Quality lens cleaners?

[Mick F]

You're right Gabriel, probably is a bit of a generalisation, however the point I was trying to make is that you at least put something in front of the actual lense!

[Raymond Rowe]

Originally Posted by Gabriel S.

Definitely look for the Hakuba LensPen. It's extremely convenient and cleans perfectly - definitely the best accessory I've gotten for a while.



That's quite a generalisation. In fact, the relative merits of UV filters as lens protection are much debated, and pros are divided on the subject. On one hand it's good insurance, but on the other it's silly to spend big for L-glass or similar and then stick inferior glass on the front anyway. (For the record, I do use protective filters - albeit expensive, multicoated B+Ws).

Has never affected the shots i have taken. sold lots as well.

[NickN]

I have found that my shots are clearer without the filter in front of the lens. However I use a $300 Sigma 70-300mm Macro so its not exactly L Glass. If something ever did happen to the lens $300 is nothing to cry over.

[David M]

To use or not to use, that is the question??

For aviation photography I think it pays to have the filter on the lens. I'd say if you were a pro photog and you were doing studio work and the like, then I wouldn't bother. I do however remove the filter on occasions when shooting into the sun. Nothing worse than filter reflections all over the shot!

While in Sydney a few years back, I had a cheapy lens ($300) and I dropped the whole body and lens. Completely smashed the filter on the front, but not a single piece of damage or scratch on the camera or lens. I was glad to have paid for the replacement filter and the $30 charge for removing the old smashed and twisted filter! Sure beats paying money that you don't have to fork out for nothing!

So, I guess it comes down to personal choice. Can you see the effects of having the filter on the front or not?

I personally like the little piece of insurance sitting on the front of the lens, albeit sometimes 10% of the lens price!

David.M.

[Stephen Brown]

Even a good quality UV filter is less than the cost of a lens...

[Kurt A]

Originally Posted by David Morrell

While in Sydney a few years back, I had a cheapy lens ($300) and I dropped the whole body and lens. Completely smashed the filter on the front, but not a single piece of damage or scratch on the camera or lens.

Still looking for that photo I took of the filter afterwards, was a mess. Total classic.

[NickN]

If we have insurance for our cameras why are we so worried about damaging a lens?

[Nigel C]

Perhaps not all people have insurance...

[Mick F]

Please do tell us what your excess is to make a claim on your camera Nick. If it's more than $60 wouldn't it be cheaper to just buy a UV filter??

[NickN]

Excess is $100. And for that I could claim the camera plus both lenses. If a UV filter means the same quality shots for you that's fine but for me it seems to make a difference so that's why I don'y use one.