Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="480sparky" data-source="post: 298874" data-attributes="member: 15805">Once again I will toss down the gauntlet and set forth the challenge.Does anyone have proof (yes, proof) that a filter actually, truly and honestly saved their lens?&nbsp; And don't drag out the worn-out &quot;Well, I say I did&quot; response.&nbsp; A study of half an incidence is not proof.So you busted up a filter and proudly proclaim, &quot;Yes!&nbsp; The filter prevented damage to my lens!&quot;&nbsp; OK, prove it.&nbsp; Don't just think it did...&nbsp;&nbsp; P&nbsp; R&nbsp; O&nbsp; V&nbsp; E&nbsp;&nbsp; it.How do you do that? Simple.&nbsp; Remove the trashed filter and subject the lens to the same incident.&nbsp; If the lens gets damaged, then you've proved it.&nbsp; If it doesn't, then it's not true.Now, there's two problems with this.&nbsp; First, who in their right might is gonna do it again with their lens?&nbsp; Nobody, right?&nbsp; Of course not.&nbsp; You'd be nuts to.&nbsp; And I don't blame you.&nbsp; I wouldn't either, but I can't anyway since my lenses don't have filters to begin with.The other problem, in order to produce this proof, is to reproduce the incident exactly.&nbsp; Not roughly or approximately.&nbsp; EXACTLY.&nbsp; And this is impossible to do when you accidently bang up a filter.But here's a couple facts:&nbsp; The glass in filters is very thin compared to the front element of a camera lens.&nbsp; So it cracks much easier.&nbsp; The thin ring it's sitting in is not as beefy as the barrel of a lens either.&nbsp; So a little bump that folds the edge of the filter or cracks the glass would easily be rebuffed by the sheer mass of the lens itself and remain unscathed.So until someone steps forth with actual empirical evidence that a filter saved a lens, I'll continue to discount it as a myth and urban legend.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="480sparky, post: 298874, member: 15805"] Once again I will toss down the gauntlet and set forth the challenge. Does anyone have proof (yes, proof) that a filter actually, truly and honestly saved their lens? And don't drag out the worn-out "Well, I say I did" response. A study of half an incidence is not proof. So you busted up a filter and proudly proclaim, "Yes! The filter prevented damage to my lens!" OK, prove it. Don't just think it did... P R O V E it. How do you do that? Simple. Remove the trashed filter and subject the lens to the same incident. If the lens gets damaged, then you've proved it. If it doesn't, then it's not true. Now, there's two problems with this. First, who in their right might is gonna do it again with their lens? Nobody, right? Of course not. You'd be nuts to. And I don't blame you. I wouldn't either, but I can't anyway since my lenses don't have filters to begin with. The other problem, in order to produce this proof, is to reproduce the incident exactly. Not roughly or approximately. EXACTLY. And this is impossible to do when you accidently bang up a filter. But here's a couple facts: The glass in filters is very thin compared to the front element of a camera lens. So it cracks much easier. The thin ring it's sitting in is not as beefy as the barrel of a lens either. So a little bump that folds the edge of the filter or cracks the glass would easily be rebuffed by the sheer mass of the lens itself and remain unscathed. So until someone steps forth with actual empirical evidence that a filter saved a lens, I'll continue to discount it as a myth and urban legend. [/QUOTE]

Verification