bomb!

Edited by Simpo Two on Sunday 31st October 11:16

[MartinP]

Wow, I wouldn't have believed a lens with that much damage could still produce 'acceptable' images. I'll still do my best not to try it on one of my lenses though.

[S47]

Agree, no filters required for digital photogrpahy.
If you see someone using a filter on a DSLR - you know they're an amateur

[Dogsey]

S47 said:

Agree, no filters required for digital photogrpahy.
If you see someone using a filter on a DSLR - you know they're an amateur

Except a CPL.

Or an ND.

Or an ND Grad.

Or pretty much any other filter except a UV or Skylight really. Better to get it right in camera than in pp after all.

[flat-planedCrank]

I use uv filters on my lenses to protect the front element, always have done, they have saved my lenses from damage before.

I know some people don't use them, but personally I'm looking to protect the equipment as I may depend on it's used value.

I've never had any problems with them degrading IQ, etc.

IMO it's just personal preference.

[MonkeyHanger]

I don't bother with filters, my kit is insured. I tend to be more concerned about getting hit in the crown jewels by a flying rock..

[Yellabelly]

S47 said:

Agree, no filters required for digital photogrpahy.
If you see someone using a filter on a DSLR - you know they're an amateur

So what's your exscuse for having an out of focus image on your profile page, not very professional is it!

Edited by Yellabelly on Sunday 31st October 18:05

PS as a rank amateur I have a UV on the front of my £1200 main lens, after it was chipped whilst I was trying to show what a macho prat I was, without using a protector filter. If you can afford to leave it off do so, but don't try kidding yourself or others that it will make you into a pro tog

Edited by Yellabelly on Sunday 31st October 18:30

[tim-b]

Yellabelly said:

PS as a rank amateur I have a UV on the front of my £1200 main lens, after it was chipped whilst I was trying to show what a macho prat I was, without using a protector filter. If you can afford to leave it off do so, but don't try kidding yourself or others that it will make you into a pro tog

There's always the argument of what's the point of spending £1200 on a piece of glass, then covering it with a ~£40 piece of glass...

For very risky situations (like standing near a rally car that's giving it the beans) I might use a filter for protection, but otherwise I don't really see the point. RE: using lens caps, most camera bags are nice and soft inside for a reason, I sometimes chuck an uncovered lens in without any concern (especially when I have a filter adapter ring attached - for ND and polariser not UV! - as you can't then put the cap on).

[Yellabelly]

tim,

The difference between having the UV on, versus leaving it off, for most situations is minimal as far as the image is concerned. It is down to the individual and what they are comfortable with. I often leave the UV off in the studio etc but I will never put the lens away without front and rear caps, that to me is me taking care of my equipment.

The stupidity of the prior comment, regarding professionalism, is the same as the situation that we all mock, the person who has all the most expensive gear but doesn't know how to use it. Does that mean that they are professional? err, no. So UV on or UV off has no such bearing, the resulting image is what matters and to post such comment and have an out-of focus image on your profile says it all about the individual!

[tim-b]

Yellabelly said:

tim,

The difference between having the UV on, versus leaving it off, for most situations is minimal as far as the image is concerned. It is down to the individual and what they are comfortable with. I often leave the UV off in the studio etc but I will never put the lens away without front and rear caps, that to me is me taking care of my equipment.

The stupidity of the prior comment, regarding professionalism, is the same as the situation that we all mock, the person who has all the most expensive gear but doesn't know how to use it. Does that mean that they are professional? err, no. So UV on or UV off has no such bearing, the resulting image is what matters and to post such comment and have an out-of focus image on your profile says it all about the individual!

Fair enough, really I was just stirring a little with the filter argument , and in fact I use cheap&nasty scratched up cokin filters for a lot of my pics so agree that it's the final output that counts...

BTW nice flickr pics for a 'rank amateur'!

[Yellabelly]

LOL at the scratched Cokins, they add atmosphere.

Thanks re the flickr, yours has some real interesting stuff.

YB