Lens Protective Filters – To Use Or Not To Use
I am sure you have read the pros and cons concerning this. The main con is the filter will degrade the image. Honestly, if the filter is of good quality, I cannot tell the difference.
As for protection, I could not be a bigger advocate right now. I suffered a potentially major catastrophe. While setting up the tripod on a hill for a White-crowned Sparrow, I turn away just for a second thinking the tripod was secure. That is all it took. I watched in horror as my camera fell earthward in slow motion.
I stared at it on the ground talking to myself, “This is not good”. As I steeled myself, I picked it up to inspect the damage. The damage: bent lens mount, bent teleconverter mount and the lens filter suffered a nasty smudge, saving the front element on the lens. The camera was fine.
Besides sending the lens, etc, to be repaired, I am going to replace the lens filter as the smudge is permanent. This is much preferred then replacing a front lens element. Filters are easier to replace.
Here is my take on the use of a lens protective filter. Based upon my experience, if I am going outside, e.g. in the field and/or exposure to dust, wind, sea, etc, I am using a filter.
Popularity: 9%
I agree. I have also be a strong advocate of this. I can’t tell the difference between filtered and unfiltered either. But I’d certainly rather replace a hundred dollar filter than a thousand dollar lens (or more!)
Ouch!
I am glad that the filter was there to take the shock of the impact, and you lens is OK.