Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
New profile posts
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Learning
Other Photography Equipment
On UV Filters: Do you have it on?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="480sparky" data-source="post: 290272" data-attributes="member: 15805"><p>Back in my film days, I religiously used filters for protection. And in all those years, <strong>not once</strong> did I ever scratch or damage one of them. And this was in the days before rigid petal hoods. Rubber floppy hoods were the norm.</p><p></p><p>With this epiphany, my glass now goes forth into the world naked. I do have a couple UV for when I know I'm going to get wet or dirty. But my lenses are nekkid 99.999999% of the time.</p><p></p><p>Filter rings are very thin, and usually not made of substantial material, so they get damaged very easy. Compare that to the <em>barrel</em> of your lens. </p><p></p><p>Filter <em>glass</em> is also <u>very thin</u>. Compare that to the front element of your lens. You really gonna try to say they're the same?</p><p></p><p>I've heard 'stories' of people <em>claiming</em> their filter 'saved' their lens. But the fact is.... and this is a <strong><em><u>fact</u></em></strong>.... unless you recreate the <strong><em><u>exact same instance</u></em></strong> <strong><span style="color: #b22222">without</span></strong> a filter and the lens does get damaged, one cannot make that claim. Period. A 'study of one' does <u>not</u> constitute a fact. It's no more than just conjecture. It really isn't a theory at that point. And until someone actually does that, claiming a filter saved your lens is just sheer, pure self-delusion.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="480sparky, post: 290272, member: 15805"] Back in my film days, I religiously used filters for protection. And in all those years, [B]not once[/B] did I ever scratch or damage one of them. And this was in the days before rigid petal hoods. Rubber floppy hoods were the norm. With this epiphany, my glass now goes forth into the world naked. I do have a couple UV for when I know I'm going to get wet or dirty. But my lenses are nekkid 99.999999% of the time. Filter rings are very thin, and usually not made of substantial material, so they get damaged very easy. Compare that to the [I]barrel[/I] of your lens. Filter [I]glass[/I] is also [U]very thin[/U]. Compare that to the front element of your lens. You really gonna try to say they're the same? I've heard 'stories' of people [I]claiming[/I] their filter 'saved' their lens. But the fact is.... and this is a [B][I][U]fact[/U][/I][/B].... unless you recreate the [B][I][U]exact same instance[/U][/I][/B] [B][COLOR=#b22222]without[/COLOR][/B] a filter and the lens does get damaged, one cannot make that claim. Period. A 'study of one' does [U]not[/U] constitute a fact. It's no more than just conjecture. It really isn't a theory at that point. And until someone actually does that, claiming a filter saved your lens is just sheer, pure self-delusion. [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Learning
Other Photography Equipment
On UV Filters: Do you have it on?
Top