Beginner UV filters is there really any difference?

Messages
166
Name
David
Edit My Images
Yes
#41
You may have ‘no doubt’ but without evidence, others may indeed have a lot of doubt, and without an experiment under lab conditions, your amount of doubt isn’t really worth owt ;)
We're going to have to agree to disagree on this one. I've no doubt at all that whatever caused the chip on the uv filter would have hit the lens glass, it really doesn't take much working out.
 
Messages
22,809
Name
Phil
Edit My Images
No
#42
We're going to have to agree to disagree on this one. I've no doubt at all that whatever caused the chip on the uv filter would have hit the lens glass, it really doesn't take much working out.
I’m not suggesting it wouldn’t have hit the lens. That’d be stupid! Just as it’s stupid to assume it would have damaged the lens ;)
 
Messages
166
Name
David
Edit My Images
Yes
#43
I’m not suggesting it wouldn’t have hit the lens. That’d be stupid! Just as it’s stupid to assume it would have damaged the lens ;)
If you had seen the size, & depth of the chip, you may have agreed with me. But you didn't, did you? I don't class myself as stupid either, but you do seem to be a little on the rude side.
 
Messages
22,809
Name
Phil
Edit My Images
No
#44
If you had seen the size, & depth of the chip, you may have agreed with me. But you didn't, did you? I don't class myself as stupid either, but you do seem to be a little on the rude side.
I shoot a lot of rallying, rally cars throw stones, I very often lose flesh to these stones, but my camera and lenses seem to hold up a lot better, and better than filters which are made of far less dense glass and smash very readily.

I stand by what I said, it’s daft to assume what might have happened without a filter, the only way you can be certain is to perform a controlled experiment.
 
Messages
22,809
Name
Phil
Edit My Images
No
#45
Ok, as we haven’t got any scientific evidence, let’s use what we have got.

In this thread, several people have told us they’ve had damaged filters that ‘saved’ a lens, some on more than one occasion.

But oddly no one has said they wished they’d used a filter because they’ve had a badly damaged front lens element.

It’s not a statistically valid sample, but my spider senses suggest that it’s far more likely you’ll get a damaged filter than a damaged lens.

In fact (again not valid but anecdotal) I have read very few accounts of a front element being smashed without catastrophic damage to the mechanicals of a lens, suggesting they take a lot of force to break (unlike filters which are relatively fragile).

Maybe @StewartR has some hard data about front element damage?
 
Messages
180
Name
Mike
Edit My Images
Yes
#46
My camera ended up bouncing along the road when the strap came undone when I was cycling. No damage to the lens - thank heavens I didb't have a UV filter fitted as it would have shattered & provided loads of hard sharp material to score the lens with...
The lens is still in use & AFIAK the camera still works, I gave up with film 10 years ago it was still working then.
 
Messages
51
Name
Iain
Edit My Images
Yes
#47
If you had seen the size, & depth of the chip, you may have agreed with me. But you didn't, did you? I don't class myself as stupid either, but you do seem to be a little on the rude side.
A damaged UV filter in no way equates to a damaged front element had the filter not been fitted. Filters are extremely fragile compared to a front element of a lens.

This video gives a good practical demonstration of the difference.

Skip to 07:30 for the impact tests
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P0CLPTd6Bds
 
Messages
22,809
Name
Phil
Edit My Images
No
#48
If you had seen the size, & depth of the chip, you may have agreed with me.
Seriously this equates to...
I chose to go to an Indian rather than a Chinese, and some bloke punched me in the eye, proving that Chinese restaurants are safer. :bat:
Then when that view is questioned, trying to use ‘you didn’t see my black eye’ as some kind of evidence :thinking:
 
Messages
166
Name
David
Edit My Images
Yes
#49
Seriously this equates to...
I chose to go to an Indian rather than a Chinese, and some bloke punched me in the eye, proving that Chinese restaurants are safer. :bat:
Then when that view is questioned, trying to use ‘you didn’t see my black eye’ as some kind of evidence :thinking:
No it doesn't. This is my last comment, I don't like people who troll & insult others. I'm putting you on "ignore" as well.
 
Messages
5,862
Name
Terry
Edit My Images
Yes
#51
UV filters are unnecessary for use with Digital sensors. However high quality clear protection filters do have their uses in some situations.
The best first line of defence is to use a lens hood. In extreme conditions use a protection filter as well.

I have never damaged a filter or a lens surface by bashing it with anything.
But I have had a filter so muddy and covered with grit, that the only sensible way to clean it was to dunk in in washing up liquid and flushing it with water with out touching the surface..
That is not an option with a lens.

If you must use a protection filter, make sure the quality matches that of the lens.
 
Messages
3,477
Edit My Images
Yes
#52
I love the 'scientific' counter argument that the 'one minute, it's as soft as sugar-glass' filter, that would allegedly hardly stand the impact of a determined gnat, will suddenly turn into diamond-hard shards that will destroy the otherwise totally invincible front lens element if the filter were to shatter! :LOL: These threads just keep getting better and better! ;)
 
Last edited:
Messages
1,289
Name
Soeren
Edit My Images
Yes
#53
I love the 'scientific' counter argument that the 'one minute, it's as soft as sugar-glass' filter, that would allegedly hardly stand the impact of a determined gnat, will suddenly turn into diamond-hard shards that will destroy the otherwise totally invincible front lens element if the filter were to shatter! :LOL: These threads just keep getting better and better! ;)
Fragile or brittle, not soft. You can smash a diamond into pieces with a hammer but those pieces will still be able to scratch the hammer since diamond is a very hard material.
BTW. You asked why people got cleaning marks on their lenses. By using the same lens cloths over and over again, by trying to remove salt spray by polishing with said lens cloths etc.
Use a blower, then a brush, desolve salt etc with a piece of lens tissue with demineralized water by dapping the element, use glass cleaning wet tissues with alcohol for fingerprints and other fatty stuff then never rub the front element unless absolutely necessary.

OH and I just remembered a few years back I dropped my Sony A6000 and 12mm Samyang from the tripod at eye level onto the stone beach beneath Moens Klint. No damage to either camera or lens.
 
Last edited:
Messages
1,289
Name
Soeren
Edit My Images
Yes
#54
If you had seen the size, & depth of the chip, you may have agreed with me. But you didn't, did you? I don't class myself as stupid either, but you do seem to be a little on the rude side.
Sorry but that equates to mounting a bullit proof west on a M1 Abrams and argue that since a 308 bullit was embedded in the kevlar it saved the tank.
 
Messages
3,477
Edit My Images
Yes
#55
BTW. You asked why people got cleaning marks on their lenses.
No I didn't. What I asked was, "If modern lenses are so tough, then where do all these scratched/marked second hand ones come from then?". It was also a rhetorical question.
 
Messages
22,809
Name
Phil
Edit My Images
No
#56
No I didn't. What I asked was, "If modern lenses are so tough, then where do all these scratched/marked second hand ones come from then?". It was also a rhetorical question.
All those smashed filters scratching the front elements :exit:
 

StephenM

I know a Blithering Idiot
Messages
2,925
Name
Stephen
Edit My Images
Yes
#57
Last edited:
Messages
1,289
Name
Soeren
Edit My Images
Yes
#58
No I didn't. What I asked was, "If modern lenses are so tough, then where do all these scratched/marked second hand ones come from then?". It was also a rhetorical question.
Sorry bout that. I don't think anybody claimed lenses don't get scratched just that uv filters won't make a difference. Hmm could be your rally drivers perhaps ;)
 
Last edited:
Messages
3,477
Edit My Images
Yes
#60
Sorry bout that. I don't think anybody claimed lenses don't get scratched just that uv filters won't make a difference.
soeren. You carry on believing what you want to. I'll carry on believing what I want to. (y)

All those smashed filters scratching the front elements :exit:
Must be. So there's your evidence everyone! And on that bombshell... :LOL:
 
Top