05-24-2014 06:03 PM
@amfoto1 wrote:I don't believe claims that a "filter saved my lens". I bet most of the time the lens would have been just fine without it. No one can prove it, either way.
Twice I have had golf ball sized rocks fall from a considerable distance and strike directly onto the filter. Obviously it can't be proved, but I am absolutely convinced, and that's really all that matters. Your arrogance fails to take into account that not everyone uses their camera the same way you do, and therefore don't have your same needs.
05-24-2014 06:15 PM
Quite. Your picture will be degraded. Use a lens hood, lens cap and take a litttle care, it's not diifficult.
In 60 years I've not had a problem because of the afore mentioned.
A Polarizing filter - now that could be beneficial.
But still I'm loathe to add another two air-to-lens surfaces.
It's an amusing stance. Modern day zoom lenses have 15+ high precision curved elements with various coating and you're worried about a single flat piece of glass.
I haven't been shooting 60 years, nor do I lend you any credibility because you have. But in the time I've been shooting and using filters I've never once had an image ruiined because of it So I'll keep using them.
Regardless, I know I'm not going to convince you, nor you me. It's a long tired discussion on these forums hence my earlier recommendations to just let it go. However, telling someone that something they just bought is a waste of money is just low class. I don't agree with a lot of equipment people choose to use and discuss on here, and I'll gladly give my recommendations when asked. But once they buy it I'm not going to rub their nose in my opinion of it.
05-25-2014 01:38 AM - edited 05-25-2014 05:23 AM
I did not say nor imply "ruined".
You chose to ignore the advice so you did waste your money.
It's not opinion about adding glass, it's physics.
Maybe you are not bothered by the difference or cannot see it.
As mentioned before, if you like a filter for protection,
then use something that can have an effect.
05-25-2014 11:04 AM
05-25-2014 03:30 PM
05-26-2014 01:38 PM
"In 60 years I've not had a problem because of the afore mentioned."
The only thing this proves is you haven't had a problem for 60 years. It proves nothing else or has anything to do with anybodies else's experience.
Sometimes 60 years people can learn alot for 6 years people and even 6 months people!
05-26-2014 02:08 PM
These two side-by-side photographs are examples of how nobody can positively tell which is which.
I frequently us this in my DSLR 101 class when people ask questions about the quality of filters or posting on the web or printing photos.
Both of these were printed at the same time on the same sheet of highest quality photo paper on the same printer. But here on a web site even more proves my point. “Most people” can not and will not be able to see a difference in filtered or non-filtered pictures. And even more differences, if not told so in advance. I guarantee there exist many differences between the two.
Most people are not pixel-peepers and they need not be. If you want to use a filter, use it. No one will know. If you don't want to use one, don't, no one will know. If you use one and feel it may cause a problem, take it off. It is easy.
05-26-2014 05:13 PM
“You are confused, ...”
Who said anything about the camera needing the filter? I thought the filter was for the lens?
Yes, maybe but another poster had a different experience. Your “evidence” is not more important than his.