Lens Protector

[Dave_S]

Having just bought a new lens (EF 400mm f/5.6 L), as is my standard practice I wanted to provide some protection for the lens, as I feel comfortable with this.

This normally takes the form of a Hoya Pro1 Digital UV Filter.

As there are two 'schools of thought' on this, one being that a UV filter provides some benefit for digital images, while the other says that other than acting as a lens protector, it does nothing to enhance the image.

So, this time I have opted for a Hoya Pro1 Digital clear glass Lens Protector, which at £33 (Premier) is somewhat cheaper than the UV variant.

Dave

[jk224]

Re: Lens Protector

I'm in the "always fit one" brigade, although only for protection as I don't personally think a UV filter does anything for the image. This sounds like a good idea, I didn't know they made clear glass ones, and any saving is always welcome. Thanks for posting.

[AndyMulhearn]

Re: Lens Protector

Having just bought a new lens (EF 400mm f/5.6 L), as is my standard practice I wanted to provide some protection for the lens, as I feel comfortable with this.

This normally takes the form of a Hoya Pro1 Digital UV Filter.

As there are two 'schools of thought' on this, one being that a UV filter provides some benefit for digital images, while the other says that other than acting as a lens protector, it does nothing to enhance the image.

Put me in the not on my lens camp. I tried one of the filters you mention on a Sigma 120-400 and the image quality went from acceptable to downright awful. Never again.

[Dave_S]

Re: Lens Protector

Sounds like the non-filtered clear glass Lens Protector, might suit you better then Andy. That's if you want any lens protection of course.

Dave

[GORDH]

Re: Lens Protector

To be honest I always think a lens hood extending at the front protects it far better than a filter as any knocks or bangs hit there first and are absorbed, even heaven forbid you drop it front first a filter will not protect your lens where as a lens hood will plus if a filter does get damaged theres a good chance it could scratch the surface of the front element just my two pennorth

Kind Regards
Gordon

[Dave_S]

Re: Lens Protector

As always Gordon, there are both positives and negatives with such protection.

The main reason that I fit protection to my lenses, is to remove the need to clean them.

The best way to keep a lens in pristine condition, is not to clean it, but eventually the need will arise. Not so much dust which in general can be blown away, but sticky deposits such as tree sap and pollen, that gets blown about in the wind, and sticks like "s*** to a blanket".

I would much sooner clean a filter, costing £30-£40, than an expensive lens.

My astro-telescope lenses get quite dirty with these natural deposits, and cleaning them is always is always a nervous time. They do have lens hoods, or dew shields as we call them in the astro world, but still get dirty.

I first blow off any dust, with a Giotto Rocket Blower, then clean them with Baader Optical cleaning fluid, and a clean microfibre cloth.

Dave

[GORDH]

Re: Lens Protector

Point taken Dave, I was looking at it from only one perspective, that of physical damage to the front element totally forgetting about atmospheric pollutants so yes I agree in that case although I've never had tree pollen stick to a lens but I dont doubt it happens though, I regularly check for dust etc but very rarely find anything if I do just a quick blow with the blower brush and its sorted, and if I left it there wouldnt be any degradation from such close quarters anyway, but I do agree that if the O.P is bothered about such things then a clear filter to my mind would be better

Kind Regards
Gordon

[Dave_S]

Re: Lens Protector

You might be surprised at how dust specks appear in an image Gordon, albeit seeing them depends very much on the background.

In astro-imaging, we take flat-field images, which we subtract (in software) from the main image, to remove any dust specks etc, from the image.

To do this, we take an image (or series of images), at exactly the same focus position at which the main image(s) were taken. The telescope is aimed an evenly lit white surface, and images taken at an exposure that is around midpoint of the camera's dynamic range (as seen in the histogram).

The result is an image that shows the dust specks, or any other blemishes as out of focus rings or shapes. It is in this form that that would be seen in the main image, as they are an integral part of it. Albeit, as I said, it depends on the background as to have evident they are.

Subtracting the FLat-Field image from the main image, removes these blemishes.

Of course nobody bothers taking flat field images with terrestrial photography, and keeping the lens free of dust and pollutants, removes the need.

But as I said, cleaning a filter or plain glass protector, is much less risky than cleaning a lens, on a regular basis.

I have attached a Flat-Field image, taken though one of my telescopes, which shows these dust-specks (or 'dust bunnies' as we call them) and other pollutant dirt.

Dave

[Nathaniel]

Re: Lens Protector

I have always used either UV Or skylight filters on my lenses and there has been no degradation in quality. I also prefer to keep my expensive lenses in mint condition. Keeps the re-sale value of the lenses as well.

[mikep]

Re: Lens Protector

For what it's worth, I used to put Hoya Pro-1 UV filters on ALL my lenses, but recently, I have removed it from my 70-300 L, as I was not happy with the quality of the shots. I think the quality has improved without the filter.

I always have a lens hood on the front of the lenses I use, and I think that is protection enough.

If I was taking shots on a windy beach, say, I would probably fit a UV filter to prevent sand particles blowing on the front element and scratching it, but that's the only case I see it being worth using.

Mike

[SamFisher]

Re: Lens Protector

I never use them but have to admit that they do come in handy when theres a lot of sea spray when shooting along the coast on a stormy day.
I've never bought one but there was one on my 100-400L when I bought it second hand and luckily most of my lenses have the same filter thread

Mike

[Muscat]

Re: Lens Protector

I always put a protective filter on my lenses with the single exception of the 400 f5.6 as I found that with a filter on the front of this lens I just couldn't get a good crisp image, take the filter off an razor sharp images. It was not a cheap filter either one of the canon protective filters. When using this lens if you use the integral lens hood the front of the lens is very well protected and when you finish if you put the lens cap on you should be fine. Save some money and don't bother with a filter for this lens.

[AndyMulhearn]

Re: Lens Protector

Sounds like the non-filtered clear glass Lens Protector, might suit you better then Andy. That's if you want any lens protection of course.

I've always left it off, the one time I tried a filter it was as a result of a mistake. Unless it's for an effect - polarising, ND etc. - putting another piece of glass, that may or may not be made to the same optical standards as the lens, in between me and the image just never made any sense to me.

[AndyMulhearn]

Re: Lens Protector

I have always used either UV Or skylight filters on my lenses and there has been no degradation in quality. I also prefer to keep my expensive lenses in mint condition. Keeps the re-sale value of the lenses as well.

I think I tried this question before, but if you have never compared shots with and without the filter, how do you know you're not seeing any image degradation?

[MX5]

Re: Lens Protector

I think its down to the individual to decide if they feel comfortable with or without a Protect Filter. I've never seen a true scientific test (DXO et al) that compares a naked lens with one with filters from Brand A, B ... Z (in increasing price points). Although it can become a heated debate on forums. I use Canon Protect filters to provide 'full weatherproofing' (well according to Canon ... I've yet to see data that says this isn't the case).