this post was submitted on 25 Nov 2023
1 points (100.0% liked)
Photography
24 readers
1 users here now
A place to politely discuss the tools, technique and culture of photography.
This is not a good place to simply share cool photos/videos or promote your own work and projects, but rather a place to discuss photography as an art and post things that would be of interest to other photographers.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I have always used a uv filter on my lenses. It's not necessary to protect against dropping or other impacts although sometimes it helps with that too.
The main reason is that the $40 filter takes the wear and scrapes rather than the $2K lens - you have to be careful cleaning the actual lens and it takes time. Also, whenever you clean the lens you erode the coating and risk scratching it. Meanwhile you can scrub a filter clean with a tissue while on the go. The upshot is that I'm confident to deploy my cameras in risky situations and clean if they get dirty.
There are times when I take them off to reduce flare and reflection.
Now read your words back slowly and carefully. So you care about not scratching your lens why? To put a piece of scratched glass in front of it? What have you accomplished by doing that - bad IQ.
You seemed to miss my point. The filter cost $40 to replace, which I do when it needs replacing.
No, it rather is YOU who missed my point. Sticking a $40 filter in front of what you claimed is your $2k lens" is just outright insanity.
Either you buy a cheap lens and you don't care enough about image quality or its front element to put any cheap piece of glass in front of it or you buy a very expensive less in which case you especially do not want to degrade its potential IQ by dumping a cheap piece of glass in front of it.
You cannot win, the $40 cheap filter has no proper use case whether you have a cheap or an expensive lens.