Filters cheap or expensive?

I must admit I tend to use UVs as protection, but only against dirt, not mechanical impact.

A filter does not absorb any significant impact energy. What it does is stores it then releases it very suddenly and probably fires sharp glass fragments at the lens.

Basically the filter ring mangled. The front end of the lens body very slightly bent. There was a very slight mark on the front element of the lens - in light of your experience I got away lightly it would seem!

Andy

well this pony has been beaten more than once.
two inescapable facts always results:
1) many for and against with personal experiences backing each side. so buying the filter as "Insurance" is a crap shoot at best.
2) most people that do use them, buy them with thier camera or lens, moments after the sales clerk says "Oh and one more thing you might want to add is this... it is cheap insurance for your xxx$$$ investment"

so it's usually too late to save anybody any money by the time the debate starts.

There are generally 2 schools of thought on UV/protective filter. I called them the "pro" school and the "layman" school.

The pro school believes that since you spend so much money on a lens, putting any additional glass in front of it will just degrade IQ. So no filter + use hood and lens cap + more care. IQ rules, everything else is secondary.

The layman school believes it's a good idea to protect your investment and that the UV filter will protect the lens front element against damage and stuff. So they use filter. Resale value rules, everything else is secondary.

I'm the layman type. I spend about 10% of a lens cost on a *good* protective filter, knowing that it will degrade IQ but under my layman's eyes, the degradation is insignificant (if not invisible). But it gives me the peace of mind that (a) if my clumsy fingers/some random things scratch/damage/do something to the surface, my lens is still ok and (b) that signals good care to the market when I resell the lens.

Note that keyword is good. Cheap filters completely change the argument because IQ degradation is visible and significant. Genuine good filters have coating to reduce flare and good glass reduces light loss. Some like the Hoya HD series have reinforced glass to make it stronger.

Must admit Alex you are confusing me!

First you say that you should use RAW instead of JPEG to get the best picture quality, because, after all, that is what you pay for, then you happily admit to degrading your Image Quality!!

Surely if ultimate IQ is your goal, knowingly degrading it defeats your objectives?

If you are saying that degrading IQ is acceptable, then why the hatred for JPEG if it is acceptable to others?

The 2 arguments don't seem to go together well and it seems to me that you are contradicting yourself!

For the record I'm a RAW shooting no UV filter for protection guy!

PS. Not having a dig just curious!

Resale value trumps everything else (even IQ).

If a cheap Jessops filter is good enough for an £800 prime lens
it's good enough for anything

I had the same experience, on holiday in Crete many years ago. Strap broke and Pentax Spotmatic hit the pavement lens-first. I feared the worst, as the lens hood was virtually flattened. A filter (Skylight or pale yellow? can't remember) cracked but held together. The Spotmatic and its 50mm lens were undamaged and I still have both, and they still work perfectly (though not often these days).

In my case it was the stout Pentax lens hood that absorbed the impact energy. It was quite a job to hammer it more-or-less straight again when I got home. I doubt that I would have been so lucky if I had just had the filter on (and which was on for a real reason) without the lens hood as well.

Martin

Totally agree about using the lens hood which provides protection against knocks, not bad at its intended use either

I do have some filters that get put on should it be a particularly dusty/sandy/muddy environment, mainly because they are easier to clean than the lens.

So if its purely for protection cheap'ish ones would be fine as long as the screw threads are decently made

My disaster happened on a Greek island...
Andy

Speaking for myself, I would only consider a protection filter if I were going somewhere with nasties that might get onto the front element (e.g. sea spray, blowing sand in desert etc.)

Sorry if this is hijacking the thread. Mark, I have a rocket blower but haven't yet used it on the sensor. I don't think I will now, until I learn the 'proper technique'. Could you explain what that technique is? I'd be very grateful for instructions.

Many thanks,

Chris

For me, hard hood always, UV filter never. A hood protects better than a filter and potentially increases rather than decreases IQ.

As for sensor cleaning I would never randomly blow dust and particles around the inside of my camera. Arctic Butterfly For The Win!

I have a Kenko/Hoya filter fitted on to my DA*16-50 since the day I bought the lens which was about 2 years ago. This is a clear filter and it is the Pro 1 D filter. 2 months ago, I accidentally dropped the lens from waist height and it dropped face down. The filter was smashed to bits but no damage to the front element.

There are advantages to putting a filter in the front albeit a good filter. It depends on what you prefer and I have the lens hood there too.

The only filter i use are CPL and those are high quality B+W Käsemann MRC filters so anything but cheap.
I've 3 of those, 1 49mm that fits on the DFA100 and the DA40, and one for ech of the DA* lenses.
I also have a GND Z-Pro set, i forgot the brand at the moment

For protection i've almost always the hood on my lenses and a hood also boost the contrast since it prevents flares so delivering better image quality.

Here is a read about filters as protection and the conclusion is that with todays tough coatings that they only degrade your image quality since they don't give much extra protection.
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/columns/sm-feb-05.shtml