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.

[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]

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.

[Tronhard]

My point is this.  You make absolute statements based on your personal experience.  We ALL make statments on our own personal experience unless we can quote a study with academic rigor to support it.  When I make statements I qualify them as my own opinion, I don't lay them down as a law.

I HAVE had equipment damaged (particularly by others) where the filters and hoods have saved gear, filters have been shattered but the front element stayed intact, lens hood curshed but saved the lens. So MY point is that my experience is just as valid as yours.  What I don't do is demean your experience by claiming a monopoly on common sense.   I equate it to us all having different experiences and situations.

---

@Lumigraphics wrote:

---

@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.

---

[Tronhard]

---

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.

---

I too have taken hundreds of thousands of photos using multiple systems, and in the 38 years of my experience neither of the situations you quote is relevent to the damage prevention offered by a hood or a lens filter as your lens must have been detached from the camera body and hit at the mount end to decentre it.  When a lens is on a camera, especially a heavy lens, the lens' front is most likely to take the impact and that is where the protection comes in - which will involve the mass of both the lens and the camera body.

I take care of my gear, and I have never left gear and I have never myself damaged gear because I was trained that way from the beginning.  There is no point in depending on Canon's service centres when you are hundreds of miles from civilization in the Canadian Arctic or the middle of the African Congo.  To me it's common sense to avoid the situation to begin with.

In all cases it has been someone else's actions that have done the damage to my gear.  An airport security officer dropping my camera at the scanner (totally destroyed the filter but the front element was saved), a child bashing my camera with his toy (the hood took the hit and not the front element), a corrupt official demanding a pay-off to keep my gear - swinging my cameras around and repeatedly hitting a wall - both hood and filter were damaged.  I have had hot metal hit the front filter while photographing in a foundary.  In all cases my gear survived and I could work and that's what it's all about in the end.

---

[ebiggs1]

"In all cases it has been someone else's actions that have done the damage to my gear."

I will bet the OP has never been a child photographer. Ever had ketchup smeared on the front element?  Thank heaven for the protecto filter.

[RobertTheFat]

---

@Lumigraphics wrote:

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.

---

Thank you for pointing that out. We'll try to do better in the future.

[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.