A query from a reader in a recent photo mag was whether you should keep a Skylight or UV filter over your lens (on a DSLR) for protection. The magazine answered that basically, no, it’s not necessary. Technically, this might be correct: you don’t have to put a filter on. And, when all is said and done, if you drop your camera off a cliff or on to a concrete surface from a great height or into a raging piranha-infested river, no wafer-thin filter is going to save your gear from the greater fate that befalls it.
But fixing a protective filter to my lenses is something I do as a matter of course and I generally suggest others do the same. All the photographers I know also put a filter on their lens. I actually picked up the tip from my tutor many moons ago. So the question is: why? Well, at the very least, the filter offers protection for the front element from any small ‘attacks’ by grit or stones and the like. When out and about in the hurly burly of event or documentary work, for example – or even landscape photography, for that matter - it’s easy for your lens to get knocked. Mine have had a bump or two. Thankfully nothing too serious, but the filters have definitely borne the brunt of the impact.
I was w
ith a group of young photographers recently when an expensive Nikon fell to the floor. There was a horrible crunching sound and it looked as if the lens had shattered beyond repair. That dreaded sickly feeling rapidly turned to sighs of relief, however, when we realised that the splintered glass actually came from the filter. Phew! Everything still worked ok. It meant a few pounds for a replacement accessory, but not a few hundred for a replacement lens. My 17-40mm Canon L lens took a knock the other day, and there’s a chip in the glass – luckily, it’s the glass of the filter, not the lens itself. The picture shows my lens, with a slight dent and chipped glass. I need to get a replacement but, thankfully, I won’t be paying out for a new lens!
So, is it sensible to keep a filter attached to your lens and does it really perform any useful protective function (aside from filtering light, of course)? Perhaps it’s just a myth, and the lens wouldn’t get any more or less damaged if the filter wasn’t there. You have to weigh up the risk and whether it’s worth parting with the extra cash. My own experience, and admittedly anecdotal evidence, however, suggests that it does offer some degree of protection. So, for now, I shall continue to keep a filter attached. It may become the unfortunate victim of an accident, but at least the lens will remain unscathed – and live to take another picture!
No comments:
Post a Comment