Filters for protection, looking for experiences

Hello,

I just ordered a DA* 300 lens. I'm looking to get a good quality UV or clear filter to go with it. I'm shooting mostly outside in the woods, crawling through bushes, lying down on the ground to get those bugs etc.

I'm well aware that there are different opinions about whether to use a protection filter or not. I'm not looking to start a discussion, I'd rather like to hear about real life experiences with different filters, UV or clear.

I do know that using a hood will offer a lot of protection but I still feel that branched are a risk to mind.

Any input would be greatly appreciated!

Cheers
Brian

You have a very deep hood on the 300 (I have one). I have never used a filter on it and it hasn't even come close to a scratch (and I'm a birder - crawling through woods etc.) ;

Of course I can understand you wanting to protect your new baby from the rigours of the world - nothing wrong with that

---

http://frogfish.smugmug.com/ Pentax. Pentax DA*300/4, Cosina 55/1.2, Lens Baby Composer Pro & Edge 80, AFA x1.7, Metz 50 af1.
Nikon. D800. D600. Sigma 500/4.5, Nikon 300/2.8 VRII, Sigma 120-300/2.8, Zeiss Distagon ZF2 21/2.8, Zeiss Distagon ZF2 35/2.0, Sigma 50/1.4, Nikkor 85/1.8, Nikon TC20EIII, Nikon TC14EII, Kenko x1.4, Sigma 2.0

Totally understand your concerns even with the hood on - although I often do not use a filter - in some situations - I always feel safer with one on!

Personally I like the B+W Pro UVs. For a 77mm filter thread - you can pick these up for around £40

I have never owned a B+W UV that has caused any problems with IQ

Regards
Carl

---

No matter how many lenses I have owned - I have always needed just one more

For me it depends on the cost of the lens and the size/vulnerability of the front element. When I use filters it is usually to keep dust off the front element so I don't need to clean it off the lens, only the filter. I'm more likely to damage a lens through trying to clean it (or putting a thumb print on it) than banging it into something.

Then again I hate damaging stuff, even if it was one of my half dozen M 50/1.7's that I use as body caps.

If the debate is UV over clear, I'd go for UV simply because they cut through haze better (and if it isn't hazy you probably won't notice the difference).

---

PPG Flickr

Thanks for the replies everyone. I think I will look into a B+W UV filter. I don't expect to run the lens into a branch but as with insurances I will feel better being prepared for worst case scenarios.

@johnha I didn't know about the haze thing, thanks for the tip!

Cheers
Brian

Lenstip did some tests on UV filters. B+W came third.
Hoya came first and they may be a bit cheaper.
If you look closely at the balcony shots there
was generally a small improvement.

http://www.lenstip.com/113.1-article-UV_filters_test_Introduction.html

and a later supplement:
http://www.lenstip.com/120.1-article-UV_filters_test_-_supplement.html

---

Pentax K-5 and some other stuff

Algi

So how will you feel if your lens gets a knock strong enough to break the filter, and the lens is damaged by flying shards of glass. It does happen.

The supplied hood should be all the 'protection' you'll need in 99.999% of cases.

My opinion: Modern lenses do not need cheap pieces of glass to protect them, moreover, cheap pieces of glass (in relation to the lens price) often cause more problems than they are worth. Increased flare and internal reflections being the main ones.

Just use and enjoy it, you don't need a glass condom on your lens.

If you know that you are going to be exposing your lens to potential harm, then a filter fitted temporarily may be a good idea. Otherwise, no. It will, in anything from a very small to a very big way, degrade any images you capture.

---

Peter E Smith

Body: Pentax K5, K5-II, K20D + BG's, MZ-6, Super-A
Prime: Pentax A28, FA31/43/77 Ltd, M50/1.7, FA50 Macro, DA*55, D-FA100mm Macro, Sigma EX180 Macro.
Zoom: Pentax DA12-24, DA*16-50, DA*50-135, Sigma 70-200mm EX DG OS HSM, 150-500 DG OS HSM.
Flash: Pentax AF240FT(2), AF500FTZ(2), AF540FGZ(2), AF160FC Ringflash.
Software: Adobe Lightroom 4, Photoshop CS4, Photomatix Pro, Noise Ninja, iWatermark, Picasa 3.

My flickr Photostream

"Knowledge is knowing that a Tomato is a fruit. Wisdom is knowing not to use it in a fruit salad."

If you buy a really expensive filter then you're going to need another filter to protect it!!!

---

Bodies: 2x K-5, Sony TX-5, Nokia 808
Lenses: Pentax DA 10-17mm ED(IF) Fish Eye, Pentax DA 14mm f/2.8, Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8, Pentax-A 28mm f/2.8, Sigma 30mm F1.4 EX DC, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.2, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.4, Pentax-FA 50mm f/1.4, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.7, Pentax DA* 50-135mm f/2.8, Sigma 135-400mm APO DG, and more ..
Flash: AF-540FGZ, Vivitar 283
Smeggy's Forum and Pics

+1 on all the above.

Johnha - todays' coatings are tough, you are not going to damage the DA*300 with a thumbprint, water or even cleaning (unless you use some cleaning agent to clean it with that you shouldn't) they are All-weather lenses after all

---

http://frogfish.smugmug.com/ Pentax. Pentax DA*300/4, Cosina 55/1.2, Lens Baby Composer Pro & Edge 80, AFA x1.7, Metz 50 af1.
Nikon. D800. D600. Sigma 500/4.5, Nikon 300/2.8 VRII, Sigma 120-300/2.8, Zeiss Distagon ZF2 21/2.8, Zeiss Distagon ZF2 35/2.0, Sigma 50/1.4, Nikkor 85/1.8, Nikon TC20EIII, Nikon TC14EII, Kenko x1.4, Sigma 2.0

Of course good filters have other uses. Everyone should have a good UV and polariser in their bag.

But my form of lens protection is a good insurance policy. No filter can protect a lens dropped in a river.

For me, cameras and lenses are merely tools to be used, not treasures to be valued. I'm not saying I don't take care of them, but I would rather worry about getting a good shot than worrying about damage.

---

My Photobucket

I've stopped using 'protection filters' since going digital. Too much internal reflection defeating the clever SMC coating designed to prevent them AND protect the glass.

The polariser is the only one that I get out of the bag from time to time.

---

Bill

I totally agree with mannesty.

Peronal experience? Pentax-F 70 210mm rolled off the top of my bag about 7 inches onto a thickly carpeted floor. Result? expensive filter smashed all over the front of expensive lens and a badly scratched front element. If there had been no filter there would have been no damage. Front elements are much thicker and tougher than filters.

I have UV filters for every lens but only use them in hostile environments such as beaches or salt water and so on. UV filters were designed to cut aerial haze with long lenses on film, skylight filters the same but with a slight warming effect for colour film.

The hood is the best protection in 99% of circumstances.

In the circumstances the OP describes there is no need for any such filter.

---

Ken

My Da300 is definitely a treasure, at the price it is bound to be! I treasure it every time I get it out to take pictures and I want to use it to it's best ability. This means I let those beautiful optics do their job, unhampered.

Personally though, I don't use 'protection' filters and I don't get problems with a dirty front element. I very rarely need to clean my lenses. I use the cap and the hood and find that this gives the best protection. The DA300 hood is a particularly good one. Nice and deep, solid and it goes on if the cap comes off and the supplied cap can be operated with the hood on.

I do often see dirty filters on others lenses, the filter is so much more accessible to the dirt than a front element recessed in a good hood. It is bound to get a lot more finger marks etc.

---

Bob

Well I'm not sure it's about treasure to be valued, it's more about that, if the lens gets damaged, I won't be able to afford another one for quite some time.

That being said I do agree that if you're not going to use your equipment to it's full potential from fear of damaging it, it's somewhat of a waste.

I'll wait and decide when I get my lens. My only experience with lens hoods is from my 18-135mm and that one is not very deep and doesn't offer very much protection.

Again, thanks for all the inputs!

Cheers
Brian

If you are wringing everything out of your gear (and technique) that's possible, not using a filter might be a good idea, if you're not, it probably doesn't make a difference. The basics get you most of the way there, the final touches need everything to line up to make a difference.

Personally, my composition lets me down the most and having a filter on the front or not isn't going to improve that (but it might prevent me from persevering through branches if I thought I may damage the lens).

Having said that I'm an electronic engineer and I like fuses & circuit breakers. When I had a Land-Rover I milled a groove into my half-shafts at the wheel end so that when they broke I wouldn't have to take the differential apart...

---

PPG Flickr