topic Re: Will Canon "protect" lenses hurt image quality ? in EF & RF Lenses

Will Canon "protect" lenses hurt image quality ?

mangurian — Tue, 04 Jun 2019 01:27:09 GMT

Canon sells these and says they can be left on all the time. Is this a high quality glass ?

Any info on how they effect image quality appreciated.

Re: Will Canon "protect" lenses hurt image quality ?

ebiggs1 — Tue, 04 Jun 2019 13:07:46 GMT

I guess you are referring about protecto filters? Yes, well some are better than others. I prefer B+W but I have used a few of the Canon brand and found them to be just fine. I will say they are mostly on my film lenses though.

The cheap junk filters are just that .... junk. Remember no filter is 100% perfect but B+W filters are close and they screw off as easily as they screw on. If you notice a problem in a certain situation remove it and replace it when done.

Re: Will Canon "protect" lenses hurt image quality ?

RobertTheFat — Tue, 04 Jun 2019 14:15:19 GMT

@ebiggs1 wrote:
I guess you are referring about protecto filters? Yes, well some are better than others. I prefer B+W but I have used a few of the Canon brand and found them to be just fine. I will say they are mostly on my film lenses though.
The cheap junk filters are just that .... junk. Remember no filter is 100% perfect but B+W filters are close and they screw off as easily as they screw on. If you notice a problem in a certain situation remove it and replace it when done.

I guess it's just a matter of individual preference, but I provide that degree of protection by using my lens cap and hood more than most people probably do. The only filters I ever use on my digital cameras are circular polarizers.

But what I see people (including professionals) do far more often is use a camera without its neck strap or other comparable restraint. I think that's far more dangerous than not using a filter or lens cap.

Re: Will Canon "protect" lenses hurt image quality ?

ebiggs1 — Tue, 04 Jun 2019 14:32:31 GMT

"I provide that degree of protection by using my lens cap and hood more than most people probably do."

A filter is still just another tool to use. Use it correctly. One big advantage is you don't have to clean the front lens element as often. Hoods do nothing to lessen that. It is better to clean an easily replaceable filter. Now you might argue the cost of a high quality filter also plays in to this and I agree. A cheap lens does not benefit as much as a high dollar lens does.

Straps are again just a tool. Use it when it does the job. Don't when it don't. I never use a strap when shooting weddings or Senior photos, etc. I do when I am out hobbying around. On my recent New York shoot I used my Black Rapid all day long.

Protecto filters have their place and they offer a real benefit. So do hoods, lens caps not so much and are more a pain than help. Straps work well in certain situations, not so much in others.. In order, use what works. Simple?

Re: Will Canon "protect" lenses hurt image quality ?

Waddizzle — Sat, 08 Jun 2019 15:05:32 GMT

@mangurian wrote:
Canon sells these and says they can be left on all the time. Is this a high quality glass ?

Any info on how they effect image quality appreciated.

I think it is good idea to use clear, protective filters. I have never used Canon’s filters, just Tiffen and B+W. Some of Canon’s “L” lenses need a protective filter to actually become “fully resistant” against dust and moisture. In some cases, they are actually recommended for many shooting scenarios.

Filters are also easier and safer to clean than the front element of an expensive lens. I have never cleaned the front element on any of my L lenses, just the clear filters. I put a clear filter on a lens as soon as i take it out of the box.

One time I was at an outdoor food fair taking photos of the various chefs and their grills and smokers. When I downloaded the photos later that evening, I noticed some photos lacked contrast, and sort of looked blown out. My clear filter on my EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM had become hazy with smoke. A simple cleaning cured it.

Protective filters do offer protection that a hood cannot provide, namely when you are carrying a spare lens in a bag. Most people remove lens hoods, or mount them in a reverse position when storing a lens. My son once dropped his camera bag while carrying it and the baby to the car. He broke the protective filter on his lens, but the lens was fine.

”Where was your lens cap? What happened to it?” [ crickets ]

Re: Will Canon "protect" lenses hurt image quality ?

TCampbell — Mon, 24 Jun 2019 17:38:42 GMT

Can vs. should are really two different ways to think about these protective filters. You can put a piece of clear plastic cling-wrap stretched across the front of the lens but it probably wouldn't give you great results.

The main thing is there is no "this is always the better way to handle it" answer to your question.

The filters are flat glass. That glass can create reflections that can show up in your image. The better filters are coating with anti-reflective coatings. This reduces the reflections ... possibly to the point where most of the time they are not noticeable. But no coating can 100% eliminate reflections. If there's a bright light source in the scene, you'll probably still see reflections.

The reflection would usually show up on the opposite side of the frame (relative to the center point). E.g. if you took a photo in a dark room and there's a bright light source in the upper left corner ... then the ghost of that subject will probably appear in the lower right corner.

For most day to day shooting you probably wont see these reflections. If you have bright lights visible in an otherwise mostly dark frame (for example... a nighttime city-scape scene) then you may see the ghost reflections of strettlights in your images.

Use them as you want... but keep in mind that if you see reflections (or are shooting a scene where you realize there's a strong potential for these reflections) then you may want to remove the filters for those shots.

Re: Will Canon "protect" lenses hurt image quality ?

ebiggs1 — Mon, 24 Jun 2019 20:26:07 GMT

It seems like a lot of folks forget filter come off as easily as they go on. "But no coating can 100% eliminate reflections." However, high a quality protecto filter will do so 99% of the time in real world daily photography.

I probably know as many people that have never had a lens issue and never use a protecto filter. They tend to think them unnecessary. On the other hand I probably know as many folks that the protecto filter saved an expensive lens. They tend to swear by their use. If you have a $100 lens it is probably not good sense to put a high quality $100 protecto filter on it. By the same standard, if it is a $1200+ lens, it seems a $100 protecto filter is a good idea.

I know pros that throw the front and rear lens caps in the trash when they get a new lens. So, it does take all kinds and whatever works for you is best.

Re: Will Canon "protect" lenses hurt image quality ?

Lumigraphics — Wed, 31 Jul 2019 20:29:36 GMT

Canon sells them because many of their lenses require a filter for weather sealing. If you are going to use the camera in a wet or dusty environment then its a good idea. Otherwise, I've been a photographer for 36 years and never damaged the front element of a lens during use. YMMV of course.

Re: Will Canon "protect" lenses hurt image quality ?

Tronhard — Wed, 31 Jul 2019 23:56:23 GMT

To me it's all about risk management and the environments within which you do your photography. If you work in a controlled environment, such as a studio, with lots of lights etc. then a filter may not be necessary or even desirable. But if, like me, you work outdoors a lot, in sometimes very hostile conditions, then you want all the protection you can get for your gear.

I was brought up as a kid and then trained by the military with the motto "look after your gear and it will look after you" (that and ALWAYS be aware of your surroundings!). I carried that into my photography career and am very careful with my equipment for two reasons: I know it will work when I want it to and to the level I expect, and it saves sometimes expensive maintenance or repairs.

As far as lens protection goes, when I get a lens it lives in the box I bought it in, in its wrapping until I require it. I use both filters and lens hoods on all my lenses for the following reasons:

1. Mechancial and chemical protection: If something strikes the front element of the lens and damages it I lose functionality and I have never seeen a cheap repair on a lens. So I use a quality glass lens protection filter to take the hit from angled impact (such as dropping) - which has happened at an airport security check. Such a filter will also protect against abrasion from sand, sae water or other blowing elements. The lens hood reduces the potential for reflection from the filter and protects agains frontal impact, such as my 3 yo great newphew hitting my camera with his fire engine (that was last week, actually!) Both things are cheap compared to a repair.

2. Protecting the Sensor: As has been mentioned a filter reduces the chance of dust particles flowing into a lens when it is extended or retracted. Doing so reduces the risk of dust making its way onto the sensor and requiring a cleaning.

I don't change lenses in the field. I would rather carry an extra body with an alternative lens attached than have to change. This for two reasons: first I reduce the chances of dust entering the camera. Since I consider it a total folly to have the camera on and the body open at the same time - the sensor will attract dust like a magnet. Seond, if I did switch lenses then I would logically have to turn off the camera, switch lenses and then turn it back on again. WIth the lenses on bodies I can switch lens ranges very quick when shooting requires it. I have my cameras ready to go and it takes perhaps 3 seconds to have the other camera to my eye. For much of the shooting I do that is a critical issue.

I have no issue with those who choose not to use either protection mechanism, it's a personal choice, but so far my gear (some of which is almost 19 years old) has not needed repair or cleaning. If I have sold bodies or lenses I have got a better price, both from the fact I have the packaging and documentation, and the obvious great condition of the gear.

Re: Will Canon "protect" lenses hurt image quality ?

Waddizzle — Thu, 01 Aug 2019 00:57:28 GMT

@Tronhard wrote:

I don't change lenses in the field. I would rather carry an extra body with an alternative lens attached than have to change. This for two reasons: first I reduce the chances of dust entering the camera. Since I consider it a total folly to have the camera on and the body open at the same time - the sensor will attract dust like a magnet.

Second, if I did switch lenses then I would logically have to turn off the camera, switch lenses and then turn it back on again. WIth the lenses on bodies I can switch lens ranges very quick when shooting requires it. I have my cameras ready to go and it takes perhaps 3 seconds to have the other camera to my eye. For much of the shooting I do that is a critical issue.

Amen to that. I do not like to change lenses in the field, either, most especially out in the depths of nature somewhere. But, how do you carry two bodies? This is how I do it.

I do not like to change lenses when I am shooting sports, either.

EOS 6D Mark II, EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS II USM

EOS 7D Mark II, EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II USM.

My “field kit” bags when I am shooting sports. Notice how the bodies are turned to make the big lenses fit better.

This is my “travel light” bag. LOL. The only accessories I really need are a Zeiss cleaning kit and Zeiss wipes for the B+W Clear lens filters, spare memory cards, and a 1.4x III extender. I can easily take 4000+ photos in a single day with this setup.

Re: Will Canon "protect" lenses hurt image quality ?

Tronhard — Thu, 01 Aug 2019 01:54:55 GMT

For myself I have a plethora of bags that have, or have not worked for various purposes or equipment. When I am taking large DSLRs (they all have battery grips) for a day shoot I usually have one holster (either Think Tank or LowePro) which will fit the bulkiest combination of body and lens and then just switch cameras between hand and holster. Often I just have the other body in my hand ready to go.

I have done some longer hikes with my much loved Kata Bumblebee 222, external frame pack - sadly no longer made. It's super light, has huge capacity and fits like a glove. It can take up to 3 DSLRs with big lenses, with capacity for a water bladde or laptop, and side pockets for other gear. It also has capacity for a tripod.

When I am multi-day hiking I am likely to take smaller units such as the EOS M5's one with a wide angle tele and the other with the normal to wide. They fit into a much smaller bag - I was using the ThinkTank Mirrorless Movers until my cameras flooded, and I now use Tenba bags instead. On some day trips I can take one of the Tenba messenger bags with 3 bodies (EOS M, and 2xM5's) with lenses, along with other gear not necessarily related to photography.

Finally, when I want to go ultra-light, I can take the Powershot g1XMkIII, G3X and/or G5X bodies. the G1X has an APS-C sensor while the others are all 1". They are all great cameras when space and weight are critical and I can fit them in a small Tenba messenger bag or a couple of very small pouch bags. The G3X has a super zoom and I added the optional EV to it (although that makes the bulk a bit awkward). It will be interesting to see what the new G5X will behave like. I actually like the DSLR format of the current G5X, but the new one will be even less bulky.

Re: Will Canon "protect" lenses hurt image quality ?

Waddizzle — Thu, 01 Aug 2019 09:01:54 GMT

@Tronhard wrote:
For myself I have a plethora of bags that have, or have not worked for various purposes or equipment. When I am taking large DSLRs (they all have battery grips) for a day shoot I usually have one holster (either Think Tank or LowePro) which will fit the bulkiest combination of body and lens and then just switch cameras between hand and holster. Often I just have the other body in my hand ready to go.
.

Amen to that, once again. I do almost the same. This old man needs to have two free hands. I do not see very well, so I need handrails on stairs, etc. I carry one camera in a Lowepro holster, and one camera one a Black Rapid Sport.

Re: Will Canon "protect" lenses hurt image quality ?

Lumigraphics — Thu, 01 Aug 2019 14:25:28 GMT

I often carry two bodies and seven lenses (16-35L, 24-105L, 70-200L, 18-135, 50, 35; my 100-400L may or may not stay home) and change lenses all the time. I'm not going to let worries about dust stop me from using the lens I need.

And I've been shooting in almost every environment imaginable for the past 36 years. As a working pro, you maintain your gear but there is no need to baby it.

I've never bothered with protective filters over several different systems including 35mm, 645, 4x5, and DSLR. A good quality filter probably won't impact image quality that much, regardless.

Re: Will Canon "protect" lenses hurt image quality ?

ebiggs1 — Thu, 01 Aug 2019 15:06:00 GMT

" I'm not going to let worries about dust, rain, snow, etc, stop me from using the lens I need."

This is the big difference between a working pro making a living and a hobbyists. My gear does what I want it to. However, when I was working I sent it in for a C&C regularly. Over the years I have had gear damaged. It happens if you are putting it to hard work for you. Filters have saved me on some occasions and failed on others but their use is so simple it is silly to not do it. They are mandatory on some Canon lenses, keep that in mind. Have an issue with one in a certain situation, remove it. Still very simple.

Re: Will Canon "protect" lenses hurt image quality ?

RobertTheFat — Thu, 01 Aug 2019 18:15:52 GMT

@ebiggs1 wrote:
... My gear does what I want it to. However, when I was working I sent it in for a C&C regularly. ...

Me too. I'm retired now; but I'm still a CPS member, and old habits are hard to break.

But Canon has closed the Jamesburg NJ repair facility where I used to drop my gear off!! I guess I'm going to have to start sending it in, like (I suppose) most of the rest of the world. Any advice for me about what shipping companies are good, what to do about insurance, etc., etc.? Dammit, I feel like a newbie.

Re: Will Canon "protect" lenses hurt image quality ?

Tronhard — Thu, 01 Aug 2019 19:04:16 GMT

@Lumigraphics wrote:
I often carry two bodies and seven lenses (16-35L, 24-105L, 70-200L, 18-135, 50, 35; my 100-400L may or may not stay home) and change lenses all the time. I'm not going to let worries about dust stop me from using the lens I need.

And I've been shooting in almost every environment imaginable for the past 36 years. As a working pro, you maintain your gear but there is no need to baby it.

I've never bothered with protective filters over several different systems including 35mm, 645, 4x5, and DSLR. A good quality filter probably won't impact image quality that much, regardless.

I started my working career just a shade earlier than you, but I have a different ethos and that's absolutely fine. For me, most of my work was done well away from civilization so having equipment fail was unacceptable. I learnt that in the military when we were taught to keep our M16's really clean - they never failed us, but we came across the bodies of US and ARVN soldiers who had not and their weapons were half stripped as they tried to get them working under fire. (That was one thing the AK47 had: you could dump it in mud and it would still work). Old habits die hard...

I am always dubious about advice that is absolute: e.g. you MUST have a filter, or you MUST NOT etc. We are all different in our habits, working environments and, perhaps most importantly of all, our preferences, values and biases. How we use language to express that, especially those of us with experience, has consequences for others seeking advice.

Hence if I was making your statement I would have said, "as a working pro I maintained my gear, but personally felt no need to over-protect it". My comments were made on my own experience and were identified as such: I worked underground in coal mines and tunnels, in the outback of Australia in dust storms; live volcanoes in Indonesia and NZ, salt water, concrete dust and hot steel, in operating theatres - I had blood sprayed over myself and my gear once. As I said, it really depends on the individual experience - I don't know yours but I respect that what you do has worked for you. I am just happy my gear has never faltered or needed repair (well, except for my brand new Canon 5DIV, the buffer of which failed on my first shoot, but that was a manufacturing fault).

Because of my nomadic lifestyle, carrying multiple extra lenses was never an option for me: I was selective in using just a few - one for each body, plus a spare with different focal range. As I have got older and time has taken its toll on my physical abilities I am especially selective when I do multi-day hikes (no way I'm carrying 7 lenses on one of those).

Re: Will Canon "protect" lenses hurt image quality ?

ebiggs1 — Thu, 01 Aug 2019 19:36:37 GMT

"I am always dubious about advice that is absolute: e.g. you MUST have a filter, or you MUST NOT ..."

How about when Canon says you must use a protecto filter if you want weather sealing on one of Canon's own lenses.

Re: Will Canon "protect" lenses hurt image quality ?

Tronhard — Thu, 01 Aug 2019 19:39:21 GMT

@ebiggs1 wrote:
"I am always dubious about advice that is absolute: e.g. you MUST have a filter, or you MUST NOT ..."

How about when Canon says you must use a protecto filter if you want weather sealing on one of Canon's own lenses.

Fair point Ernie - that is a requirement from the manufacturer, and I totally respect that as an absolute - although I suspect there are some who will ignore that anyway. I was referring to people giving absolutist advice based on their experience.

Re: Will Canon "protect" lenses hurt image quality ?

ebiggs1 — Thu, 01 Aug 2019 19:42:37 GMT

" Any advice for me about what shipping companies are good,..."

I have always used UPS. UPS has a basic insurance. In Kansas where I live a camera sent in for a C&C usually takes a week total. Canon is extremely good about overnighting it back to me. I know I probably sound like a Canon commercial but I do wish all companies were as good as Canon CPS. They are that good. I can't say about Nikon today but in the past (16+ years ago) they were not even in the running vs Canon for CS and support.

CPS you can send me a check later!

Re: Will Canon "protect" lenses hurt image quality ?

ebiggs1 — Thu, 01 Aug 2019 19:52:20 GMT

" I was referring to people giving absolutist advice based on their experience."

It seems they are in unlimited supply. I love your motto, BTW, "Take care of your gear and it will take care of you."

PS. I am very familiar with the M16 and AR variants.