A Close Call

There's a long time running debate among photographers about the use of protection filters, nearly clear screw in filters like a UV or skylight kept permanently affixed to the front of a lens to bear the brunt of scratches and frontal impacts, sparing the lens itself. There are pros and cons to using them, and though back in the old camera store days I saw a reasonable number of lenses spared from disaster by them I remained ambivalent about their use.

Yesterday I had one of those experiences that tend to make people question position in matters like this. I set my tripod mounted RB67 down, removed the lens cap RB67 from my prized 50mm Sekor-C lens that was mounted to it and, turning my back to dig something out of the camera bag, just caught the whole assemblage toppling out of the corner of my eye, the camera nose diving into the ground. It seems the tripod legs weren't spread out as much as I thought. Now I have one UV filter that will fit any of the four lenses I own for the RB system, but though I value the 50mm above all others this isn't the lens I use it on. This is to avoid the possibility of vignetting in the corners of its wide-angle field (equivalent to a 25mm lens on a 35mm camera) if I stack another filter or two on top.

As the title suggests however this isn't a eulogy for my favorite lens. Good fortune intervened on my behalf because, while there was no protection filter on this lens, it so happened that I had left a red contrast filter in place after the previous shot I had taken.

A fallen red-coat who gave its life to save its unit, a sacrifice that will not go unforgotten.

After carefully removing the filter all appeared well with the lens and indeed I went on to use is and the camera for the rest of the day without incident. Better still, this is (was) just a cheapo no-name filter that cost me maybe $6-7 shipping included.

While I'm more than happy this filter was there to play the part of a protection filter that obviously wasn't what I had it for. I got this, along with a yellow and a 10 stop ND filter, more as temporary fill ins until I had the budget to replace them with something that didn't involve such an optical compromise. And it's this that brings us back to the reasons I'm not as religious as some about always having some sort of filter in place for protection.

"It's cheap insurance" is the phrase I've heard countless times from advocates of this practice. In a sense it's usually true, but cheap is part of the problem. A good lens may incorporate from six to fifteen or more precision made multicoated elements. A protection filter that could rightly be called cheap is unlikely to be either precision made or multicoated, but once in place it's just as much a part of the optical system as all the rest. Better filters are available of course but then we are getting out of the realm of what could rightly be considered cheap, and no matter how much money you sink into one you'll never achieve better than not using one at all and taking your chances. It also goes without saying that having a filter in place is only protection from certain kinds of mishaps. As you can see from the photo above the ground this fell on was mostly sand. Had it fallen on something harder or more jagged the filters sacrifice would have been in vain.

Still, the fact it can't protect you from all possible injury is a poor reason not to wear a helmet and the arguably the logic is the same here. It's also possible I'm being a bit unrealistic about how much a moderately priced protection filter will impact the overall optical quality of my lenses. Though I hope to add better quality contrast filters to my kit I don't sweat the fact the ones I have are bargain class when the shot calls for for one.

Has this experience been enough to change my mind then? For now all I can say is I ordered the replacement for the red filter today and, thought I gave it a moments thought to adding a few protection filters to the lot in the end I gave it a pass.