Will Canon "protect" lenses hurt image quality ?

[mangurian]

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.

[Lumigraphics]

I'm a working pro myself. The only time a filter is required is if you want to guarantee weather sealing. Otherwise my recommendation is to not use them for "protection." And yes I've been in a lot of crazy environments- rain, snow, mud, dust, whatever.

[ebiggs1]

"Otherwise my recommendation is to not use them for "protection." "

Well there you have it.  One pro says don't use them at all and I say always use it unless it causes an issue which is easily solved by simply removing it. Bottom line if it works for you do it if it doesn't don't. You are not hurting or helping anybody but yourself.

To actually answer the OP's original question, "Will Canon "protect" lenses hurt image quality ?" The answer is, no 99% of the time, if it is a high quality protecto filter like a B+W.

[Waddizzle]

---

@RobertTheFat wrote:

---

@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.

---

I have used UPS to ship camera gear for repair, or as gifts.  I always buy insurance, which can cost almost as much as the shipping.  Figure a camera body is going to cost around $50 USD.

[Lumigraphics]

With multiple lenses it can get awfully expensive to buy different sizes of filters, especially high quality filters, and this is a recommendation that wastes people's money.

US$76 for 77mm which three of my zooms use. So there is $228 for filters that are unneeded.

[RobertTheFat]

---

@Lumigraphics wrote:

With multiple lenses it can get awfully expensive to buy different sizes of filters, especially high quality filters, and this is a recommendation that wastes people's money.

US$76 for 77mm which three of my zooms use. So there is $228 for filters that are unneeded.

---

I'm not an advocate for filters (except circular polarizers). But I suppose it's worth pointing out that unless you're using all three of those lenses in the same shoot, you don't really need three identical filters.

[ebiggs1]

"US$76 for 77mm which three of my zooms use. So there is $228 for filters that are unneeded."

You need to put it in context.  I agree if you are trying to protect cheap lenses. But on the other hand if they are $1200, $1500 or $2000 lenses, it is not a significant number. I have already stated if you didn't see it or read it, it makes little sense to buy a filter that is approaching the value of the lens replacement.  You have to use 'common sense' sometimes in your life. Some find that more difficult than others.

[Lumigraphics]

---

@RobertTheFat wrote:

---

@Lumigraphics wrote:

With multiple lenses it can get awfully expensive to buy different sizes of filters, especially high quality filters, and this is a recommendation that wastes people's money.

US$76 for 77mm which three of my zooms use. So there is $228 for filters that are unneeded.

---

I'm not an advocate for filters (except circular polarizers). But I suppose it's worth pointing out that unless you're using all three of those lenses in the same shoot, you don't really need three identical filters.

---

If you don't mind fumbling around swapping one filter every time you change lenses. Or if you have multiple bodies and sometimes use both. The result is either $$$$ or a bunch of wasted time.

I was out last night in a Toledo area Metropark and switched back and forth between my 24-105 and 100-400, both of which use a 77mm filter. I would have needed two filters if I thought they were a requirement.

[Lumigraphics]

Yes its obvious from these and other photography forums that common sense is in short supply. Often, I'm one of the very few who has it.

[Tronhard]

On the common sense side it is good to recognize that most of the members of this and other fora are not professional and thus do not have access to those professional resources: both financial and technical, for quick turn-around of damaged gear.  For them an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

[Lumigraphics]

---

@Tronhard wrote:

On the common sense side it is good to recognize that most of the members of this and other fora are not professional and thus do not have access to those professional resources: both financial and technical, for quick turn-around of damaged gear.  For them an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

---

Hence my point that I have owned numerous systems over the last 36 years, shot hundreds of thousands of photos, and never had a damaged lens because I didn't use a filter.

I have left a lens in a park where it was stolen, and knocked a lens off a table onto a cement floor which damaged the mount and decentered it. A filter wouldn't have helped in either case.