Protective Filters?

[KevinC]

OK, I've done the drill.  I almost never use "protective" filters on my lenses.  I keep my kit clean.  But this time is different.  I am going to South Africa, Zimbabwe and Botswana at the end of the dry season, and dust is mentioned frequently.

So I may buy some clear filters to keep the grit out of the mechanisms.  (The 200-400 will, sadly, not make the weight.)  Any opinions on whether the Cheap Tiffens are "good enough?"  They are half the price of the next level, and I'll not be making big prints (unless I get that perfect shot of a lion attacking a stupid tourist).

Thanks,

Kevin

[Gary]

I am a believer in protective filters. Yes, modern coatings are very very resilient. But a little extra protection doesn't hurt. I have lost protective filter a few times in places, (Africa as one example), where the nearest front element repair shoppe was days away. I was able to carefully remove the filter and keep on shooting. Additionally, some lenses are not weather resistant unless a filter is in place. One of the things you pay for is coatings, when you buy a filter. Typically, the more expensive the more coatings. The more coatings, the less flare/ghosting you'll see.

Most filters from a quality filter manufacturer won't/won't significantly degrade the image. The main problem is flare. A protective filter increases the propensity and the amount of flare. Coatings go a long way to reduce said flare/ghosting.

One of the problems with dust is cleaning the dust off. Over time, the tiny abrasive particles found in dust will eventually and minutely scratch and destroy/remove/harm the coating. For me, it is easier to replace a filter than a front element. (This probably won't happen on a single trip to Africa ... but over time...)

That's just my opinion, I am sure there are many who think to the contrary.

PS- I also believe in Murphy. For me, the moment I walk around sans filter, is the moment when a dust storm, some acid, small piece of shrapnel, Sharknado, et al all hits the front element. 

[elsa hoffmann]

What Gary said - very valid points. I don't shoot with filters. If I would though - I would get the best I could afford - as they  do have an affect on IQ.   I assume you are going to do wildlife - and if I understand you correctly  - you are not bringing the 200-400. What are you going to shoot with?  if your primary concern is protecting equipment, use filters. If your primary concern is pixel IQ - then don't 

[afx]

In my slide days, all lenses had filters. They saved my butt a few times (head crash of an 80-200 for example).
I've stopped using them on digital cameras as the sensor is more reflective than film so more glass resulted in more internal reflections.
If you use filters, use high quality coated ones, for example from B&W, Heliopan or Hoya.

cheers
afx

[pluton]

Gary has given you the basic picture about why you'd want them.
Under normal conditions(moderate dust, no blowing sand/rocks, no wet spray, no oil spray) I use the best, clearest filters I can find(Nikon NC or B+W 007MRC) on the lenses that have shallow lens hoods(most wide angles), but not on the more deeply hooded telephoto lenses.
I have a tendency to get my own fingerprints on wide angles, and often thrust them into scratchy shrubs and such.
If all I had was the worst quality window-glass Tiffen filters, I'd only put them on in an emergency.

[PedroS]

I was a always type guy, until I started wildlife photography.
Funny enough everybody thinks they need protection to the small lenses, but on all telephotos you can't put that window in front of them...
So now I'm a never guy, and just realize my gear never had a problem.
People say use them if you go to harsh environments, but what do you use if on those environments you are using the big lenses?

What is of outmost importance is use a plastic bag to change lenses in those conditions, and before cleaning the gear (should be done every day) use a foot pump to clear all dust.

[Jan Anne]

I don't like nor use protective filters, can't be bothered really plus they do more harm than good when a lens is dropped. A lens with the hood mounted doesn't brake that easily while a filter does, the broken glass of the filter scratches the front element it was trying to protect and bend filters can be a hassle to unmount or even cause damage to the lens.

When on Safari it is wise to have the camera in the bag while driving (the Kiboko bag is made for this with its butterfly design), its usually the stopping on dirt roads that generates the most dust issues but once your standing still and the dust has settled there should be no real issue. If you always want to be on the ready with your camera out of the bag just use a towel or the like to cover the camera, you can also use this method to change lenses but again I wouldn't worry about it too much. 

[Jacques Pochoy]

I'm also of the no protective filter camp :-) I think it's a false security, meaning that it's supposed to protect the front lens from abrasive dust mostly, but the same dust gets in the lens by the helicoidal anyhow. So I'm in favor of the lens cap !!!

[pluton]

A lens with the hood mounted doesn't brake that easily while a filter does, the broken glass of the filter scratches the front element it was trying to protect and bend filters can be a hassle to unmount or even cause damage to the lens.

The idea that a fragile glass filter protects the front of a lens from impact damage is, of course, ludicrous.

[afx]

A lens with the hood mounted doesn't brake that easily while a filter does, the broken glass of the filter scratches the front element it was trying to protect and bend filters can be a hassle to unmount or even cause damage to the lens.

The idea that a fragile glass filter protects the front of a lens from impact damage is, of course, ludicrous.

Well,
My AF 80-200/2.8 Push-Pull with a UV filter on the front survived a head crash on a tiled floor because of the filter. It had to be sawn out of the lens. No scratch on the lens, the filter glass was scattered and the filter frame basically took all the impact.
That lens was never shipped with a hood.

cheers
afx

[Frank Fremerey]

Brands for protective filters? Schneider Kreuznach and Canon and Nikon in the olden 52mm world

Schneider is manufacturer of B+W

[Bjørn Rørslett]

I once had a brand new 35 mm f/1.4 AIS completely wrecked by the filter. The lens fell to frozen ground and the filter literally disintegrated, leaving thousand of  glass shards inserted into or sticking out of the front element. The lens looked like a hedgehog. A total write-off.

[KevinC]

Thanks to all for your thoughts.  I may buy a couple of cheap Tiffens in case it gets really nasty.  I can't see dropping $175 more or less on a bunch of filters I won't normally use anyway.

In response to elsa's question, I will be bringing a Tamron 200-400 f/5.6, rather than the Nikkor 200-400...it's half the size and weight.  Will have that on a D7100, an 80-200 f/2.8 ED on a D200, a Tokina 12-24 f/4, a Nikkor 28-105 f/3.5-45 and a Nikkor 55-300 f/5.6 VR.   For light work, a Nikon J1 and S1 mirrorless, with 10-30 and 30-100 lenses...that should cover most eventualities, as I don't want to be changing lenses during drives.  Wife will help with shooting.  I have a rocket blower and a good brush, so I'm hoping to come out relatively unscathed.

Thanks again for the opinions.

Kevin