[wim]

[quote name='Brightcolours' timestamp='1283795786' post='2544']

That is what Iove about internet, all these internet myths that keep on going around.

[color="#0000ff"]

Yep. Like the one about filters that filters do not protect a lens <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />. As I mentioned in another thread, among others, my camera retailer friend, who sees on average at least 1 damaged filter or lens a week, has a different experience to yours.[/color]

[color="#ff0000"]No, he does not.



[color="#008000"]Interesting statement that. You can't know and don't know.

[/color]

This reminds me of a guy in out country (the netherlands) promoting on a paper/research on how caffeine free coffee was bad for you heart. He noted that in a group that drank caffeine free coffee there was more heart trouble than in the group that drank coffee with caffeine.



Well.. duuuuh... which people tend to (more often) drink coffee without caffeine? Right. The people with poor health.



Faulty research from the start.



Now lets look into this camera retailer friend.

What does he get in damaged lenses? According to him and you, lenses with damaged filters and lenses with damaged front elements.



Now... how much lenses does he get without damaged front elements and without damaged filters?

Right... none.

[color="#000000"]

[color="#008000"]To quote you: "duuuuuh".



Actually, he also gets lenses which are damaged without having had a knock. He also repairs lenses and cameras, or sends them to the manufacturer.

[/color][/color]

The conclusions he is making are not thought through, as it excludes the last group, of people who bumped a lens, and the lens was fine, and since it had no filter, it has no broken filter.[/color]



[color="#008000"]If that is what you want to believe, that's fine with me. Again, this is what you believe and assume, not something you can prove by independent tests. See below.[/color]

[color="#0000ff"]

[color="#0000ff"][/color]The problem with this whole debate is whether you believe it or not. I believe a filter protects a lens, because I have seen many examples where it did. You don't believe in it, good for you. You also don't use a blower I gather, just a microfiber cloth plus some solution. Fine, you have been very lucky. I once SAW somebody making a scratch on a lens with a sand grain, because he was too lazy to blow it clean first. Let me say, he wasn't very pleased.



Ah well, whatever, really ... <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' /> I didn't want to get involved in another pro-contra filter debate, and now I did anyway <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />.



Kind regards, Wim



P.S.:removed all quote marks, my comments in blue, as I had too many quote blocks.

[/color]

[color="#ff0000"]

You say you have seen many examples where it did. The only way you can have seen that for real... is where you had a control lens having the same "accident" and where the lens got damaged, where the lens without filter got saved.



[color="#008000"]Yep. Same model lens, several actually. Invariably the ones without filter had to be sent back to the manufacturer or importer, while the filter protected ones only needed the filter ring removed, a bit of cleaning, and a new filter put on. Generally it is the consumer grade lenses however, come to think of it. Often the kit lens.

BTW, don't start with control sets and scientific tests where you yourself didn't do any of these tests to prove your own points either.

[/color]

See, the problem is that we get a scare with a lens, and then think "phewww... glad i had that filter on it".

But we don't think about if that is a right thing to say. As the video I linked to shows... coatings are NOT so easily scratched, and lens elements are HARD to actually break. So... whenever a filter breaks... it just does not absorbs enough energy to save the front element (It is only a thin plate of glass...).

[color="#000000"]

[color="#008000"]Did you do any tests on this? With or without filter? You actually say I did not do any controlled test, but neither did you. So who is spreading internet myths here? "Fortunately" (it isn't for the owner of course) I saw damaged lenses with and without filter mounted of the same type, which were damaged. As I said, the lenses without filter invariably had to be sent back to importer or manufacturer for repair, not so the ones with a filter mounted.



BTW, don't argue stating that people didn't follow a rigorous test procedure if you yourself didn't either to "prove" the opposite. This is a non-sequitur, and becomes a yes-no debate rather than a discussion with proper arguments to underpin a theory or statement. Do note that I am speaking from empirical evidence here. I believe what I see, well, if it isn't in print or on the internet anyway. <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' /> Of course I can be wrong, but you'd have to prove it, with proper arguments.

[/color][/color]

If the front element is fine, it would most probably have been fine without filter. Front elements getting scratched from glass filter splinters is real, though. That happens.



[color="#008000"]Have you tested how often? And in a control test what would have happened to a lens without filter mounted? I guess not.

[/color]

So... while there is a slight chance a front element absorbs just enough energy to prevent front element damage, at the same time it can be the cause of front element scratches.



[color="#008000"]You need to rethink that IMO. The filter already absorbed some energy, so the lens gets less of an impact. Physics will tell you that if there is damage when the filter is broken, there would have been more damage if there hadn't been a filter, all else being equal. It is about the sum of forces, and that means that the impact will be higher on the front element itself if there is no filter, as the filter will absorb a fair amount of forces.



There is another aspect I mentioned, which is the extra rigidity the filter rings gives the front of the lens barrel, which often is made of plastic or a relatively soft metal. That alone prevents a lot of damage. What you will actually find is that the lens barrel is deformed after impact, but not so when a filter was mounted. When no filter was mounted it doesn't necessarily mean that the front lens is damaged as such, but that the lens is out of whack, decentered badly, can't take a filter anymore, won't focus anymore, etc. A filter prevents a lot of this damage.



[/color]I clean my lenses with a soft lens brush. After that, I clean them with a micro fiber cloth and lens cleaning fluid spray (all from a funny little Zeiss set).



What is also real, is filter caused image degradation when bright light hits the filter. Expensive multicoated filters are better than cheap ones, but all show a degradation under those conditions.



To me, the perceived advantages do not in any way weigh up to the real disadvantages.

[color="#000000"]

[/color][color="#008000"]This is the point: to you it isn't. To me it is. And I speak from personal experience.

[/color]

And yes, these debates are "pointless" in that die hard filter users never give in (nor will non-filter users), but they are informative to newcomers.



Although, it must be said, that often you do find posts of former diehard filter users who stop after years of using them after having discovered that even the expensive filters at times seem to mess up the AF accuracy



[color="#000000"][color="#008000"]As I said before, even that last statement is very questionable. In the case of Canon lenses the 100-400L is often mentioned as a lens that shouldn't have afilter when using AF. Well, I am pretty sure that is a user problem, and not a lens or filter problem. I have tested 3 100-400s, and owned 2 (still own one), and certainly in the beginning it is difficult, especially in difficult lighting, to get focusing right with this lens close to or at the long end. Once you get used to that, the presence of a filter suddenly doesn't seem to impact AF anymore. Isn't it just weird?[/color]

[/color]

and gave artifacts in images.[color="#000000"]

[/color][color="#008000"]Those are less damaging than an impact that renders a lens unusable when it could have been saved by that filter, and happens probably as often <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />. Not to mention the glass of beer that splashed over the front of the lens. Or the sandblasting the lens received on the beach or in the desert (sand does damage after all <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />).

[/color]

Or saw that funny youtube video <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />[/color]

[color="#008000"]No, I didn't. It's youtube, not mytube <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />. Actually, I hate youtube. I prefer stills over video.



In the end, to a beginner or to a person who wants to be extra careful when it comes to lens protection, a good quality UV or protect filter is very useful. To those who know what they are doing and are prepared to run the extra risk, they'll do without that filter. I belong to the extra careful category, because I have seen what can happen, and I have had a lens protected by a filter a few times myself. And that includes a few incidents during the period I shot film, where a UV-filter actually was used as a UV-filter, rather than a protect filter.



Kind regards, Wim



P.S.: too many quotes again, so gree this time <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />.[/color]

[Guest]

Wim, so good to see you try. I somehow believe however that your efforts may be futile since he believes so strongly in the myth other people are posting somewhere. It is like a religion. You cant convince a believer. He believes that everything he believes is right. And beacuse he believes so strongly he doesnt need to try for himself. To him his belief is proof enough for his line of argument. We should be understaning <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />

[Guest]

Please, good sirs, this thread has been very civil and informative up till now, impressively so for its long length. Can't you just agree to disagree, or at least point to some good, solid tests rather than 'I know this guy who says so' and 'This random picture proves my case'?

[Guest]

Ok, larsc, that's a wise word. Lets call it a day. I agree to disgaree so that this debate may end.

As to the test: http://www.optyczne.pl/5.5-Inne_testy-Test_filtr%C3%B3w_UV_B+W_72mm_010M_UV-Haze_MRC.html

its in polish, but the test shots are pretty clear.



As a gneral remark: I am very critical of tests and reviews, even of those as objective and well exectuted as the ones linked above. Really, please, everybody: Try for yourselves because testers never ever can test with your particular purpose in mind. Test results may therefore not be very relevant to your specific applications.

[mst]

This has been discussed so many times on the net, and so often it ends in a useless battle. There is no "right" or "wrong" about using UV filters, it's just a decision anybody needs to make for himself. Yes, you should know about some facts to guide you, there are valid arguments for each point of view, but I find it rather strange that there are so many "believers" that try to defend their position and pull people over to their side.



Allow me to add one point to the current discussion (hope you don't mind, wim): be careful about sources close to problem areas, they might have a somewhat "bent" vision. If I asked my wife, an intensive care nurse, if it's fun to ride a motorcycle, you can probably imagine her answer. Last year I have fallen victim to an eBay fraud, the police officer I talked to opens several such cases every day and personally carefully avoids any online businesses, let alone online banking. Actually, he doesn't even connect his main PC to the internet, he uses a seperate machine for the very few internet things he considers safe.



What I'm trying to say: the concentrated amount of damaged lenses and filters you see at a place like a retailer is not necessarily a reflection of the real world out there.



Plus: any retailer will try to convince you that protection is a good thing, because accessories like filters is where the profit is today (says another retailer <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' /> a low volume one, though)



Another thought: the risk of getting your front lens damaged is no doubt real, but it is pretty low, especially if we talk about severe damage, not just marks or tiny scratches. The latter, as already mentioned here, will have no visible effect on your images (just as in-lens dust, but that's another story), but they might reduce the resale value of your lens. Depending on the value of the lens, the number of lenses you own and the number of filters required to protect them, anybody can easily calculate the total amount required which needs to be invested for protection (and ease of mind). However, if it's cheaper in the end to buy filters or not, or to just acept the loss in resale value, no one can tell you. The probability of a scratched or completely ruined front lens is rather low, but that doesn't really help if it happens to you. It's as with insurances: a bet on the future, which you can win or lose.



And one final thought: completely independent of whether a filter will protect or ruin a front lens in case of a heavy impact, a lens hit that hard will most likely face other issues, too (I'm thinking about decentering here, also heavy impact on other mechanical parts like mount, zoom and focus ring, which might lead to additional issues in the long run).

(edit: just found that wim already mentioned this ... sorry, this discussion it probably too complex already <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/rolleyes.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' /> )



-- Markus

[mst]

One addition, since my post above may sound biased and I might look like a "believer", too <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />



As jennbenn already said, you should make yourself familiar with the effects the UV filter might have (and when) and if they are an issue to you and your kind of photography or not.



Also: there are some Canon lenses that actually require a filter to provide full sealing.



As with all other parts of your equipment, you need to learn your tools, filters included. So, the easiest thing to do is to use filters if you prefer so, and remove them if they could cause issues. Or, the other way, just mount them when there's higher risk of damage (on the beach, close ups of swans, dusty rallye, whatever ...).



-- Markus

[couplos]

[quote name='jenbenn' timestamp='1283805012' post='2553']

<img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' /> Tip: put your camera on a tripod so not to change position. then take the same photo with and without a good multicoated filter. Report back if you see differences. (In strong contra light you may be able to see one ADDITIONAL flare mark, caused by the filter on top of the marks produced by your lens. You will then notice that it doesnt make a differnce whether there are six or seven flare marks in your photo. When your lens doenst flare, the filter wont flare, too, because it is coated as good as your lens.)



And please stop fooling people like vieux loup, who try to learn. Only talk about what you have tried and what you know, skip the myth you read or heard from some unvarified source .

[/quote]





Neil van Niekerk is not exactly a "unveryfied source" IMHO,

the day that i will be able to get the half of the third that he achieves...

I will be a lucky photographer !



BTW his site really is worth a visit, even for advanced photographers <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/dry.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />



kr

couplos

[Guest]

Sorry I didnt intend to damage your idol. It is just that his portrait flare example looks not entirely representative for a modern multicoated filter. Maybe he used some cheap no-name brand or the light source was postioned in away that even the lens without filter would have flared. In more than 10 years of shooting I wasnt able to reproduce this flare/veiling effect solely by using a UV filter. If you prefer sientific evidence instead of experience, look at the link I posted above.

[Steinar1]

So, I call the battle a draw <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' /> and for your information I just ordered a Nikon D300S, a Nikon 16-85, the new Tamron 70-300, a Sigma 10-20, f3,5 and a Sigma 50mm f2,8 macro. Your help has been invaluable and I thank you most deeply for your kind help and apologize for sometimes having drawn the decision out by turning 180 degrees. Some of you will disagree with my choices, but now it is too late <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' /> I am happy and most of all eager to get started again, for this is going to be my main hobby from now on. It is going to take me some time to learn the camera and the lenses, but that I don't mind. By the way, where can I find the user manual in English? Your very competitive Dutch friend has great prices but manuals only in the Dutch language, which unfortunately I do not quite master. With this, I withdraw from this particular subject of the forum, but suggest that we create a topic for "Nikon DSLR's, their use and abuse" Little by little, I will contribute photos for your consideration and constructive criticism and I know that I will have 1000 questions to better use my camera. I promise not to ask too many questions for which one can find answers in the manuals. Kind regards Vieux Loup

[Brightcolours]

[quote name='Vieux loup' timestamp='1283872202' post='2578']

So, I call the battle a draw <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' /> and for your information I just ordered a Nikon D300S, a Nikon 16-85, the new Tamron 70-300, a Sigma 10-20, f3,5 and a Sigma 50mm f2,8 macro. Your help has been invaluable and I thank you most deeply for your kind help and apologize for sometimes having drawn the decision out by turning 180 degrees. Some of you will disagree with my choices, but now it is too late <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' /> I am happy and most of all eager to get started again, for this is going to be my main hobby from now on. It is going to take me some time to learn the camera and the lenses, but that I don't mind. By the way, where can I find the user manual in English? Your very competitive Dutch friend has great prices but manuals only in the Dutch language, which unfortunately I do not quite master. With this, I withdraw from this particular subject of the forum, but suggest that we create a topic for "Nikon DSLR's, their use and abuse" Little by little, I will contribute photos for your consideration and constructive criticism and I know that I will have 1000 questions to better use my camera. I promise not to ask too many questions for which one can find answers in the manuals. Kind regards Vieux Loup

[/quote]

French manual <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />



http://nikonusa.com/pdf/manuals/dslr/D300S_FR.pdf



English:

http://nikonusa.com/pdf/manuals/dslr/D300S_EN.pdf



You will have your work cut out for you! Lots to learn, and loads of lenses to get a feel for. Enjoy, and good luck! And many creative sparks!