09-06-2010, 05:56 PM
That is what Iove about internet, all these internet myths that keep on going around.
[color="#0000ff"]
Yep. Like the one about filters that filters do not protect a lens <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' />. As I mentioned in another thread, among others, my camera retailer friend, who sees on average at least 1 damaged filter or lens a week, has a different experience to yours.[/color]
[color="#FF0000"]No, he does not.
This reminds me of a guy in out country (the netherlands) promoting on a paper/research on how caffeine free coffee was bad for you heart. He noted that in a group that drank caffeine free coffee there was more heart trouble than in the group that drank coffee with caffeine.
Well.. duuuuh... which people tend to (more often) drink coffee without caffeine? Right. The people with poor health.
Faulty research from the start.
Now lets look into this camera retailer friend.
What does he get in damaged lenses? According to him and you, lenses with damaged filters and lenses with damaged front elements.
Now... how much lenses does he get without damaged front elements and without damaged filters?
Right... none.
The conclusions he is making are not thought through, as it excludes the last group, of people who bumped a lens, and the lens was fine, and since it had no filter, it has no broken filter.[/color]
[color="#0000ff"]The problem with this whole debate is whether you believe it or not. I believe a filter protects a lens, because I have seen many examples where it did. You don't believe in it, good for you. You also don't use a blower I gather, just a microfiber cloth plus some solution. Fine, you have been very lucky. I once SAW somebody making a scratch on a lens with a sand grain, because he was too lazy to blow it clean first. Let me say, he wasn't very pleased.
Ah well, whatever, really ... <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' /> I didn't want to get involved in another pro-contra filter debate, and now I did anyway <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />.
Kind regards, Wim
P.S.:removed all quote marks, my comments in blue, as I had too many quote blocks.
[/color]
[color="#FF0000"]
You say you have seen many examples where it did. The only way you can have seen that for real... is where you had a control lens having the same "accident" and where the lens got damaged, where the lens without filter got saved.
See, the problem is that we get a scare with a lens, and then think "phewww... glad i had that filter on it".
But we don't think about if that is a right thing to say. As the video I linked to shows... coatings are NOT so easily scratched, and lens elements are HARD to actually break. So... whenever a filter breaks... it just does not absorbs enough energy to save the front element (It is only a thin plate of glass...). If the front element is fine, it would most probably have been fine without filter. Front elements getting scratched from glass filter splinters is real, though. That happens.
So... while there is a slight chance a front element absorbs just enough energy to prevent front element damage, at the same time it can be the cause of front element scratches.
I clean my lenses with a soft lens brush. After that, I clean them with a micro fiber cloth and lens cleaning fluid spray (all from a funny little Zeiss set).
What is also real, is filter caused image degradation when bright light hits the filter. Expensive multicoated filters are better than cheap ones, but all show a degradation under those conditions.
To me, the perceived advantages do not in any way weigh up to the real disadvantages. And yes, these debates are "pointless" in that die hard filter users never give in (nor will non-filter users), but they are informative to newcomers.
Although, it must be said, that often you do find posts of former diehard filter users who stop after years of using them after having discovered that even the expensive filters at times seem to mess up the AF accuracy and gave artifacts in images. Or saw that funny youtube video <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />[/color]
[color="#0000ff"]
Yep. Like the one about filters that filters do not protect a lens <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' />. As I mentioned in another thread, among others, my camera retailer friend, who sees on average at least 1 damaged filter or lens a week, has a different experience to yours.[/color][color="#FF0000"]No, he does not.
This reminds me of a guy in out country (the netherlands) promoting on a paper/research on how caffeine free coffee was bad for you heart. He noted that in a group that drank caffeine free coffee there was more heart trouble than in the group that drank coffee with caffeine.
Well.. duuuuh... which people tend to (more often) drink coffee without caffeine? Right. The people with poor health.
Faulty research from the start.
Now lets look into this camera retailer friend.
What does he get in damaged lenses? According to him and you, lenses with damaged filters and lenses with damaged front elements.
Now... how much lenses does he get without damaged front elements and without damaged filters?
Right... none.
The conclusions he is making are not thought through, as it excludes the last group, of people who bumped a lens, and the lens was fine, and since it had no filter, it has no broken filter.[/color]
[color="#0000ff"]The problem with this whole debate is whether you believe it or not. I believe a filter protects a lens, because I have seen many examples where it did. You don't believe in it, good for you. You also don't use a blower I gather, just a microfiber cloth plus some solution. Fine, you have been very lucky. I once SAW somebody making a scratch on a lens with a sand grain, because he was too lazy to blow it clean first. Let me say, he wasn't very pleased.
Ah well, whatever, really ... <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' /> I didn't want to get involved in another pro-contra filter debate, and now I did anyway <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />.Kind regards, Wim
P.S.:removed all quote marks, my comments in blue, as I had too many quote blocks.
[/color]
[color="#FF0000"]
You say you have seen many examples where it did. The only way you can have seen that for real... is where you had a control lens having the same "accident" and where the lens got damaged, where the lens without filter got saved.
See, the problem is that we get a scare with a lens, and then think "phewww... glad i had that filter on it".
But we don't think about if that is a right thing to say. As the video I linked to shows... coatings are NOT so easily scratched, and lens elements are HARD to actually break. So... whenever a filter breaks... it just does not absorbs enough energy to save the front element (It is only a thin plate of glass...). If the front element is fine, it would most probably have been fine without filter. Front elements getting scratched from glass filter splinters is real, though. That happens.
So... while there is a slight chance a front element absorbs just enough energy to prevent front element damage, at the same time it can be the cause of front element scratches.
I clean my lenses with a soft lens brush. After that, I clean them with a micro fiber cloth and lens cleaning fluid spray (all from a funny little Zeiss set).
What is also real, is filter caused image degradation when bright light hits the filter. Expensive multicoated filters are better than cheap ones, but all show a degradation under those conditions.
To me, the perceived advantages do not in any way weigh up to the real disadvantages. And yes, these debates are "pointless" in that die hard filter users never give in (nor will non-filter users), but they are informative to newcomers.
Although, it must be said, that often you do find posts of former diehard filter users who stop after years of using them after having discovered that even the expensive filters at times seem to mess up the AF accuracy and gave artifacts in images. Or saw that funny youtube video <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' />[/color]