Do you need to protect the front element
- Thread starter mikew_RIP
- Start date
Same here although the larger pro lenses such as the 200mm f2 and longer does not get a filter option unless you cover it with a cloth or something similar. Same goes with the 14-24mm f2.8G lens.
Interesting. 
The front element is further away from the sensor than the rear element so any marks on the front shouldn't be as noticeable as a scratched rear element. Plus some of it depends on which aperture is used. Small apertures may show more image degradation than wider apertures. Sure don't want any of my lenses looking like that!
The front element is further away from the sensor than the rear element so any marks on the front shouldn't be as noticeable as a scratched rear element. Plus some of it depends on which aperture is used. Small apertures may show more image degradation than wider apertures. Sure don't want any of my lenses looking like that! My lenses are all naked.
Yes, some do have some minor scratches on them. But so what? No one has ever looked at one of my images and said, "Hey, that's a great shot, but it sucks 'cuz the front element is scratched!"
And one of the dirtiest lenses I own (filled with dust internally!) is the sharpest pencil in the box.
Keeping your glass perfect is nice, but if it costs you IQ or even losing the shot, then count me out.
I fell for the whole using a filter for lens protection back in my film shooting days. When I went digital, I realized that I never once replaced a filter. So I figured if I could keep my filters in good shape, I could keep a lens in just as good of shape.
Yes, some do have some minor scratches on them. But so what? No one has ever looked at one of my images and said, "Hey, that's a great shot, but it sucks 'cuz the front element is scratched!"
And one of the dirtiest lenses I own (filled with dust internally!) is the sharpest pencil in the box.
Keeping your glass perfect is nice, but if it costs you IQ or even losing the shot, then count me out.
I fell for the whole using a filter for lens protection back in my film shooting days. When I went digital, I realized that I never once replaced a filter. So I figured if I could keep my filters in good shape, I could keep a lens in just as good of shape.
I agree,, I use two filter types when I do,, polarizer for glare, or haze in the sky,,, and ND .6 for when I want to extend the exposure such as waterfall shots for a more milky effect, other wise, good habits will keep the glass fine. I do put the lenscap on carrying or storing the lens, so ,, yup naked mostly.
What I'd really like to see is PROOF that a filter saved a lens. Not just someone saying, "My filter was trashed, therefore my lens was saved." The glass in filters is far thinner than the front element of a lens, and the ring of a filter is far thinner than the barrel of a lens. So a filter is much, much easier to knock off that the lens it's attached to.
A sample of one does not constitute proof. Especially when it's just a person saying it's so.
How do you prove it? Simple. Take the damaged filter off, and let the lens take an identical hit. If the lens gets damaged, then you proved the filter saved the lens. If not, you put a filter on for no good reason and now will spend more money for false security.
The problem with this method is two-fold. One, no one want to subject their lens to another hit. I get this. I wouldn't either. Well, I couldn't, 'cuz my lenses don't have filters. The second problem is the hit is usually not in a controlled environment, so duplicating the hit exactly and precisely is impossible.
A sample of one does not constitute proof. Especially when it's just a person saying it's so.
How do you prove it? Simple. Take the damaged filter off, and let the lens take an identical hit. If the lens gets damaged, then you proved the filter saved the lens. If not, you put a filter on for no good reason and now will spend more money for false security.
The problem with this method is two-fold. One, no one want to subject their lens to another hit. I get this. I wouldn't either. Well, I couldn't, 'cuz my lenses don't have filters. The second problem is the hit is usually not in a controlled environment, so duplicating the hit exactly and precisely is impossible.
Horoscope Fish
Senior Member
I use a CPL because I shoot outdoors almost exclusively and I like what a CPL does, generally, under bright sun. It's also made of extremely tough glass so it does afford a degree of protection to the front element; not just from getting knocked about but also from dirt and schmutz that would otherwise collect on the front element. The filter I can rinse off under running water, the lens I can't. And while I use lens caps when I'm not using my camera, I don't when it's "on duty" because I want to be able to grab and shoot and I can't shoot through a lens cap.
...
...
darksideno1
Senior Member
I have UV filter on my lenses only if I need it
For me, it's the lens cap only which is really protecting the lens's front element. Any filter, any additional piece of glass or other transparent material attached to the front element represents an obstacle to the light and should not be mounted unless it is needed for achieving a certain optical result/effect.