how much to you spend on lens protectors? those glass things that look like filters whose sole purpose is to protect the lens from being knocked about?
i'm pretty sure i generally spend $35 to $40 on them...
today i went to the camera shop near my office thinking to make a quick easy purchase (having lost the lens protector to my new lens - do NOT ask)... they wanted $80 for one! WTF????
the store i regularly go to has them online for about $35... amazon has them for $7...
i am sure that an $80 lens protector would be awesome, but i am not sure that it would be THAT awesome, would it?
and it really didn't help that the sales lady got all snooty at me when i refused to buy the $80 lens protector...
I have had mine on my lenses for a long time and can't remember the cost but I would have thought around the $40 mark. I am always dubious about super cheap versions online and usually do a bit of a google about them - the store you usually go to online may be the go.
@annied tx... interesting... i had thought the clear ones were cheaper than UV and had been buying those (clear glass) knowing that UV was no longer necessary! i too would be dubious of a $7 protector, but $35 to $40 is fine... $80 just seemed extreme somehow...
I did not use them on my dslr lenses. Got confused about the conflicting advise on them, so tried to be careful. But once I got my little fuji I got a UV filter, as I knew this would be a camera I took with me everywhere, and would literally chuck in my bag. I got a b&w filter, can't remember the price, but it wasn't $80. Read somewhere that B&W filter are the best value for money.
I always have a UV filter protecting my lenses, and a glass protecter on the lcd as well. I haven't noticed any degradation at all in image quality from the UV filter. But when I had a nasty fall on to a hard surface I was very grateful for the combination of lens hood and UV filter, the front of my camera hit the asphalt but no damage done to filter or lens. The lcd protectors have saved several screens. Must confess I do buy relatively expensive multi-layer thin versions, research suggested that you get what you pay for. Completely understand your reaction to snooty woman (she's no lady), I'd just walk out. BTW, lots of filters etc available online from B&H.
@graemestevens lol! I just had a nasty fall with my macro lens onto pavement! The filter totally saved my lens! Phew!! I will never go without one again!! I buy them from amazon...depending on size $20 ish, i think Well worth the money. $80 seems ridiculous I would have walked out too!!
Depends what you are trying to protect the lens against. In a lot of cases, a lens hood will be a better 'save' than a filter.
That said, I've used the Cokin Pure Harmonie UV filters on my 'good' walkabout lenses and my X100 for a few years now. They're ridiculously thin and the only ones I don't get any issues with (within a price I'm prepared to pay). I usually source them from eBay and pay £15-20 depending on size. I've been very happy with them (& I don't bother with a lens cap on my X100 - just the lens hood & filter). I've only every had to replace one - and that's because it did its job and suffered the big scratch rather than the front element. :)
UV filters I use all the time. For a 52 mm filter thread, they are typically about $10.00. For a 77 mm thread, about two and a half times the glass area, they tend to run about $35.00.
I too thought "I don't need them," and then I fell with my camera and long telephoto several years ago. So hard that the penta-prism and shutter mechanisms failed on the camera and had to be repaired. The front filter shattered, but the lens, a Tamron 18-270, survived, its optics and AF and VR mechanism in tact. While the filter has nothing to do with "saving" the internals, a tribute to the Tamron designers for sure, it did save the front element of the lens. And yes, I had the lens hood on too.
Truly, for primarily "Display on the PC or Internet" the filter doesn't interfere with anything. I have on occasion briefly tried to see if metered exposures change, filter on or off, but I've not noticed anything amiss. Even when getting a few large prints made, I don't think sharpness or clarity was lost.
I don't use them but I do tend to have a lens hood on which offers some protection. Although it probably makes little difference to the IQ I don't like the idea of another element for the light to pass through.
@rjb71 But if it is a UV filter, a proper one, something that does not stop visible light, how can that affect anything? A "clear glass protector," well perhaps, I have no experience with them, but for something that will pass all light below the UV limit of about 780 manometers that a "standard" UV filter should do? Should have zero effect on your visible light images.
@frankhymus I understand what your saying Frank but I still prefer to shoot without. I dare say that if I drop a lens and smash the front element I will regret not using one but so far that's not been a problem also when someone claims the filter saved there lens they can't be sure as a lot of front lenses are recessed further in than an exposed filter. I guess you pay your money and take your choice....
@rjb71@frankhymus i am embarrassed to say that i never use a lens hood... whenever I've tried it's gotten in the way of the picture and i have NO idea what i am doing wrong... as i tend to like to play with light, can't say i feel i'm missing anything by not using the hood - but i kinda figure i should learn about it one of these days, hmmm?
thanks everyone... i picked up a $25 UV filter at best buy today and i expect it will be good enough... :)
@northy it's the protecting factor of the hood that is useful i think, not so much light protection as things that might poke at the front element of the lens when the camera is idle.
Write a Reply
Sign up for a free account or Sign in to post a comment.
Tweets ahoy!
Join the Group
Pin With Me
That said, I've used the Cokin Pure Harmonie UV filters on my 'good' walkabout lenses and my X100 for a few years now. They're ridiculously thin and the only ones I don't get any issues with (within a price I'm prepared to pay). I usually source them from eBay and pay £15-20 depending on size. I've been very happy with them (& I don't bother with a lens cap on my X100 - just the lens hood & filter). I've only every had to replace one - and that's because it did its job and suffered the big scratch rather than the front element. :)
These: https://www.cokin-filters.com/pure-harmonie/uv-mc/
I don't bother on lenses that don't regularly leave the house & garden.
Just don't forget to take the filter off when you're shooting bright things at night (like the moon!) if you're getting reflections.
I too thought "I don't need them," and then I fell with my camera and long telephoto several years ago. So hard that the penta-prism and shutter mechanisms failed on the camera and had to be repaired. The front filter shattered, but the lens, a Tamron 18-270, survived, its optics and AF and VR mechanism in tact. While the filter has nothing to do with "saving" the internals, a tribute to the Tamron designers for sure, it did save the front element of the lens. And yes, I had the lens hood on too.
Truly, for primarily "Display on the PC or Internet" the filter doesn't interfere with anything. I have on occasion briefly tried to see if metered exposures change, filter on or off, but I've not noticed anything amiss. Even when getting a few large prints made, I don't think sharpness or clarity was lost.
thanks everyone... i picked up a $25 UV filter at best buy today and i expect it will be good enough... :)
@houser934 @lisainstpete @humphreyhippo @ukandie1 @graemestevens @dianen @annied