another point is the "instant clean" option of unscrewing a filter. if you work with animals or kids with dirty fingers, you would be surprised on how great it is to be able to clean the filter with sand/crap on it with a cloth on the spot (without worrying with scratching the lens) or just to be able to unscrew it and have a mint lens front element ready to shoot.
GAHH, that's so true with big lenses. They are little kid magnets. The first time I took out my 600 mm in the wild, brand new, some little sh*t at the nature conservancy ran up and put his fingers directly on the UV filter. I was actually angry at the mother for playing dumb about not controlling her kid, no effort to tell her boy not to do that, not caring about respecting others' property. Not even an apology from either. For the sake of cleaning, it's much better to clear a pricey filter than an expensive objective, especially out in the woods where sap can drop from trees, bits of branches fall randomly, contact is made in brush and cobwebs, and there's dust.
The point of UV filters is mistakenly thought to be the protection of the front element against impact damage. The actual point of the filter is to protect the element against the slow wear of constant cleaning! When the front element is coated, and most of them are, the coating is much more prone to scratching and hazing overtime than the glass itself. Unavoidably, even with activated carbon cleaning sponges (like the lenspen) one is using mild abrasives to clean the element. At some point and if one cleans the lens very often, it becomes more and more likely to scratch or haze the front element, especially when using the lens in harsh environments where sand is a possibility. Having a uv filter on there means you can afford to pay lens attention to the cleanliness of the lens and clean it quicker and less carefully than if you had no filter on. And if you scratch it or damage it it is 'quicker", "simpler" and cheaper to replace the filter. So a scratch on the lens doesn't mean you have to go without a lens for a while. A drop is a drop... no uv filter will save your internals from damage. Not saying you HAVE to use them. Just saying what the actuall point of the uv filter is
You nailed it bro. I have another reason, sometimes i'm shooting kids and how they play in water and often my UV is splatted with water, I can quickly remove UV and shoot again.
I think that was kind of thepoint at the eand. easier to clean in harsh weather... That said... replacing a front element damaged by repeated cleanind (And Im sure you gotta clean the hell out of it for years) might cost cheaper than a fleet of UV filters....
Just watched the video as I want to buy some filter protection and when I saw all the tests I was like yea thats cool but I dont need impact protection man lol. I just dont want my lens directly exposed in some situations.
Just watched this again. Great info. At the risk of being called a pixel peeper, I have noted image degradation with UV filters with all but the best filters. Doing a lot of bird photography often requires significant cropping so I do use B+W filters almost exclusively. That said, I use UV filters primarily to protect the front element from dust/moisture as I would rather clean a filter than a front element. By the way, your wildlife book is top notch. I am on my third read. Casey
Great video and I'm firmly in the "no" camp for UV filters - with one caveat. If you read the manual on many lenses they actually state that the weatherproofing built into the lens is only complete when a filter is fitted. So, if you're out and about and need the weatherproofing, you will also need some kind of filter on the front of your lens.
A couple of months ago, I dropped my Fujifilm X100T on a concrete sidewalk. The camera landed on the cheap third-party lens hood and the camera was not damaged in any way. I invested another 12 bucks in a new hood and everything is as good as new. The bit of advice about lens hoods, at the end of the video, is right on the mark IMHO.
8 years later - this is still the most comprehensive thing I have seen about camera filters today(2024), aside from the 2017 article by lensrentals that measured light transmission. I realize it's not entirely scientific, but it is still WAY more effort I have seen anyone put into researching this and I appreciate it so much.
Because I grew up in a photography studio owned by my father, I've always just purchased a clear glass filter when buying a new lens.. Nikon or Hoya... I just figured that's what you do. I want to thank you Steve, I think I'm going to remove them.... heck, the lens hood is probably protection enough. Your demo showing that filterless lens shots actually have more data in them is important to me. Going unprotected starting today. Thumbs up on this video... have a great day!
A lens filter saved my kit lens when the husband dropped my camera off of a table while on holiday. I was so mad at him, but it saved him a fair amount of money!
Yes! And when needed, just take filter off to max out image quality, thEn replace. This keeps them much cleaner thAn sans filter. Next round of q's: which filters affect images the least? Which filters help image quality more thAn they degrade it? Or, if they never help, thEn are hydrophobic lenses worth their cost in keeping lenses dry? Etc.
I use a Hoya Pro 1 protective filter. Of course its not meant to protect a lens from this kinda force. Alone cleaning the front lens will degrade it over time. With a filter you don't have to clean it that often.
Another excellent video. Thanks for all the time, effort, and money you put into doing these tests for us. Never saw anyone else do anything like this. Your videos are the best! Keep up the good work!
Any thin piece of flat glass will easily shatter with a direct impact. One thing that you didn't test for, and no-one seemed to comment on: was that from my experience, the majority of lens drops result in front edge impacts, not with the face of the front element. I've dropped a Pentax 645 (film) from +3 feet, onto a hardwood floor, and only the front filter bit it. The aluminum ring of the filter absorbed the impact, and the camera/lens was fine. As others have mentioned, I really use the filters as a first line of defence against grit, dirt, grease, sand, etc. I'm sorry, but when I've forked over +$2000.00 for premium glass, I believe a modest investment ($70.00-$100.00) in a top of the line, brass rimmed, schott glass MC filter is more than worth it. And when selling, I'm able to advertise the glass as "100% perfect/as new" condition, without the slightest imperfection. Priceless. ;~)
Very interesting. Thanks for the video and all the work and destruction that went into making or... de-making it! ;-) I don't think the comparison to paper as any kind of a reference works here because the paper is flexible, stretched across a larger area, suspended by 3.5x3.5" wood blocks that are not fixed/rigid. This means that when your shuttle rod hits it, the paper is pushed down, pulling horizontally on the edges of the paper along it's length and strong axis, and pulls the blocks inward at the top. This dissipates the shuttles impact and provides a lot of dampening and thus it takes much more force to break through the paper than it would if you had the paper suspended (and glued) over a smaller area to a fixed support, like say a round metal hoop atop your steel pipe base. Then your shuttle rod would punch through very easily from a much lower drop. Unlike paper, glass is very rigid and brittle. it will crack and break easily with frontal impacts. It does provide great strength parallel to its surface though and can distribute impact around the ring when a lens is impacted at the front from the side. (I've had a lens drop where this in fact happened and it did save my lens from serious front end bending). For what it's worth, I use filters just because I can easily clean them with my shirt and not worry about scratches cleaning or small impacts/abrasions in the field. I've had two lenses damaged that way and none of 7 lenses in 20 years since using a filter as light protection. Thanks again.
Excellent video Steve! I gave up my UV filters several years ago due to lens flare and, it seems to me, a little bit of degradation. Also, I have insurance for my gear and it didn't make sense to put up with the hassle. I do still carry them for the same reasons you stated in your conclusions. If I'm wiping water spray off my lens every shot because of wave spray, it just seems easier to do that with the filter. When I started out, I had a lens fall from the back floor of the car, onto the road and the filter cracked. At the time, I thought it had probably done it's job but I think your test prove otherwise. Neat video.
My personal experience is that in the one mishap I had, our dog pulled the camera off our coffee table onto a tile floor because the camera strap was hung over the side of the table. In this case, the UV filter took the brunt of the fall with the glass cracking, and the filter edge getting bent. Because the filter would not screw out of the lens, I had to cut out the metal ring carefully with some wire cutters and bend it inwards away from the lens threads. Once I did that, I was able to screw another UV filter into the lens without any issues. My lens suffered no damage thankfully. Several suggestions / learnings from this video that I completely agree with are: 1) use a lens hood whenever possible to protect the lens. 2) Dont stack filters, and 3) remove the UV filter when shooting at night.
I agree a UV filter offers only slight advantage to breakage and may degrade the image slightly. I expect flare from the filter as well because it is the front element. However, I use one to protect the lens and on occasion my polarizer from fumes and steam. I was in Yellowstone shooting geysers close up. If you have ever done that you will discover three things 1) no matter how long you wait, a geyser will not erupt until you start walking away 2) the steam always wafts to you and 3) you are surrounded by many people without regard to and completely unconscious of your presence (they just want to stand where you are). I did not want to take a chance with the front element of my lens. The steam is highly mineralized, I cannot say what effect it may have on the lens coating exactly but it could precipitate a difficult to remove mineral coating on it and I don't want to unnecessarily risk damage to my polarizer. So in effect I use a UV to protect may lens and will stack one over the polarizer. In both cases I could live with image degradation. Bear in mind there are no camera stores in Yellowstone, nor in the vicinity. Any camera related "stuff" at the "trading post" is over priced and under powered, especially SD cards. I liked your test equipment, I would add that instead of a metal bar, fix a piece of granite or limestone to the device and try the test again. In my experience I have noticed that the rim of the filter gets scratched from sitting down and letting the camera drag across a rock or bench. I think better that than the rim of the lens itself. Instead of a lens cap, I think the UV offers protection to the occasional branch swipe when hiking through dense foliage. I have yet to break one that way, but I have gotten pine tree resin or other crud on it. And I've lost a fair amount of snap on lens caps. Anyway that's why I would recommend a UV or clear filter.
great vídeo, I know that a filter won't save my lens but I still use them to store them without caps because I'm lazy and to avoid scratches. I hate scratches on my lenses
Thanks for the time and expense of doing these tests. I thankfully have not dropped any of my lenses such that the front of the lens hits an object at 90 degrees to the surface of the front of the lens/filter combo. I have on a few occasions banged the edge of the front of the lens with a filter attached and only the edge of the filter was crunched with zero damage to the lens proper. Of course this is only an advantage if I later decide to sell the lens since the lens worked just fine afterward. Also I have occasioned to have the front of the lens brush up against a branch while out in the field shooting birds and although it likely would not have damaged the front element of the lens it gave me psychological comfort in knowing that it didn't damage the coating on the front element of the lens. All the above said I've found that the biggest drawback is the occasional flare and associated light reflections connected with using a filter. Thus, that part of your test has given me good reason to seriously consider leaving the filter off altogether or at the minimum removing it when shooting scenes where there's a good chance of flare.
I get how that can make a person sad, however to cheer yourself up, imagine all the lens factories making new lenses every second, replenishing the world with new and better lenses every day. He was probably breaking old outdated lenses that weren't worth much. A waste yes but a very tiny waste
Great video Steve. It lends support to what I've had to learn myself. I only wish I'd known all this 5 years ago when I took up photography after retiring and spending a lot of money on expensive UV filters. I also thought I had to protect my lenses - Insurance is more important. However, I also gave them up about 2 years ago for similar reasons (increased flaring, reflections and vignetting) and use sparingly when needed. Thanks
I use a Nikon clear filter on some of my lens depending on the application. I also use the lens hood since it provides protection from accidental dings and pings.I see quite a bit of work to produce this video. Thank you for all the hard work and sharing.
I agree! Using a rod for testing is not a real life situation! It reminded me of when car thieves use a sparkplug to break a car window! Most dropped lenses will fall onto a flat surface. If the lens landed on a stone or pebble then yes the effect might be the same as this test.
@@RWvideoproductions ....yep! last saturday, a catastrophic tripod fail ( my bad -not the fine Oben carbon fiber tripod's - overweighted and slung over my shoulder ) caused my Nikkor 200-500mm lens to land on the corner (do round things have corners?) of a singh-ray circular polarizer. All propelled to the ground by the added weight of a D850. The filter cracked like thin ice. The lens, however only suffered the separation of the ring which the filter screws into and a crack in the plastic. It still seems to work fine. Same for the 850 short of the hot shoe bracket being bent all to (expletive deleted). PLEASE NIKON!!! OPEN UP YOUR SERVICE CENTER!! ( I have another lens that filter will fit onto - im going to try some shattered filter pictures hahaha!)
One situation where I like to use a protector filter, is when I go to photograph birds or seals at the beach. I often photograph near the surf and I prefer not to have to clean salt off the front element of my lens. In all other situations, I don't use filters for protection, but in all situations, I use lens hoods for protection.
The only time I use a UV filter is when I'm walking around in a crowded city or shooting at the beach to protect the lens from sea mist. Any other times the filter is off and the lens hood is on.
One point that Steve that did not cover is the likelihood of damaging your lens from a busted filter, as shown these filters crack and shatter very easily, I have seen a number of cases where these glass shards have scratched lens coating. For example a very minor side impact that breaks the filter could lead to a scratched lens from the glass shards, even though there was no front impact. I agree with Steve, I don't use them unless the environment dictates it.
+Brendan Davey I have heard of this happening from multiple sources, but it didn't happen in the tests. I didn't mention want to mention it one way or the other since I really didn't do any specific tests for it, although I totally think it's possible and I trust the people who have told me that they have had it happen. I CAN say a busted up filter leaves a LOT of sharp glass sitting on the front of the lens - and a lot of that is very small. Even if the filter didn't scratch the lens at the time it broke, you'd have to be exceedingly careful while cleaning the glass off not to scratch it. So, good point :)
+Brendan Davey Happened to me. Nikon 24-70 tipped over and filter broke scratching the front element. I pretty much don't use them anymore. Of course I had just removed the hood which would have saved the day.
Well done, Steve. Thank you for your time, effort, and expense to accomplish this test. I purchased UV filters for each lens in my kit when I bought them. They are coming off only to be used for the types of situations you mentioned. Not to fault photo gear shops but UV filters for new lenses are offered up like the add-ons they put on a new car. It is a means of making a bit more money in this age of thin profit margins however, as you've proven, they do not do accomplish their intended role.
Excellent video. If I'm working around drills and engineering equipment I don't think I'll bother with a filter. But at the beach, outback, or working fast (stuffing lenses in/out pouches), or confined heavy-traffic areas - I'll still use a filter. If I'm on a job and the lens gets scratched, I go home and lose a client. If I scratch a filter, I take it off and keep shooting, happy client pays the bill and I buy another filter.
First Steve, I’m a big fan. I like your reviews better than anybody’s but this one is ridiculous. No one is trying to protect their lens from flying bullets. It’s the greasy fingers, grit and everything else that finds it’s way onto that beautifully polished piece of glass leading the way to your subject. A filter is a removable, and or disposable barrier that shields the most vulnerable part of your lens from all that crap and when it becomes fouled and you need to get your shot, you can quickly set it aside exposing a pristine piece of glass ready to clearly capture the moment. No need to rush trying to clean the filter till an opportunity presents itself. As you said, it’s almost impossible to tell the difference between pictures taken with or without one with the exception of shooting directly into harsh light. That’s where the filter comes off, or buy a good one. But not to close negatively, I really do appreciate the good work you do.
Of more interest to most people is the protection capacity of these thin multi-coated slivers of optical glass. I've been using Platinum multicoated filters on all my lenses for a couple of years, but I never expected to have a 'UV filter saved my camera lens' story. Recently, however I accidentally dropped a heavy molded plastic figurine from the top of my desktop 'hutch'. Naturally, it fell directly onto my Nikon D7200, lying lens straight up, with cap on. The figurine, a heavy 'Gargoyle' broke into pieces on impact, putting a deep gouge into the Nikon lens cap, and popping the filter glass out of its frame. The front element of the lens, however, was completely undamaged...the filter frame dissipating all of the energy of the impact...even the glass filter was unbroken! So, yes...using a protective UV filter CAN save your precious lens from a direct frontal assault!
Nicely done! I agree with your conclusion to use one when it's beneficial for some reason. There are accident scenarios that folks come up with on either side of this argument that support having a filter on or not. Your testing demonstrates that lenses are pretty tough without needing a filter. I have never damaged a lens (or a filter) but, I have taken pictures only to discover flare or ghosting off the back of a filter that I didn't account for when I took the shot. Your test demonstrates the risk of damaging a front element is not as high as one might think. Glass is really hard to scratch. Just for fun I just checked and I don't see any scratches on my front storm door pane and it's been up for a couple of years. I guarantee it has been bumped numerous times with things I wouldn't get close to a lens with.
Alan Klughammer With the filter being mounted in front of the front element, doesn't this make it ultimately susceptible to ANY type of damage regardless of it's scratch resistance?
+Bill Hughes Yes, the filter (if mounted) will always be scratched before the lens is damaged, however if the filter is more susceptible to damage than the front element of the lens, it will degrade image quality in situations where no damage would occur if no filter was present. In other words, sometimes having a filter mounted will result in MORE damage to picture quality than having on filter mounted. Note I said damage to picture quality because none of the situations described above will result in damage to the lens.The argument presented in the video is against the people who say it is ALWAYS better to have a filter mounted on your lens.
+Alan Klughammer I agree - Also, another user commented that another consideration is that if the filters scratch easier then the lens, you could presumably have to buy filters several expensive filters over the life of the lens. I'm planning a follow up video to this one and I might test for that.
If you come from an astronomical optics background you get this type of advice (from Sky&Telescope) on cleaning optics: "The acids in skin oil can attack optical coatings over time." and " Cleaning causes tiny scratches, or sleeks, if you don’t do it right, and maybe even if you do. A few sleeks don’t matter, but a lot of them will. So clean your telescope optics rarely." The optics on telescopes are diffraction limited and I would speculate the telescope and eyepiece coatings are of much higher optical quality than on photographic lenses. So while photographic lenses can probably take more abuse without seeing noticeable image degradation over time I still use UV filters during general use for the above reasons but would take them off when pointing the camera at the night sky. I never even considered their use as protection against impact. I did a very amateur test of the Hoya EV0 and HD3 UV filters against optical targets with a light bulb in the frame. I could not see any difference in the detail in the targets with either filter. The lens by itself had some blooming around the light bulb. The blooming increased very slightly with the EV0 filter. The blooming was much larger and quite noticeable with the HD3 filter which was interesting.
Man... I wish I saw your video before buying all those UV filters. Great job, so far you are the only one who did real experiments to prove how much more fragile those filters are compared to the front element.
The best "insurance" against an impact on the lens face would be a lens "cushion" instead of a filter screwed into the filter threads. After seeing this demonstration, I'm still going to use a UV filter generally, and take it off when there's a clear (see what I did there?) reason to go without.
His final point is definitely valid. Don't chuck the UV filter, it really does protect from the elements, blowing sand, dusty conditions, or, if you ever shoot something like a color run, you BETTER have a UV filter on (not to mention your whole camera covered somehow...)!
I had a Nikon 18-55mm kit lens attached to my camera drop about a foot and one half onto a living room carpet. Since the camera landed on the edge of the filter, the filter broke from being bowed out of round. The glass pieces actually nicked that lens although it was nothing serious. Filters are easy to break by hitting their edges when screwed on and that breakage can actually scratch the lens. Just another reason to use a lens hood or not use UV filters. Just don't attach the lens hood to the UV filter or it could break from a 45 or 90 degree angle as well unless they are bayonet mounted. Obviously more severe drops can impact lens focusing and zooming mechanisms too. I must admit I use UV filters to keep my lenses clean and that's the only good reason to use them. Rather have a dirty filter than scratch the front element while cleaning it!
Great video Steve! I strongly suspected what you have so clearly shown, but nevertheless still use UV filters quite a bit to avoid having to clean the front element too often. It makes sense to take them off when it is safe to do so. I did have an experience taking match-flare pictures where the sulphur sparks stuck to, and damaged, a UV filter on my macro lens, and I was very glad that I had it on. I had another experience where my lens hood saved my 70-200 f2.8 when it fell off the front of my camera onto concrete! They make excellent shock absorbers..Keep up the great work, there's nothing like your stuff for Nikon wildlife shooters elsewhere! Cheers, Robin.
Steve - When I worked at a camera store many years ago in another lifetime, there were spiffs for selling filters at list price. Two bucks in your pocket for every filter at list. Now, this was in the late 70's, but making hourly plus commission plus spiffs like that did add up. Sometimes it's all I can do to keep from throttling the sales persons and Samy's and sometimes, I can't help myself when they're just outright lying to their customers.
This is truly excellent. This is one of the most honest/unbias videos I have seen. My experience is exactly the same. I see no significant differences in sharpness when a quality filter is used. Tiffen is generally pretty poor performing. B+W, Hoya, and Nikon Neutral Clear perform much better. In shooting conditions with direct sources of light filters will introduce more flaring then a naked lens and should be removed; even the best ones. The impact test is interesting, but are people really worried about impact protection? My understanding is nobody is using a filter for impact protection. I use a filter when shooting outdoors. It is worth the money in those situations. Especially when you are shooting in the desert where there is a lot of dust or dirt or on the beach with sand and salt. It's easier to remove the filter, rinse under water if necessary and then clean. B+W MRC Nano are exceptional here. They are very easy to clean. Much easier than the front element. Whether you use a clear filter, uv or polarizer doesn't matter if your intent is outdoor shooting and easy cleaning. Of course, each of those filters is different.
The filter allows the AR coating on the front element of the lens to remain in pristine condition. It also prevents casual scratching. It's not about catastrophic breakage.... Much easier\better to replace a filter every once and a while than live with a marred front element.
They sure protected my lens. A friend took my camera to get a photo of my wife and I and his wife. Then, on the handoff, the lens slipped and dropped. It landed right on the front edge. I unscrewed the broken UV filter, NOTHING ELSE WAS WRONG, and as soon as I could find a camera store, I replaced the filter. So, yeah, I've been using filters since 1977, and this was the only time I ever took advantage of "the protection factor," and I always shall.
About sharpness is also worth asking, what is best: A mint front element with all its coatings and a new uv filter or a naked lens that has been cleaned so many times that the front element coating is all cracked and missing on the center?....
I once cracked a brand new Hoya Infrared filter (46mm) from a 10cm drop on a wood table. Yes you read it right, 10 cm drop I think you missed the point of protective UV filters though, they're protection against scratches and for ease of cleaning, not drop...
I always use lens hoods so am not worried about impact damage. I DO worry about smears, dust & stuff like pollen. The answer for me is to remove protective filters for many low light shots to cut out reflections but to also buy decent filters for decent lenses. Many photographers use square filter systems rather than screw-on ones anyway. Why do filters attach by threads anyway? Couldn't bayonet be made low-profile?
for my DSLR, I don't use one for the reason you state, but I use a mirrorless for cycling. It has a pancake and I slide the camera into my pocket where it gets sweaty and sand on it etc on it all the time -- the filter has been a great move for that use case.
I remember I purchased a UV filter from B+W for my 35mm F1.8. The filter cost I think almost half the price of the lens :) As I recall the filter was used maybe 3-4 times. Lens hood always on. End of story. What I find funny is when I see tourist around town in crowded areas having their cameras slinging around their necks or shoulders without the hood. Now that is much more dangerous and chances are they will scratch the front element sooner or later.
Just returned a Hoya "HD3" UV filter after one outing at sunset. Flares galore! Like others, I also just ended up insuring my entire kit with a personal articles policy for like $5/month.
Steve: thank you for making this test and providing this video. People who *understand* it will be able to take better decisions about when to use a filter or not. Great work!
Great video, Steve. I can say first hand that i experienced a UV lens breakage when i accidentally dropped my camera bag holding my Nikon 70-200 VR with a UV lens from about 2 feet off the concrete floor. The UV lens cracked and the front threads were damaged/bent. The front element turned out to be alright in the end. I ended up forcing the front thread off the lens and replacing that myself.
i use filters for completely different kind of protection. many old/legacy lenses have very delicate coatings like these in Hasselblad Zeiss V series. these can damaged very easily when cleaning. using any kind of filter eliminates the problem. i use clear filter only in harsh outdoor conditions where lens needs to be cleaned more often. modern digital-era lenses are more resistant to cleaning and in many cases can be serviced so i don't bother.
Fantastic video, I shared it with my camera club. I am a no filter guy, unless the environment calls for it. Dust, water, kids! But everyone has their own choice to make. Shooting about 30 years semi-pro, I have never scratched or broken a front element as I used a hood 100% of the time, and lens cap 100% of the time I am not shooting...
Hi Steve, thanks very much for the comprehensive video. I am pleased that toward the end you did advocate protecting the front lens element when at the coast or in inclement weather conditions. Now I have throughout the years made a qualitative comparison between to UV Haze Filter or not to UV Haze Filter, and I have discovered that using a UV Haze Filter does produce a slight increase in the warmth of colors. Not many of us expect to put our equipment in the precarious situation of having to endure an impact with the G Forces that you so well presented, however there is some comfort in having the filter on. I suppose I could give it a shot and leave off a UV Haze Filter on my most inexpensive lens and see where it takes me. Once again, a wonderful video, and I cannot help but wonder if you might have a formal degree in Mechanical Engineering. Well executed. Regards, Tony
I recently dropped a canon 17-40L + lens hood but no UV filter: Fell front end down, front element fine, zoom and focus rings fine, but the rear mount snapped clean off. Very solidly constructed lens. I think the lens hood saved the front element more than a UV filter would have
While you sortof mentioned obliquely, it should be noted that UV filters are recommended to complete weather sealing (on lenses with rear gaskets)...if you are photographing in wet weather, they are (supposed) to be essential.
I use UV filters on my lenses but never have I believed that it would protect the lens from a violent impact like that. I DO use them for protection though... Having the filter on from day 1, ensures that NO fingers have ever touched the glass of my lens. I can get stains or scratches on my filter and easily swap that and still have mint condition original glass on my lens.
2 year old video but I just want to mention something regarding the protection offered with lens hoods. You say a hood offers physical protection but I think that only applies to lenses with internal zoom and focus or lenses where the hood is Not attached to an extending zoom barrel, such as your 24-70mm. Many other less professional lenses have the hood attached to an extending zoom barrel. The zoom cams for this barrel are critically vulnerable to knocks at the front of the lens. The attached hood then increases the overall length of the lens thereby increasing the possibility of it getting knocked. So yes a hood protects against stray light and maybe smudges and scratches and flying debris, but not against physical damage to lenses with a hood attached to extending zoom or focus barrels. On such lenses a hood actually increases the possibility of internal damage.
Steve...thank you for making this video. I stumbled on to it when it started after watching a Tony Northrup video on the same UV filter subject. You present a much better argument on when to use and not use a filter, the benefits of the filter and disadvantages. In fact, I think some of the flare and ghosting I've seen in some of my photos are a result of the UV filter. As an engineer I appreciate the thought you put into the testing method, the establishing of a baseline altitude and how you maintained many of the variables constant. It was not a pretty effective test and one that generated results I can accept. Besides, it looks like you had way too much fun smashing lenses! lol
Being a "scientist" roughly speaking, I think you do show what you set out to. As to pertinence to everyday life - My concern has been scratching and ease of cleaning the filter in tough situations. Also living in CO I can always hope it helps UV. I had a filter break in a suitcase on a plane once. Lens OK being "saved" doubtful. Had a camera and a $2800 lens fall on a tripod once, everything was OK except the camera. The lens literally ripped the lens mount off -Totaled. Lens and filter OK. Twice, that I know of, I have had the lens hood save the lens. It is amazing how much energy that piece of plastic can absorb when breaking. Many of my colleagues think lens hoods are not cool Ha to them. just tough to turn there polarizer.
I generally don't use filters except polarizing filters, but if it`s really necessary to protect my lenses from dust, sand or sea sprays I use pure but good quality glass filters, which good filter manufacturers are offering
Excellent video, but you missed two points: 1) When people say protect the front element, that does not always mean crashing something into the lens. UV filters are good to avoid mild scratches. 2) During the test to pierce a hole into the paper you will notice that the attached wood blocks tilted quite a bit to carry away most of the force from the impact.
I had an unfiltered WA lens for an underwater housing. It was badly scratched when the camera contacted a sharp rock. I fitted a UV filter after that expensive experience. I would not expect a filter to protect against the drop test but scratching is a greater risk than impact. In fact, an impact ( a blown over tripod for example) is not likely to damage the front element if using a lens hood. So thanks for the video but you have not convinced me of the validity of your experiment.
Ive used filters to actually add lens flares, I think they’re a fun esthetic. Also I’ve never heard of someone thinking a uv filter is going to stop it from being smashed. The filter protects from scratches, bumps and things from getting on the lens.
I have saved several lenses. My 6x7 45mm, my 200mm lens, twice and a zoom I was using. I have also had ghosting issues with filters so there not always ideal.
The was a great video and thank you for putting it together and answering questions about some things that all of us wonder. You took the time to go get the lens to break, the filters, etc and it is much appreciated. I only take exception with one thing and it's in your conclusions in which you think its just anecdotal evidence that the filters broke instead of the lens because they "are much easier to break". Well yes, but they serve as a barrier of breakage when it sits above the lens. Whatever broke the filter might have been prevented from breaking the lens by the mere act of breaking the filter. I am not saying that this happens every time for sure and in reality, I am sure sometimes it is and sometimes it isn't but its definitely at least in the mind, and probably in reality a breakage benefit to have some sort of filter on top of the lens. Especially on action cams and UAV cams, IMHO.
+Up To Level 6 I did actually test the lens and filter combos in the video. I found the breaking point of the lens, attached the filter, dropped the same weight, and the lens was still damaged even with the filter attached. That said, there' nothing wrong with keeping one on your lens for protection from dirt, dust, salt spray, paint, that sort of thing. Just don't think of them as protection from major damage.
Well done Steve. I have been a user of clear coated "protective" filters and have been questioning whether it is worth it for all the reasons you covered. I have broken a couple while switching them out to use a polarizer by dropping them due to too many objects in the hands just as you mentioned in the video. In the future, assuming no significant dust, spray, etc, I will rely and the lens hood and lens cap. Thanks.
Very informative and detailed explaination! I was tempted to say something snide like "just don't drop your lenses". While that's ALWAYS good advice, this video did open my mind to situations where a filter could be useful.
I use to use UV filters for the purpose of keeping things off of the front element including little bumps when I am hiking. Some lenses are listed as requiring a UV filter as a part of their weather sealing. The Canon 16-35mm L for instance but I don't own any of those lenses anymore. Great video and more scientific than the argument of "yes it does" "no it doesn't"
Thank you for sharing your test results. As you mentioned, I have had my lens saved several times, not by the filter, but by the lens hood. However, I had my lens saved once while at Yellowstone photographing Old Faithful. I cleaned the filter shortly after taking the pictures because of the water spray, but the acid in the water had already etched the filter, an expensive Nikon polarizing filter.
The times that I prefer to use a UV/Neutral filter is when I expected to be splashed with water, mud etc. Then I would spin off the filter and photograph.
Great video Steve!! Thanks for taking the time and expense in putting this video together. I was anxious to see how you handled this topic because there are so many tangents to the topic, especially construction and type of the filter and lens which can complicate arriving at a reasonable conclusion. The other videos I've seen addressing the same topic weren't as thorough as your "non-scientific" approach to the topic, lol.
1. Yep mid range or above filter. I have a few really really cheap and nasty filters that do impact image quality significantly. I don't use them at all since discovering that. (But they really were cheap at the time so not the most expensive mistake I've made in my life). 2. Not everywhere is the US. Try getting a repair done on your lens in Australia. It'll be more than $350 to replace (which is more like AUD500 at the moment anyway). Your lens will also be out of action for weeks. And that's IF the camera manufacturer will take on the repair (3rd parties can't get Nikon parts anymore). No thanks. 3. Cost of filters may outweight cost of a single repair or replacement but if your filters keep multiple lenses in better shape for longer it's worth it. Also you can take the filter off and use it on your next lens. 4. Consider the resale value of your lens with vs without a scratch that hasn't made it unusable. I won't be buying lenses from you 2nd hand ;-). Even the ones you don't use for drop tests haven't had a filter on them for the life of the lens. 5. Cleaning in the field isn't a harrowing decision if you're using filters. Overcleaning won't result in scratches - micro, small or large. (You do to your credit address this). 6. Your lens smashing device is completely unrealistic. It only simulates one very rare kind of damage ("frontal impact"). Unless you're working in a construction zone or running through a sea of people who are trying to kill your lens with an umbrella. 7. "This isn't a scientific test" is an understatement. Without a lot of repetitions your tests are absolutely meaningless. You could hit the lens a number of times with the same weight and sometimes it will break and other times it won't. Unless you have a statistically significant number of lenses (hundreds) your tests have little meaning. 8. WHAT A WASTE OF LENSES!
Excellent video Steve! I think the paper might have broken a little more easily is the wood it was taped to was weighed down. It looked like the paper and wood caved it allowing a little impact to be absorbed. If the paper was tight during impact and not allowed to move I think you would have seen the paper much more easily. But, regardless this was an excellent video and I am sure like like myself, many of us wishes would had the time to do something like this testing. Thanks so much for taking the time to do so and for sharing. Much appreciated!
the test is great but.....u need to make sure the free falling distance before the impact is the same to all those lens., that would affect the result a little bit. the gravitational acceration will only matter when the drop height is high. and that is the reason why u cannot break through a paper with few inches height.
In 50 years of pro photography I am pleased to say I have never damaged a lens. However, I have had one incident where I am certain that having a UV filter on a Nikon 18-24 zoom saved the filter thread of the lens. I was shooting pix of my 'new' pride and joy, a Merc 230 CSL cabrio. I'd done a few exterior shots, put the camera on the roof, got into the car and hit the 'lower' button. The roof made a sudden jerk upwards from the front edge and the camera was launched into the air. How stupid can one be? I actually saw it come into view and pass by the full depth of the window. It must have started its fall from about 5'6"/5'8" onto rough tarmac. The impact point was to the edge of the filter, which was was not smashed but badly cracked. The lens and camera have continued to function perfectly. However, I did need to take a fine hacksaw to the filter ring to remove it from the lens. The lens filter thread survived and there's another filter screwed into it. But I agreee that a lens hood is better damage protection but a filter does save a front element from dirt and finger prints.
repeated cleaning of front element washed out a nano coating on it. uv filters protect element from dust. Filters along with Hood are best protector for lens front element. I do not bother much about image quality if it mean only for Instagram.
Yes, I've heard rumours that somebody's uncle's neighbour's brother-in law noticed that UV filters deterorate image quality. xD And I did my own tests, with an average (maybe $50?) MC-coated filter and without it... So, many years ago, the UV filter saved my rather expensive 20mm f/2.0 lens that I accidentally dropped on a pavement from the heigth of about 1m... The filter was dented and cracked, but nothing happened to the lens. I haven't dropped any lens since then, but it happend dozens of times that I was wiping off drops of rain etc. from the filters. Cleaning a filter is so much easier, quicker and safer. Besides, lens hoods and filters serve different purposes. If vignetting is a problem, correcting it in PS/LR takes seconds (or you may use a larger filter and a step-up ring).
I use the UV so I can clean it without worrying so much about ruining the coating. I also think, maybe, the nano-coating on my good filter helped the photos.
After years and years and YEARS of being a photographer, I decided that the one and only kind of filter I occasionally need to use is a very good polarizing filter. All others are just a waste of money. And adding even one more layer of glass over the front lens element of my lens, in the form of a polarizing filter, is almost too damn many layers.
I wish you had tested the degradation of the photo with a really good filter like B+W since that's what most people with a good camera and lens would use. In particular, I'd like to know if it's better to use a clear lens filter as opposed to a UV lens filter. UV lens filters from B+W are a little cheaper so I would use them if it doesn't degrade any more than the clear lens filter. I would never use a Tiffen filter based on the degradation shown in your experiment unless it was in a filthy, dirty environment. I prefer a good lens filter outdoors just to keep my lens clean.
I don't use UV filters, but I do use polarizing and ND filters. Twice I have fallen(waterfalls and slick rocks) and I did NOT have the hood mounted. Shattered the filters both times and boogered up the threads on the lens. Otherwise the lens was fine. You think I would have learned after the first time.
another point is the "instant clean" option of unscrewing a filter. if you work with animals or kids with dirty fingers, you would be surprised on how great it is to be able to clean the filter with sand/crap on it with a cloth on the spot (without worrying with scratching the lens) or just to be able to unscrew it and have a mint lens front element ready to shoot.
GAHH, that's so true with big lenses. They are little kid magnets.
The first time I took out my 600 mm in the wild, brand new, some little sh*t at the nature conservancy ran up and put his fingers directly on the UV filter.
I was actually angry at the mother for playing dumb about not controlling her kid, no effort to tell her boy not to do that, not caring about respecting others' property. Not even an apology from either.
For the sake of cleaning, it's much better to clear a pricey filter than an expensive objective, especially out in the woods where sap can drop from trees, bits of branches fall randomly, contact is made in brush and cobwebs, and there's dust.
The point of UV filters is mistakenly thought to be the protection of the front element against impact damage.
The actual point of the filter is to protect the element against the slow wear of constant cleaning! When the front element is coated, and most of them are, the coating is much more prone to scratching and hazing overtime than the glass itself. Unavoidably, even with activated carbon cleaning sponges (like the lenspen) one is using mild abrasives to clean the element. At some point and if one cleans the lens very often, it becomes more and more likely to scratch or haze the front element, especially when using the lens in harsh environments where sand is a possibility.
Having a uv filter on there means you can afford to pay lens attention to the cleanliness of the lens and clean it quicker and less carefully than if you had no filter on. And if you scratch it or damage it it is 'quicker", "simpler" and cheaper to replace the filter. So a scratch on the lens doesn't mean you have to go without a lens for a while.
A drop is a drop... no uv filter will save your internals from damage.
Not saying you HAVE to use them. Just saying what the actuall point of the uv filter is
You nailed it bro. I have another reason, sometimes i'm shooting kids and how they play in water and often my UV is splatted with water, I can quickly remove UV and shoot again.
Unless you shoot film
I think that was kind of thepoint at the eand. easier to clean in harsh weather... That said... replacing a front element damaged by repeated cleanind (And Im sure you gotta clean the hell out of it for years) might cost cheaper than a fleet of UV filters....
Exactly.
Just watched the video as I want to buy some filter protection and when I saw all the tests I was like yea thats cool but I dont need impact protection man lol. I just dont want my lens directly exposed in some situations.
I tried this at home with all my lenses and you are correct.😢
😂😂😂😂😂
Just watched this again. Great info. At the risk of being called a pixel peeper, I have noted image degradation with UV filters with all but the best filters. Doing a lot of bird photography often requires significant cropping so I do use B+W filters almost exclusively. That said, I use UV filters primarily to protect the front element from dust/moisture as I would rather clean a filter than a front element. By the way, your wildlife book is top notch. I am on my third read. Casey
Well said! Best protection is to use the lens hood, always!
Great video and I'm firmly in the "no" camp for UV filters - with one caveat.
If you read the manual on many lenses they actually state that the weatherproofing built into the lens is only complete when a filter is fitted. So, if you're out and about and need the weatherproofing, you will also need some kind of filter on the front of your lens.
Yeah I only use a protection filter in really bad conditions to protect from dust, sand and dirt. Otherwise it stays off
A couple of months ago, I dropped my Fujifilm X100T on a concrete sidewalk. The camera landed on the cheap third-party lens hood and the camera was not damaged in any way. I invested another 12 bucks in a new hood and everything is as good as new. The bit of advice about lens hoods, at the end of the video, is right on the mark IMHO.
8 years later - this is still the most comprehensive thing I have seen about camera filters today(2024), aside from the 2017 article by lensrentals that measured light transmission.
I realize it's not entirely scientific, but it is still WAY more effort I have seen anyone put into researching this and I appreciate it so much.
Because I grew up in a photography studio owned by my father, I've always just purchased a clear glass filter when buying a new lens.. Nikon or Hoya... I just figured that's what you do. I want to thank you Steve, I think I'm going to remove them.... heck, the lens hood is probably protection enough. Your demo showing that filterless lens shots actually have more data in them is important to me. Going unprotected starting today. Thumbs up on this video... have a great day!
Frederick Dunn going raw
yeah, me too. I ditched the filters, and they are ugly too.
I still use a UV filter to help give some protection the front element from liquids ,dust, sand, oil from fingers, small scratches, rain etc.
A lens filter saved my kit lens when the husband dropped my camera off of a table while on holiday. I was so mad at him, but it saved him a fair amount of money!
Jeffrey Vaughan p
Yes! And when needed, just take filter off to max out image quality, thEn replace. This keeps them much cleaner thAn sans filter. Next round of q's: which filters affect images the least? Which filters help image quality more thAn they degrade it? Or, if they never help, thEn are hydrophobic lenses worth their cost in keeping lenses dry? Etc.
I use a Hoya Pro 1 protective filter. Of course its not meant to protect a lens from this kinda force. Alone cleaning the front lens will degrade it over time. With a filter you don't have to clean it that often.
Another excellent video. Thanks for all the time, effort, and money you put into doing these tests for us. Never saw anyone else do anything like this. Your videos are the best! Keep up the good work!
Any thin piece of flat glass will easily shatter with a direct impact. One thing that you didn't test for, and no-one seemed to comment on: was that from my experience, the majority of lens drops result in front edge impacts, not with the face of the front element. I've dropped a Pentax 645 (film) from +3 feet, onto a hardwood floor, and only the front filter bit it. The aluminum ring of the filter absorbed the impact, and the camera/lens was fine.
As others have mentioned, I really use the filters as a first line of defence against grit, dirt, grease, sand, etc. I'm sorry, but when I've forked over +$2000.00 for premium glass, I believe a modest investment ($70.00-$100.00) in a top of the line, brass rimmed, schott glass MC filter is more than worth it. And when selling, I'm able to advertise the glass as "100% perfect/as new" condition, without the slightest imperfection. Priceless. ;~)
+Patrick McKay I did do a drop test and I do mention that filters can save lens threads.
Very interesting. Thanks for the video and all the work and destruction that went into making or... de-making it! ;-)
I don't think the comparison to paper as any kind of a reference works here because the paper is flexible, stretched across a larger area, suspended by 3.5x3.5" wood blocks that are not fixed/rigid. This means that when your shuttle rod hits it, the paper is pushed down, pulling horizontally on the edges of the paper along it's length and strong axis, and pulls the blocks inward at the top. This dissipates the shuttles impact and provides a lot of dampening and thus it takes much more force to break through the paper than it would if you had the paper suspended (and glued) over a smaller area to a fixed support, like say a round metal hoop atop your steel pipe base. Then your shuttle rod would punch through very easily from a much lower drop.
Unlike paper, glass is very rigid and brittle. it will crack and break easily with frontal impacts. It does provide great strength parallel to its surface though and can distribute impact around the ring when a lens is impacted at the front from the side. (I've had a lens drop where this in fact happened and it did save my lens from serious front end bending).
For what it's worth, I use filters just because I can easily clean them with my shirt and not worry about scratches cleaning or small impacts/abrasions in the field. I've had two lenses damaged that way and none of 7 lenses in 20 years since using a filter as light protection.
Thanks again.
Excellent video Steve! I gave up my UV filters several years ago due to lens flare and, it seems to me, a little bit of degradation. Also, I have insurance for my gear and it didn't make sense to put up with the hassle. I do still carry them for the same reasons you stated in your conclusions. If I'm wiping water spray off my lens every shot because of wave spray, it just seems easier to do that with the filter. When I started out, I had a lens fall from the back floor of the car, onto the road and the filter cracked. At the time, I thought it had probably done it's job but I think your test prove otherwise. Neat video.
+Craig Sterken Thanks Craig - Yup, they have their uses, especially in those lake superior waves :)
My personal experience is that in the one mishap I had, our dog pulled the camera off our coffee table onto a tile floor because the camera strap was hung over the side of the table. In this case, the UV filter took the brunt of the fall with the glass cracking, and the filter edge getting bent. Because the filter would not screw out of the lens, I had to cut out the metal ring carefully with some wire cutters and bend it inwards away from the lens threads. Once I did that, I was able to screw another UV filter into the lens without any issues. My lens suffered no damage thankfully.
Several suggestions / learnings from this video that I completely agree with are: 1) use a lens hood whenever possible to protect the lens. 2) Dont stack filters, and 3) remove the UV filter when shooting at night.
Thank you.
I agree a UV filter offers only slight advantage to breakage and may degrade the image slightly. I expect flare from the filter as well because it is the front element. However, I use one to protect the lens and on occasion my polarizer from fumes and steam. I was in Yellowstone shooting geysers close up. If you have ever done that you will discover three things 1) no matter how long you wait, a geyser will not erupt until you start walking away 2) the steam always wafts to you and 3) you are surrounded by many people without regard to and completely unconscious of your presence (they just want to stand where you are). I did not want to take a chance with the front element of my lens. The steam is highly mineralized, I cannot say what effect it may have on the lens coating exactly but it could precipitate a difficult to remove mineral coating on it and I don't want to unnecessarily risk damage to my polarizer. So in effect I use a UV to protect may lens and will stack one over the polarizer. In both cases I could live with image degradation. Bear in mind there are no camera stores in Yellowstone, nor in the vicinity. Any camera related "stuff" at the "trading post" is over priced and under powered, especially SD cards. I liked your test equipment, I would add that instead of a metal bar, fix a piece of granite or limestone to the device and try the test again. In my experience I have noticed that the rim of the filter gets scratched from sitting down and letting the camera drag across a rock or bench. I think better that than the rim of the lens itself. Instead of a lens cap, I think the UV offers protection to the occasional branch swipe when hiking through dense foliage. I have yet to break one that way, but I have gotten pine tree resin or other crud on it. And I've lost a fair amount of snap on lens caps. Anyway that's why I would recommend a UV or clear filter.
great vídeo, I know that a filter won't save my lens but I still use them to store them without caps because I'm lazy and to avoid scratches. I hate scratches on my lenses
Thanks for the time and expense of doing these tests. I thankfully have not dropped any of my lenses such that the front of the lens hits an object at 90 degrees to the surface of the front of the lens/filter combo. I have on a few occasions banged the edge of the front of the lens with a filter attached and only the edge of the filter was crunched with zero damage to the lens proper. Of course this is only an advantage if I later decide to sell the lens since the lens worked just fine afterward. Also I have occasioned to have the front of the lens brush up against a branch while out in the field shooting birds and although it likely would not have damaged the front element of the lens it gave me psychological comfort in knowing that it didn't damage the coating on the front element of the lens.
All the above said I've found that the biggest drawback is the occasional flare and associated light reflections connected with using a filter. Thus, that part of your test has given me good reason to seriously consider leaving the filter off altogether or at the minimum removing it when shooting scenes where there's a good chance of flare.
Thanks Steve, your videos are amazingly useful.
Zero dislikes on a RUclips video is an evidence of quality and a sign of respect for your work!
Breaking all these lens makes me sad. :(
+Michael Davidson Same =(
+Michael Davidson I know. I had to stop watching.
I get how that can make a person sad, however to cheer yourself up, imagine all the lens factories making new lenses every second, replenishing the world with new and better lenses every day. He was probably breaking old outdated lenses that weren't worth much. A waste yes but a very tiny waste
Yeah, watching those lens break hurt me
They're 5-dollar ,useless lenses, right?
Great video Steve. It lends support to what I've had to learn myself.
I only wish I'd known all this 5 years ago when I took up photography after retiring and spending a lot of money on expensive UV filters. I also thought I had to protect my lenses - Insurance is more important.
However, I also gave them up about 2 years ago for similar reasons (increased flaring, reflections and vignetting) and use sparingly when needed.
Thanks
I use a Nikon clear filter on some of my lens depending on the application. I also use the lens hood since it provides protection from accidental dings and pings.I see quite a bit of work to produce this video. Thank you for all the hard work and sharing.
Just don't walk around places where there are metal rods flying around. Problem solved.
I agree! Using a rod for testing is not a real life situation! It reminded me of when car thieves use a sparkplug to break a car window! Most dropped lenses will fall onto a flat surface. If the lens landed on a stone or pebble then yes the effect might be the same as this test.
@@RWvideoproductions ....yep! last saturday, a catastrophic tripod fail ( my bad -not the fine Oben carbon fiber tripod's - overweighted and slung over my shoulder ) caused my Nikkor 200-500mm lens to land on the corner (do round things have corners?) of a singh-ray circular polarizer. All propelled to the ground by the added weight of a D850. The filter cracked like thin ice. The lens, however only suffered the separation of the ring which the filter screws into and a crack in the plastic. It still seems to work fine. Same for the 850 short of the hot shoe bracket being bent all to (expletive deleted). PLEASE NIKON!!! OPEN UP YOUR SERVICE CENTER!! ( I have another lens that filter will fit onto - im going to try some shattered filter pictures hahaha!)
One situation where I like to use a protector filter, is when I go to photograph birds or seals at the beach. I often photograph near the surf and I prefer not to have to clean salt off the front element of my lens. In all other situations, I don't use filters for protection, but in all situations, I use lens hoods for protection.
The only time I use a UV filter is when I'm walking around in a crowded city or shooting at the beach to protect the lens from sea mist. Any other times the filter is off and the lens hood is on.
This is a GREAT video and test! Thank you!
One point that Steve that did not cover is the likelihood of damaging your lens from a busted filter, as shown these filters crack and shatter very easily, I have seen a number of cases where these glass shards have scratched lens coating. For example a very minor side impact that breaks the filter could lead to a scratched lens from the glass shards, even though there was no front impact. I agree with Steve, I don't use them unless the environment dictates it.
+Brendan Davey I have heard of this happening from multiple sources, but it didn't happen in the tests. I didn't mention want to mention it one way or the other since I really didn't do any specific tests for it, although I totally think it's possible and I trust the people who have told me that they have had it happen. I CAN say a busted up filter leaves a LOT of sharp glass sitting on the front of the lens - and a lot of that is very small. Even if the filter didn't scratch the lens at the time it broke, you'd have to be exceedingly careful while cleaning the glass off not to scratch it. So, good point :)
+Brendan Davey Happened to me. Nikon 24-70 tipped over and filter broke scratching the front element. I pretty much don't use them anymore. Of course I had just removed the hood which would have saved the day.
Well done, Steve. Thank you for your time, effort, and expense to accomplish this test. I purchased UV filters for each lens in my kit when I bought them. They are coming off only to be used for the types of situations you mentioned. Not to fault photo gear shops but UV filters for new lenses are offered up like the add-ons they put on a new car. It is a means of making a bit more money in this age of thin profit margins however, as you've proven, they do not do accomplish their intended role.
Excellent video. If I'm working around drills and engineering equipment I don't think I'll bother with a filter. But at the beach, outback, or working fast (stuffing lenses in/out pouches), or confined heavy-traffic areas - I'll still use a filter. If I'm on a job and the lens gets scratched, I go home and lose a client. If I scratch a filter, I take it off and keep shooting, happy client pays the bill and I buy another filter.
First Steve, I’m a big fan. I like your reviews better than anybody’s but this one is ridiculous. No one is trying to protect their lens from flying bullets. It’s the greasy fingers, grit and everything else that finds it’s way onto that beautifully polished piece of glass leading the way to your subject. A filter is a removable, and or disposable barrier that shields the most vulnerable part of your lens from all that crap and when it becomes fouled and you need to get your shot, you can quickly set it aside exposing a pristine piece of glass ready to clearly capture the moment. No need to rush trying to clean the filter till an opportunity presents itself. As you said, it’s almost impossible to tell the difference between pictures taken with or without one with the exception of shooting directly into harsh light. That’s where the filter comes off, or buy a good one. But not to close negatively, I really do appreciate the good work you do.
Of more interest to most people is the protection capacity of these
thin multi-coated slivers of optical glass. I've been using Platinum multicoated filters on all my lenses for a couple of years, but I never expected to have a 'UV filter saved my camera lens' story. Recently, however I accidentally
dropped a heavy molded plastic figurine from the top of my desktop
'hutch'. Naturally, it fell directly onto my Nikon D7200, lying lens
straight up, with cap on. The figurine, a heavy 'Gargoyle' broke into
pieces on impact, putting a deep gouge into the Nikon lens cap, and
popping the filter glass out of its frame. The front element of the
lens, however, was completely undamaged...the filter frame dissipating
all of the energy of the impact...even the glass filter was unbroken!
So, yes...using a protective UV filter CAN save your precious lens from a
direct frontal assault!
Nicely done! I agree with your conclusion to use one when it's beneficial for some reason. There are accident scenarios that folks come up with on either side of this argument that support having a filter on or not. Your testing demonstrates that lenses are pretty tough without needing a filter. I have never damaged a lens (or a filter) but, I have taken pictures only to discover flare or ghosting off the back of a filter that I didn't account for when I took the shot. Your test demonstrates the risk of damaging a front element is not as high as one might think.
Glass is really hard to scratch. Just for fun I just checked and I don't see any scratches on my front storm door pane and it's been up for a couple of years. I guarantee it has been bumped numerous times with things I wouldn't get close to a lens with.
I would still use some filter, just to protect the front element from tiny abrasive particles like sand etc, to protect from scratches etc
Cheaper to replace a scratched filter then repair a scratched lens
+David Good Aye! A scratched lens is more apt to happen than a smashed lens.
+David Good unless the filter is softer than the front element and therefore more susceptible to scratching.
Alan Klughammer With the filter being mounted in front of the front element, doesn't this make it ultimately susceptible to ANY type of damage regardless of it's scratch resistance?
+Bill Hughes Yes, the filter (if mounted) will always be scratched before the lens is damaged, however if the filter is more susceptible to damage than the front element of the lens, it will degrade image quality in situations where no damage would occur if no filter was present. In other words, sometimes having a filter mounted will result in MORE damage to picture quality than having on filter mounted.
Note I said damage to picture quality because none of the situations described above will result in damage to the lens.The argument presented in the video is against the people who say it is ALWAYS better to have a filter mounted on your lens.
+Alan Klughammer I agree - Also, another user commented that another consideration is that if the filters scratch easier then the lens, you could presumably have to buy filters several expensive filters over the life of the lens. I'm planning a follow up video to this one and I might test for that.
If you come from an astronomical optics background you get this type of advice (from Sky&Telescope) on cleaning optics:
"The acids in skin oil can attack optical coatings over time." and " Cleaning causes tiny scratches, or sleeks, if you don’t do it right, and maybe even if you do. A few sleeks don’t matter, but a lot of them will. So clean your telescope optics rarely."
The optics on telescopes are diffraction limited and I would speculate the telescope and eyepiece coatings are of much higher optical quality than on photographic lenses. So while photographic lenses can probably take more abuse without seeing noticeable image degradation over time I still use UV filters during general use for the above reasons but would take them off when pointing the camera at the night sky. I never even considered their use as protection against impact.
I did a very amateur test of the Hoya EV0 and HD3 UV filters against optical targets with a light bulb in the frame. I could not see any difference in the detail in the targets with either filter. The lens by itself had some blooming around the light bulb. The blooming increased very slightly with the EV0 filter. The blooming was much larger and quite noticeable with the HD3 filter which was interesting.
Man... I wish I saw your video before buying all those UV filters.
Great job, so far you are the only one who did real experiments to prove how much more fragile those filters are compared to the front element.
The best "insurance" against an impact on the lens face would be a lens "cushion" instead of a filter screwed into the filter threads. After seeing this demonstration, I'm still going to use a UV filter generally, and take it off when there's a clear (see what I did there?) reason to go without.
His final point is definitely valid. Don't chuck the UV filter, it really does protect from the elements, blowing sand, dusty conditions, or, if you ever shoot something like a color run, you BETTER have a UV filter on (not to mention your whole camera covered somehow...)!
I had a Nikon 18-55mm kit lens attached to my camera drop about a foot and one half onto a living room carpet. Since the camera landed on the edge of the filter, the filter broke from being bowed out of round. The glass pieces actually nicked that lens although it was nothing serious. Filters are easy to break by hitting their edges when screwed on and that breakage can actually scratch the lens. Just another reason to use a lens hood or not use UV filters. Just don't attach the lens hood to the UV filter or it could break from a 45 or 90 degree angle as well unless they are bayonet mounted. Obviously more severe drops can impact lens focusing and zooming mechanisms too. I must admit I use UV filters to keep my lenses clean and that's the only good reason to use them. Rather have a dirty filter than scratch the front element while cleaning it!
Great video Steve! I strongly suspected what you have so clearly shown, but nevertheless still use UV filters quite a bit to avoid having to clean the front element too often. It makes sense to take them off when it is safe to do so. I did have an experience taking match-flare pictures where the sulphur sparks stuck to, and damaged, a UV filter on my macro lens, and I was very glad that I had it on. I had another experience where my lens hood saved my 70-200 f2.8 when it fell off the front of my camera onto concrete! They make excellent shock absorbers..Keep up the great work, there's nothing like your stuff for Nikon wildlife shooters elsewhere! Cheers, Robin.
Steve - When I worked at a camera store many years ago in another lifetime, there were spiffs for selling filters at list price. Two bucks in your pocket for every filter at list. Now, this was in the late 70's, but making hourly plus commission plus spiffs like that did add up. Sometimes it's all I can do to keep from throttling the sales persons and Samy's and sometimes, I can't help myself when they're just outright lying to their customers.
This is truly excellent. This is one of the most honest/unbias videos I have seen. My experience is exactly the same. I see no significant differences in sharpness when a quality filter is used. Tiffen is generally pretty poor performing. B+W, Hoya, and Nikon Neutral Clear perform much better. In shooting conditions with direct sources of light filters will introduce more flaring then a naked lens and should be removed; even the best ones. The impact test is interesting, but are people really worried about impact protection? My understanding is nobody is using a filter for impact protection. I use a filter when shooting outdoors. It is worth the money in those situations. Especially when you are shooting in the desert where there is a lot of dust or dirt or on the beach with sand and salt. It's easier to remove the filter, rinse under water if necessary and then clean. B+W MRC Nano are exceptional here. They are very easy to clean. Much easier than the front element. Whether you use a clear filter, uv or polarizer doesn't matter if your intent is outdoor shooting and easy cleaning. Of course, each of those filters is different.
The filter allows the AR coating on the front element of the lens to remain in pristine condition. It also prevents casual scratching. It's not about catastrophic breakage.... Much easier\better to replace a filter every once and a while than live with a marred front element.
They sure protected my lens. A friend took my camera to get a photo of my wife and I and his wife. Then, on the handoff, the lens slipped and dropped. It landed right on the front edge. I unscrewed the broken UV filter, NOTHING ELSE WAS WRONG, and as soon as I could find a camera store, I replaced the filter. So, yeah, I've been using filters since 1977, and this was the only time I ever took advantage of "the protection factor," and I always shall.
On some lenses like the Canon 50mm 1.2 you need a UV filter to get the weather sealing.
About sharpness is also worth asking, what is best:
A mint front element with all its coatings and a new uv filter
or a naked lens that has been cleaned so many times that the front element coating is all cracked and missing on the center?....
+Bruno Lazaro As tough as lens coatings are these days, that takes a heck of lot of psychotic rubbing with a very dirty cloth.
@@kirkdarling4120 I refuse to believe how fucking stupid you are lol
I once cracked a brand new Hoya Infrared filter (46mm) from a 10cm drop on a wood table.
Yes you read it right, 10 cm drop
I think you missed the point of protective UV filters though, they're protection against scratches and for ease of cleaning, not drop...
Great info in your videos but you talk so fast it's hard to keep up.....just saying
@@valhogan1758 Options => playback speed => 0.75, problem solved.
Personally I don't mind at all.
I always use lens hoods so am not worried about impact damage. I DO worry about smears, dust & stuff like pollen. The answer for me is to remove protective filters for many low light shots to cut out reflections but to also buy decent filters for decent lenses. Many photographers use square filter systems rather than screw-on ones anyway. Why do filters attach by threads anyway? Couldn't bayonet be made low-profile?
for my DSLR, I don't use one for the reason you state, but I use a mirrorless for cycling. It has a pancake and I slide the camera into my pocket where it gets sweaty and sand on it etc on it all the time -- the filter has been a great move for that use case.
Steve, I find your delivery style and information provided very enjoyable and useful. Concise and well-paced. Keep up the great work.
I use the filters more for scratch protection rather than impact but I do remove for night pics. Like the vid tho !!
I remember I purchased a UV filter from B+W for my 35mm F1.8. The filter cost I think almost half the price of the lens :) As I recall the filter was used maybe 3-4 times. Lens hood always on. End of story.
What I find funny is when I see tourist around town in crowded areas having their cameras slinging around their necks or shoulders without the hood. Now that is much more dangerous and chances are they will scratch the front element sooner or later.
Just returned a Hoya "HD3" UV filter after one outing at sunset. Flares galore! Like others, I also just ended up insuring my entire kit with a personal articles policy for like $5/month.
You may have said it wasn't scientific, but you did some science in this video. So you get a like from me.
Steve: thank you for making this test and providing this video. People who *understand* it will be able to take better decisions about when to use a filter or not. Great work!
Great video, Steve. I can say first hand that i experienced a UV lens breakage when i accidentally dropped my camera bag holding my Nikon 70-200 VR with a UV lens from about 2 feet off the concrete floor. The UV lens cracked and the front threads were damaged/bent. The front element turned out to be alright in the end. I ended up forcing the front thread off the lens and replacing that myself.
I think the biggest problem with UV/protective filters is that they tend to make lens flare a lot more noticeable.
i use filters for completely different kind of protection. many old/legacy lenses have very delicate coatings like these in Hasselblad Zeiss V series. these can damaged very easily when cleaning. using any kind of filter eliminates the problem. i use clear filter only in harsh outdoor conditions where lens needs to be cleaned more often. modern digital-era lenses are more resistant to cleaning and in many cases can be serviced so i don't bother.
Fantastic video, I shared it with my camera club. I am a no filter guy, unless the environment calls for it. Dust, water, kids! But everyone has their own choice to make. Shooting about 30 years semi-pro, I have never scratched or broken a front element as I used a hood 100% of the time, and lens cap 100% of the time I am not shooting...
Hi Steve, thanks very much for the comprehensive video. I am pleased that toward the end you did advocate protecting the front lens element when at the coast or in inclement weather conditions. Now I have throughout the years made a qualitative comparison between to UV Haze Filter or not to UV Haze Filter, and I have discovered that using a UV Haze Filter does produce a slight increase in the warmth of colors. Not many of us expect to put our equipment in the precarious situation of having to endure an impact with the G Forces that you so well presented, however there is some comfort in having the filter on. I suppose I could give it a shot and leave off a UV Haze Filter on my most inexpensive lens and see where it takes me. Once again, a wonderful video, and I cannot help but wonder if you might have a formal degree in Mechanical Engineering. Well executed.
Regards,
Tony
I recently dropped a canon 17-40L + lens hood but no UV filter: Fell front end down, front element fine, zoom and focus rings fine, but the rear mount snapped clean off. Very solidly constructed lens. I think the lens hood saved the front element more than a UV filter would have
While you sortof mentioned obliquely, it should be noted that UV filters are recommended to complete weather sealing (on lenses with rear gaskets)...if you are photographing in wet weather, they are (supposed) to be essential.
I use UV filters on my lenses but never have I believed that it would protect the lens from a violent impact like that. I DO use them for protection though... Having the filter on from day 1, ensures that NO fingers have ever touched the glass of my lens. I can get stains or scratches on my filter and easily swap that and still have mint condition original glass on my lens.
2 year old video but I just want to mention something regarding the protection offered with lens hoods.
You say a hood offers physical protection but I think that only applies to lenses with internal zoom and focus or lenses where the hood is Not attached to an extending zoom barrel, such as your 24-70mm. Many other less professional lenses have the hood attached to an extending zoom barrel. The zoom cams for this barrel are critically vulnerable to knocks at the front of the lens. The attached hood then increases the overall length of the lens thereby increasing the possibility of it getting knocked.
So yes a hood protects against stray light and maybe smudges and scratches and flying debris, but not against physical damage to lenses with a hood attached to extending zoom or focus barrels. On such lenses a hood actually increases the possibility of internal damage.
Excellent, if a bit long winded ;) video. Matches my own experiences during 35 years of editorial photography. Good work!
+Craig Hartley LOL Yeah, I really wanted to make it shorter, just had too much to say.
Steve...thank you for making this video. I stumbled on to it when it started after watching a Tony Northrup video on the same UV filter subject. You present a much better argument on when to use and not use a filter, the benefits of the filter and disadvantages. In fact, I think some of the flare and ghosting I've seen in some of my photos are a result of the UV filter. As an engineer I appreciate the thought you put into the testing method, the establishing of a baseline altitude and how you maintained many of the variables constant. It was not a pretty effective test and one that generated results I can accept. Besides, it looks like you had way too much fun smashing lenses! lol
Being a "scientist" roughly speaking, I think you do show what you set out to. As to pertinence to everyday life - My concern has been scratching and ease of cleaning the filter in tough situations. Also living in CO I can always hope it helps UV. I had a filter break in a suitcase on a plane once. Lens OK being "saved" doubtful. Had a camera and a $2800 lens fall on a tripod once, everything was OK except the camera. The lens literally ripped the lens mount off -Totaled. Lens and filter OK. Twice, that I know of, I have had the lens hood save the lens. It is amazing how much energy that piece of plastic can absorb when breaking. Many of my colleagues think lens hoods are not cool Ha to them. just tough to turn there polarizer.
I generally don't use filters except polarizing filters, but if it`s really necessary to protect my lenses from dust, sand or sea sprays I use pure but good quality glass filters, which good filter manufacturers are offering
Excellent video, but you missed two points:
1) When people say protect the front element, that does not always mean crashing something into the lens. UV filters are good to avoid mild scratches.
2) During the test to pierce a hole into the paper you will notice that the attached wood blocks tilted quite a bit to carry away most of the force from the impact.
+Shakil Mahbub Hussain so the lens that doesn't scratch as easily as a UV filter from impact is going to scratch more from light brushing?
+kingalias why take the chance?
I had an unfiltered WA lens for an underwater housing. It was badly scratched when the camera contacted a sharp rock. I fitted a UV filter after that expensive experience. I would not expect a filter to protect against the drop test but scratching is a greater risk than impact. In fact, an impact ( a blown over tripod for example) is not likely to damage the front element if using a lens hood.
So thanks for the video but you have not convinced me of the validity of your experiment.
Ive used filters to actually add lens flares, I think they’re a fun esthetic.
Also I’ve never heard of someone thinking a uv filter is going to stop it from being smashed. The filter protects from scratches, bumps and things from getting on the lens.
I have saved several lenses. My 6x7 45mm, my 200mm lens, twice and a zoom I was using. I have also had ghosting issues with filters so there not always ideal.
The was a great video and thank you for putting it together and answering questions about some things that all of us wonder. You took the time to go get the lens to break, the filters, etc and it is much appreciated. I only take exception with one thing and it's in your conclusions in which you think its just anecdotal evidence that the filters broke instead of the lens because they "are much easier to break". Well yes, but they serve as a barrier of breakage when it sits above the lens. Whatever broke the filter might have been prevented from breaking the lens by the mere act of breaking the filter. I am not saying that this happens every time for sure and in reality, I am sure sometimes it is and sometimes it isn't but its definitely at least in the mind, and probably in reality a breakage benefit to have some sort of filter on top of the lens. Especially on action cams and UAV cams, IMHO.
+Up To Level 6 I did actually test the lens and filter combos in the video. I found the breaking point of the lens, attached the filter, dropped the same weight, and the lens was still damaged even with the filter attached. That said, there' nothing wrong with keeping one on your lens for protection from dirt, dust, salt spray, paint, that sort of thing. Just don't think of them as protection from major damage.
Well done Steve. I have been a user of clear coated "protective" filters and have been questioning whether it is worth it for all the reasons you covered. I have broken a couple while switching them out to use a polarizer by dropping them due to too many objects in the hands just as you mentioned in the video. In the future, assuming no significant dust, spray, etc, I will rely and the lens hood and lens cap. Thanks.
Very informative and detailed explaination! I was tempted to say something snide like "just don't drop your lenses". While that's ALWAYS good advice, this video did open my mind to situations where a filter could be useful.
I use to use UV filters for the purpose of keeping things off of the front element including little bumps when I am hiking. Some lenses are listed as requiring a UV filter as a part of their weather sealing. The Canon 16-35mm L for instance but I don't own any of those lenses anymore. Great video and more scientific than the argument of "yes it does" "no it doesn't"
Thank you for covering the filter thread aspect. I don't see many use that argument for UV filters.
Thank you for sharing your test results. As you mentioned, I have had my lens saved several times, not by the filter, but by the lens hood. However, I had my lens saved once while at Yellowstone photographing Old Faithful. I cleaned the filter shortly after taking the pictures because of the water spray, but the acid in the water had already etched the filter, an expensive Nikon polarizing filter.
In my experience of 30+ years of sports photography and photojournalism, lens hoods deflect almost every threat to a lens.
The times that I prefer to use a UV/Neutral filter is when I expected to be splashed with water, mud etc. Then I would spin off the filter and photograph.
Great video Steve!! Thanks for taking the time and expense in putting this video together. I was anxious to see how you handled this topic because there are so many tangents to the topic, especially construction and type of the filter and lens which can complicate arriving at a reasonable conclusion. The other videos I've seen addressing the same topic weren't as thorough as your "non-scientific" approach to the topic, lol.
1. Yep mid range or above filter. I have a few really really cheap and nasty filters that do impact image quality significantly. I don't use them at all since discovering that. (But they really were cheap at the time so not the most expensive mistake I've made in my life).
2. Not everywhere is the US. Try getting a repair done on your lens in Australia. It'll be more than $350 to replace (which is more like AUD500 at the moment anyway). Your lens will also be out of action for weeks. And that's IF the camera manufacturer will take on the repair (3rd parties can't get Nikon parts anymore). No thanks.
3. Cost of filters may outweight cost of a single repair or replacement but if your filters keep multiple lenses in better shape for longer it's worth it. Also you can take the filter off and use it on your next lens.
4. Consider the resale value of your lens with vs without a scratch that hasn't made it unusable. I won't be buying lenses from you 2nd hand ;-). Even the ones you don't use for drop tests haven't had a filter on them for the life of the lens.
5. Cleaning in the field isn't a harrowing decision if you're using filters. Overcleaning won't result in scratches - micro, small or large. (You do to your credit address this).
6. Your lens smashing device is completely unrealistic. It only simulates one very rare kind of damage ("frontal impact"). Unless you're working in a construction zone or running through a sea of people who are trying to kill your lens with an umbrella.
7. "This isn't a scientific test" is an understatement. Without a lot of repetitions your tests are absolutely meaningless. You could hit the lens a number of times with the same weight and sometimes it will break and other times it won't. Unless you have a statistically significant number of lenses (hundreds) your tests have little meaning.
8. WHAT A WASTE OF LENSES!
Excellent video Steve! I think the paper might have broken a little more easily is the wood it was taped to was weighed down. It looked like the paper and wood caved it allowing a little impact to be absorbed. If the paper was tight during impact and not allowed to move I think you would have seen the paper much more easily. But, regardless this was an excellent video and I am sure like like myself, many of us wishes would had the time to do something like this testing. Thanks so much for taking the time to do so and for sharing. Much appreciated!
the test is great but.....u need to make sure the free falling distance before the impact is the same to all those lens., that would affect the result a little bit. the gravitational acceration will only matter when the drop height is high. and that is the reason why u cannot break through a paper with few inches height.
In 50 years of pro photography I am pleased to say I have never damaged a lens. However, I have had one incident where I am certain that having a UV filter on a Nikon 18-24 zoom saved the filter thread of the lens.
I was shooting pix of my 'new' pride and joy, a Merc 230 CSL cabrio. I'd done a few exterior shots, put the camera on the roof, got into the car and hit the 'lower' button. The roof made a sudden jerk upwards from the front edge and the camera was launched into the air. How stupid can one be? I actually saw it come into view and pass by the full depth of the window. It must have started its fall from about 5'6"/5'8" onto rough tarmac.
The impact point was to the edge of the filter, which was was not smashed but badly cracked. The lens and camera have continued to function perfectly. However, I did need to take a fine hacksaw to the filter ring to remove it from the lens. The lens filter thread survived and there's another filter screwed into it.
But I agreee that a lens hood is better damage protection but a filter does save a front element from dirt and finger prints.
This might be a stupid question but I’m curious.
Can you scratch your lens while putting on your lens cap?
I've never heard of it happening, at least not with plastic caps. The lens coating is far more durable than most people think :)
Thanks a lot Steve for the wonderful detailed explanation of the matter! Very helpful! God bless you man!
imo... sands.. dust.. moisture... acid rain.. welding sparks.. paint.. uv filters can cover the front element at least..
Great video Steve ! Amazing ! Thx - it answers a lot of my questions. Keep going!!
repeated cleaning of front element washed out a nano coating on it. uv filters protect element from dust. Filters along with Hood are best protector for lens front element. I do not bother much about image quality if it mean only for Instagram.
Yes, I've heard rumours that somebody's uncle's neighbour's brother-in law noticed that UV filters deterorate image quality. xD And I did my own tests, with an average (maybe $50?) MC-coated filter and without it... So, many years ago, the UV filter saved my rather expensive 20mm f/2.0 lens that I accidentally dropped on a pavement from the heigth of about 1m... The filter was dented and cracked, but nothing happened to the lens. I haven't dropped any lens since then, but it happend dozens of times that I was wiping off drops of rain etc. from the filters. Cleaning a filter is so much easier, quicker and safer.
Besides, lens hoods and filters serve different purposes. If vignetting is a problem, correcting it in PS/LR takes seconds (or you may use a larger filter and a step-up ring).
I use the UV so I can clean it without worrying so much about ruining the coating. I also think, maybe, the nano-coating on my good filter helped the photos.
After years and years and YEARS of being a photographer, I decided that the one and only kind of filter I occasionally need to use is a very good polarizing filter. All others are just a waste of money. And adding even one more layer of glass over the front lens element of my lens, in the form of a polarizing filter, is almost too damn many layers.
I don't understand when people say it's cheap insurance. Insurance is cheap insurance, buying this on top of that make's it more expensive.
breaking things, so we can safe money. Love it. Thanks for the great video. Definetly subbed.
Can the sun light damage the inside the camera. And i am not talking about pointing it into the direct sunlight.
I love your videos Steve, as usual informative, fun and bound to set off lots more arguments :)
I wish you had tested the degradation of the photo with a really good filter like B+W since that's what most people with a good camera and lens would use. In particular, I'd like to know if it's better to use a clear lens filter as opposed to a UV lens filter. UV lens filters from B+W are a little cheaper so I would use them if it doesn't degrade any more than the clear lens filter. I would never use a Tiffen filter based on the degradation shown in your experiment unless it was in a filthy, dirty environment. I prefer a good lens filter outdoors just to keep my lens clean.
A dropped lens will often result in a bent front rim. If that rim is on a filter, not the lens, it is easily replaced. Yes, it happens.
I don't use UV filters, but I do use polarizing and ND filters. Twice I have fallen(waterfalls and slick rocks) and I did NOT have the hood mounted. Shattered the filters both times and boogered up the threads on the lens. Otherwise the lens was fine. You think I would have learned after the first time.
Another great video! Thanks Steve. It is scientific enough for me. I never shoot without a lens hood.