I would hope that when one puts a lens in a bag that one puts a lens cap on said lens...

Would not a lens cap on the lens in a bag have worked?

framer

I put Nikon NC filters on my lenses. I have had one take a hard hit (knocked the wiry piece of metal that holds the glass in place out of the rim) and another get smashed badly (lens was off the camera and dropped to the floor). A buddy of mine had one smashed badly on a pelagic birding trip (fishing boat in rough seas). All 3 lenses had zero damage. For protection, I'd toss one on any less that costs more than a few hundred dollars.

Speaking of boat trips, it's nice to keep salt spray off the front of your lens. That crap is caustic. When I shot with the 80-400mm, even its monster hood doesn't provide full protection from salt mist and spray.

I find that there's another more mundane advantage. The filter position makes them easier to clean than the front of several of my lenses. It's really easy to clean the filter right to the very edge. This is especially nice for lenses with curved and/or deep seated front elements.

The only filter I've ever used that didn't seem to degrade image quality was a Nikon NC filter. My tests with it showed little or no resolution or colour degradation. Of course it flared like crazy with direct sunlight, but the lens itself (20-35mm F2.8D) wasn't great for that anyway.

adamz said:
The thing I don't understand is do You guys really think that one more piece of high quality glass (Hoya pro, B+W MRC) will degrade Your pictures more than Your technique will. I doubt that. So if You want to put a filter on than do it, if not than it's Your choice. I've saved one of my lenses just because I had a filter on it and do I regret loosing almost $80 - no, lens replacement would cost me more - and lens hood got broken as well for Your info.

I've used Hoya pro and Maymia, but at night they still ghost (not as much as the cheap stuff tho)...

Also one of my lenses has a big fat scratch on it from a broken uv during transportation. I know it is a freak accident, but between that incident, the ghosting, and the noticeable drop in saturation sharpness (Im a pixel peeper :P) I just have no desire to use one...

The glass on those lenses is tough tho. Once rammed my 14-24mm against an aluminum pole while talking to another photog at an event (at 3.5 ft high it was hardly noticeable) Of course that darn lenscap fell off (AGAIN!). Front element not only hit the pole hard but had a piece of aluminum stuck (melded?) right in the center of the lens. Wouldn't blow or rub off so I scratched (I mean scratched!) it off. Not a scratch was under it. Even the coating didn't show any discoloration. Still performs like a champ today and nary a scratch can be seen or felt as there isn't one.... As for the lenscap I'm sure another thread is more appropriate for that topic :P....

Gabbb brings up a good point. I used to always have a UV or Skylight 1A on all of my lenses. I started buying inexpensive filters and moved up to pricey multi-coated filters. Even with the best filters, I experience more flare and ghosting with filters than without.

The thing I don't understand is do You guys really think that one more piece of high quality glass (Hoya pro, B+W MRC) will degrade Your pictures more than Your technique will. I doubt that. So if You want to put a filter on than do it, if not than it's Your choice. I've saved one of my lenses just because I had a filter on it and do I regret loosing almost $80 - no, lens replacement would cost me more - and lens hood got broken as well for Your info.

Ive had more problem with uv lenses than not and all of them seem to ghost at night. I totally agree with you Gabbb. also most uV filters cannot resolve a the pixel density of an actual optic (like shooting through a car window). Often the images are on the "tad soft" side like most of canons glass...

MikeWhis said:
I normally wouldn't use a UV filter unless there are potential particles in the air that will scratch my lenses. It doesn't protect your lens other than from slight scratches, which is normally impossible to be detected. If your lens drop, most likely the filter will scratch your lens too. The cheap one degrades image quality, the expensive one is not worth it. What's the point?

I played with the idea of using one instead of a lens cap for my quick "pull out the camera from the bag and then put it back before I get noticed" moves, but I just don't like the idea of losing quality and loss of contrast in contra-light situations and ugly filter flares doesn't worth it for me, why use a nano coated lens, if you ruin it with the filter, that said Hoya uv filters suppose to be good enough for general use, unlike their CPLs.

I normally wouldn't use a UV filter unless there are potential particles in the air that will scratch my lenses. It doesn't protect your lens other than from slight scratches, which is normally impossible to be detected. If your lens drop, most likely the filter will scratch your lens too. The cheap one degrades image quality, the expensive one is not worth it. What's the point?

I suppose, having been around for long enough to move into the pragmatic world, and simply be grateful for each day, that my idealism, such as you express, earthsea, has diminished enough so that I look only at the results I get rather than the "numbers" such as resolution, etc. Now, I really appreciate the idea of going for the absolute best. And I think I at least try to do that by being a member on NRF and gleaning all the wisdom offered. But, I have found the Hoya filters do not diminish the resolution to the point I can recognize it in my work, so that is what I purchase from B & H with each lens. I have offered this example of the 24-120mm shot with a Hoya filter on the front, and it just appears like the lens works fine. But I do admire your idealism and hope you continue to pursue the very highest level of quality in all your work.

Here is one of John Edwards http://www.flickr.com/photos/fantinesfotos/7220669856/sizes/o/in/photostream/

and one at full size on Flickr http://www.flickr.com/photos/fantinesfotos/7014984231/sizes/o/in/photostream/

The Hoya filter is very inexpensive and for the "insurance" it gives me, I am sticking to it.

Nikon recommend you only use genuine Nikon accessories

so I guess they are recommending a Nikon NC filter

The manual that came with my nikon 24-70mm lens simply says "To protect the front lens element, an NC filter is recommended at all times"
I mean we are talking 15 elements, 3 aspherical, and Nano Crystal coated top of the range here, and I am recommended by the manufacturer to though a NC filter in front of all this! Come on Nikon you can be a bit more specific than this if you recommend I use a filter at "all times"
Like I say, there should be some sort of standard for clear filters if major manufacturers are going to recommend filters.
I need to know that the filter is equal or better than the glass behind it.
Am I missing something here?
Good shooting.
P/s EEK! paint. Sounds like you might need some plastic wrapp sevencrossing.

Last week, I was photographing some street artists, using spay cans and stupidly stood down wind of them . It was the UV filter that got splattered in spray paint, not my precious lens

the paint , wiped off, but it might not have

earthsea said:

What I am trying to say is how does one determine that the glass in front of the lenses is better than that behind it.
Cheers for your time.

It's not (only) the quality of the glass. It's the shape, inside your lens you won't find a perfectly straight thin piece of glass (horrible for flare resistance) for sure and big lens manufacturers (canon, nikon) are light years ahead in terms of lens coatings, when compared to filter makers like BW. Simply the lens elements behind your filter will be pretty much always better, even when we are talking about a semi shitty kit lens, that's why I don't use filters for protection.

Thanx Guys, I have a B+W 007 77mm MRC Nano XSPD Clear filter.
Question; Lets say my lens is '5' on a scale of 1-10 in the quality scale of glass quality.
How does one determine that the filter chosen is above '5' on the scale of quality and not below '5'?
Where is there a scale rating lens glass against filter glass? I need facts not sales talk.
What I am trying to say is how does one determine that the glass in front of the lenses is better than that behind it.
Cheers for your time.

As adamz said, cheaper to replace the filter than the front element. But beyond this...the front element has a coating potentially and it does not like to be touched. I do not clean lenses. Occasionally, I will blow the dust off with a special bottle of air, and if for some reason the front element (in my case the filter) gets a finger print or other oily substance on it, I blow the dust off and then carefully clean the spot using appropriate cleaning swabs.

But every lens I purchase, I also add a Hoya UV filter to the front. The only downside is that with the very wide angle, e.g.., the 24mm f/3.5 PC NIKKOR, the addition of the filter will cause vignetting. Ah well... I can take it off for a set up shot avoiding the problem. But, I have dropped cameras into the gravel, had water and other liquids splash on them, and have had subjects put their tongue &/or fingers on the front element (filter). So, I like my glass protected.

And NIKON actually does recommend the protection in every instruction booklet that comes with a new lens, "To protect the the lens surface from dirt or damage, the use of an NC filter is recommended at all times."

earthsea said:
I know you are right about this Adamz and I do have a B+W clear filter on hand. Its just so god-dam confusing when Nikon do not mention anything about recommending any protective filter for any of their lenses. All recommendations come from the retail stores trying to sell stuff. Surely if glass filters were esentual for lens protection then the lens manufacturer would supply their own brand of filter or recommend a brand for their lens. I have tried to find info on just how tough the front glass in on my lens and how much cleaning it can take, but there is not a lot of facts out there.
All tech talk I know and I should not be so pedantic about it I suppose but it is interesting.

It is called a lens hood? That should essentially stop anything from hitting the glass other then a direct fall into a protruding object such as a rock. Also Nikon makes lens filters...if you want to spend the money on them. My last thought is just like everything else once you buy, it is up to you to take care of it. There aren't any recommended body protections out there are there? Kind of the same thing. I don't use filters, but I know there are tons of reviews for them and if you want people on here's opinion you can probably make a thread and get some advice...we like to recommend what really works best in practice and not what sells the best.

I know you are right about this Adamz and I do have a B+W clear filter on hand. Its just so god-dam confusing when Nikon do not mention anything about recommending any protective filter for any of their lenses. All recommendations come from the retail stores trying to sell stuff. Surely if glass filters were esentual for lens protection then the lens manufacturer would supply their own brand of filter or recommend a brand for their lens. I have tried to find info on just how tough the front glass in on my lens and how much cleaning it can take, but there is not a lot of facts out there.
All tech talk I know and I should not be so pedantic about it I suppose but it is interesting.

@earthsea - because it's cheaper to change the filter than the front glass in case sth will happen to Your lens

My new Nikon 24-70mm lens has a convex front glass, why would I put a flat glass filter in front of it now matter how good the filter is?

Thanks SkintBrit - they look like they are worth the cost. I found a place here in the States on Ebay that is offloading them for 25% off right now.

(I too have no clue what thresholds of the member status are ;)

TaoTeJared said:
Anyone use the Hoya HD or the Tiften HT UV filters? I am wondering if they are very scratch resistant. The Hoya HD really interests me since it is very hardened glass for protection.

Hi Tao, I have a Hoya HD UV filter on every lens I own that accepts them. In my oppinion they are superb. Very tough, very resistant to scratching and finger prints. The bezel is so thin on both the UV's and Cir-Pl's (which I also have for every lens) that vignetting will not be a issue. For what it's worth from me, HIGHLY recommended.

P.S. If you buy off of Amazon or via HK on eBay, they're not even that horrendously expensive.

P.P.S. Hey, what's going on, yesturday I was a "member" of the forum, today I'm a "senior member". Have I aged that much in one night?

Anyone use the Hoya HD or the Tiften HT UV filters? I am wondering if they are very scratch resistant. The Hoya HD really interests me since it is very hardened glass for protection.

I generally buy cheaper Hoya, Tiften, Kenko or Quantry since they do get scratched and I just replace them at least every year. I like the idea have spending a bit more for something that will be allot more durable.

Nikon and B&W make good products as well, I'm just not interested in them since I haven't seen them being any harder glass or coating like any others.

I do not plan on using any purchase on wide angle lenses or concerned for any vignetting.

Thanks everyone!

warprints said:
Kanuck - B&H and Amazon both often have several sizes of Nikon NC filters.
I prefer B&W - I have no real evidence of it, but I just feel they are a little less flimsy and are less likely to have rough threads.

Is NC neutral clear?

I also know that Nikon used to make a good set of close up filters, but they're not available anymore.