Which filters?

[leanne0333]

I am just waiting for my new lenses and a new tripod to arrive! Very exciting! I've ordered the tokina 11-16mm f 1.8 and the Nikkor 35mm f1.8 prime. Now I am looking for filters for them. In the past I have bought filters one at a time so haven't realised how expensive they are! Now I want to buy 6 at once and it really adds up! Usually I use a CPL, a ND8 and a UV for times I don't need the others to gain protection for my lens - I'm very clumsy!!

So a few questions
1- would it be ok to leave a CPL on (except perhaps in low light) to avoid paying for 2 new UV's? Or are there any times its bad to have a CPL on? I know the advantages ( remove glass reflections, increase colour intensity in sky/sea etc) but are there any disadvantages?

2 - At the moment I am looking at Hoya pro1D as I would be worried to put cheap filters on nice glass would reduce sharpness. Any thoughts on decent alternatives that are less pricey or do I just have to bite the bullet and go for these?

3 - I was planning on getting all 3 for both lenses as I hate being in the perfect position for a photo and not having the right equipment! I wonder though if this is really necessary?! I'm sure i will use the 35mm for some landscapes as it is better quality lens than my 18-105 so if I want to go less wide than my Tokina then it will get used. So then I'm wondering if I will need a ND8 for sea shots to blur water or the CPL for mountains to improve colours.... What do you think? Realisitically will the 35mm ever be used for landscapes like that or do you reckon its just too narrow a field of view? (My camera has a 1.5x crop factor)

4- Are there any opportunities to buy a set of all 3 to keep costs down? Seems there was previously a hoya set but no one seems to stock it any more!

5- Lastly (you sigh with relief...) Where do you buy your filters from cheaply?!

Any opinions/advice is much appreciated. Thanks a lot!

[William]

IMO I'd drop the UV filters from the list , There's been heaps said on the pro's and con's in using them, And most will say dont use them, They can actually cause more grief if your lens hits the ground end on , They diminish the image quality of good glass as well , I dont use them at all anymore, Look at getting a good set of graduated ND filters , Just my opinion though :)

[leanne0333]

The graduated ND filters are on my list but next purchase! Which do you recommend?
I'm most concerned about my lens cap falling off inside my bag which it has done before! I've already had to replace one CPL from a big scratch! Thats why I was wondering if I could leave a CPL on. Obviously take it off if I need to use a faster shutter speed than it allows. Or does that reduce quality of some images too? Thanks

[William]

Never put the camera in the bag nose down, Only put the CPL on when needed , There's a heap of filter brands and prices , Here are just some to have a look at , The prices vary heaps , Cheapest ; http://www.cokin.co.uk/ to more expensive : http://www.leefilters.com/ , More http://www.singh-ray.com/digital.html, http://www.ebay.com.au/sch/i.html?_nkw=hitech+filters

[ricktas]

Never put the camera in the bag nose down

I am going to disagree with William here :D.

I always put my cameras into my bag lens down (with lens cap on). Dust is ever present inside our cameras, and thanks to gravity, just like everything else, dust will fall down! Dust on the rear element of a lens is much easier to clean off than dust on a sensor. If you store your camera front down you are helping to ensure dust stays away from your sensor as much as you are able to. Storing your camera lens up is just asking for dust to happily lie on the sensor, mirror etc.

[William]

Fair enough Rick, Good point , I uaually have mine sitting flat or on it;s side , Mostly flat now days as it gets used every day and does'nt even go in the Camera bag anymore, I made a little work station in the back of the Hatchback with sheets spread out on soft thin foam and everything lives there now , I dont even take the Filters off the Siggy anymore, Only for cleaning do the filters come out of the holders , Just stuff to make it easy first thing in the mornings in the dark ;)

[leanne0333]

Thanks for the advice. I tend to put my camera in upside down mainly because the bag I have at the moment is only big enough for 2 lenses if I put my camera in this way! Although a new bag is next on the list since Im adding 2 lenses to my collection! I am definitely keen to get ND grad filters soon probably cokin - anyone have any experiences with these? Regarding the polarising and ND filters (maybe not UV now although it still makes me nervous leaving my lens exposed) where is the best place to buy them online? Reasonable prices, reliable delivery etc...?!

[ricktas]

If you are going to get the Cokin system. Look at the z-pro system. It is a bit dearer, but its a 100mm filter system so filters from Lee etc will fit into the holder. Though..and this is the OUCH. The polariser for the z-pro system is about $400.00

The P system is a 72mm filter system and is good, but if you use a wide angle lens much, the p system can be annoying as it impinges into the field of view under about 14mm.

[flashc]

IMO I'd drop the UV filters from the list , There's been heaps said on the pro's and con's in using them, And most will say dont use them, They can actually cause more grief if your lens hits the ground end on , They diminish the image quality of good glass as well , I dont use them at all anymore

I have a couple of "lens protect filters", Marumi brand (made in Japan) on some lenses. Does anyone else use these that I expect are just clear coated glass.

[ricktas]

I have a couple of "lens protect filters", Marumi brand (made in Japan) on some lenses. Does anyone else use these that I expect are just clear coated glass.

Do a test. set your camera up on a tripod and take a photo, then remove the filter and take another one (same settings). Compare both photos on your computer (zoom in). Chances are the one without the filter will be sharper. Then decide if the reduction in image quality is something you can live with, or if you prefer sharper photos.

[flashc]

Do a test. set your camera up on a tripod and take a photo, then remove the filter and take another one (same settings). Compare both photos on your computer (zoom in). Chances are the one without the filter will be sharper. Then decide if the reduction in image quality is something you can live with, or if you prefer sharper photos.

I have a Hoya HD UV (semi expensive) on my 70-200 L lens and on my 100mm f2.8 L macro and often wondered how much the filter was degrading the original optics, but have never done a test.

Canon do offer their own branded filters and one would think they're matched, but maybe they're more for film cameras. (genuine branded at great cost)

The only reason I bought the filters with the lenses was to protect the front element because old habits from the film cameras die hard I suppose. Although, skylight and UV filters for film actually did more than just protect the lens.

I've left my lenses unprotected when I've removed a polarizing filter, then shot without a filter attached and have noticed that there seems to be a improvement in quality and colour?.

Unfortunately, my genuine Cokin filters are all A series from my Olympus film lenses. I have tried the P system with "better quality" Ebay sourced P filters and they just aren't worth the bother, but could be used as graduated drink coasters.

I'll do the test tomorrow... Thanks for the tip.

[Xenedis]

Circcular polarisers and ND/GND filters are very useful.

UV filters are completely unnecessary. Save your money and buy a nice set of drink coasters instead.

Here's some in-depth reasoing behind my anti-UV filter stance, which I wrote and published a few years ago:



The UV Filter Debate

The debate about the use of ultra-violet (UV) filters (or not) is one of those issues which polarises (pardon the pun) the photography community.

There have probably been more arguments over use of UV filters than there have been Canon vs. Nikon skirmishes.

My own position on the use of UV filters is well documented and places me very firmly in the 'against' camp. I do not believe UV filters are necessary or beneficial, and I specifically will not use them.

To explain why, I'll firstly explain why people might buy these filters. The two main reasons are:


to filter out UV light; and
to protect the lens.



Filtration of UV light might be one reason for the use of such a filter, but in the digital age, and unless you're shooting at high altitudes, it's not necessary to use a UV filter, as digital sensors are nowhere near as sensitive to UV light as film.

The second reason concerns 'protection', and I use the term very loosely, as I do not believe a UV filter provides effective protection for a lens.

Firstly one must define what sort of protection is desirable. A person might use a UV filter in a protective capacity to prevent any or all of the following:


dust;
moisture;
fingerprints; and
impact.



Let's look at each of the above undesirable elements and assess the effectiveness or merit of a UV filter for that form of protection.


1. Dust

I do not consider dust to be a problem. It blows off. In as much as dust can land on a lens's objective element, it can also land on a filter. Either way, it's going to be necessary to remove dust in order to clean the glass.


2. Moisture

Like dust, water can be removed from a lens's objective element. It wipes off. It doesn't harm a lens, and when shooting in inclement weather or conditions that would otherwise cause water to contact a lens (eg, sea spray), there is going to be some time spent wiping water off glass.

Some Canon lenses specifically require a filter (the type of filter is not specified) to complete the weather sealing capability of the lens, as the objective element moves as the lens focuses or zooms. One such example is the Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM lens, whose objective element moves as the focal range changes, but this movement is within the lens's outer barrel; in other words, the lens's entire structure does not change in length, but the recessed lens does move along the inside of the barrel's construction.


3. Fingerprints

Some people might use a filter to avoid getting fingerprints on a lens. Again, fingerprints can be removed. Personally, I have never found fingerprints to be an issue; I simply don't get them on my lenses, and as I'll discuss later, there are more effective preventative measures.


4. Impact

This is the clincher. Many people buy UV filters in the belief that it will protect their lenses from impact. What sort of impact?

The scenarios can vary widely, but let's look at an extreme example.

Firstly, there's the dreaded lens drop. People drop lenses. I've done so myself. A UV filter offers absolutely no protection whatsoever from an accidental drop. Simple physics explains why.

In most cases, the objective element is recessed into the front of the lens, ironically due to the need to provide a rim for the mounting of screw-in filters. With the exception of a few lenses (ultra-wide rectilinear lenses and fish-eye lenses), the objective element does not protrude beyond the rim. In the case of ultra-wide rectilinear lenses and fish-eye lenses, these protruding elements are protected by an in-built, non-removable lens hood.

In the unlikely event that a lens were to hit the ground face-first, it would be even more unlikely for the objective element to strike the ground or an object on the ground. In terms of probability, it is more likely that some part of the lens barrel will strike the ground, owing to the fact that there is far more surface area comprised of the barrel.

Now, in the rather unfortunate event that a lens did strike the ground or something on the ground at such an angle for the objective element to make direct, blunt-force contact, what would a thin sheet of glass to do protect it? Absolutely nothing.

The filter would smash, and the lens it was intended to protect would still bear direct impact. Furthermore, the shards of glass from a shattered filter would quite possibly scratch the fine coatings on the objective element. That's not a situation I consider acceptable or sensible.

It is also to be remembered that the objective element of a lens is far thicker and far tougher than the glass in any filter. It would take significant force to crack an objective element.

As I mentioned above, I have dropped a lens. A few years ago I dropped a reasonably heavy lens from waist height onto bitumen. Now, the lens was wearing both its front and rear caps, but the damage the entire unit sustained was very low, and surprisingly so.

The part of the lens that actually hit the ground (after which it bounced and rolled away) was the side of the barrel, towards the front. There was a minor dent to the exterior of the barrel. The fact that the lens was wearing its caps made no difference, but I'd prefer caps on than caps off.

Naturally there was no UV filter on the lens. Had a filter been present, the shock force of the impact would likely have shattered the filter and left shards of glass in direct contact with my lens's objective element.

One last issue to consider with the use of a filter in this scenario is that if the rim of the filter strikes the ground, it will almost certainly be deformed, and may be impossible to remove, as the impact can compress the metal of either the filter's rim or the lens's filter threads, thus permanently damaging them.

Impact can also take the form of less-brutal contact with glass, such as a tree branch or some other object still coming into contact with the lens, but not with the velocity of a drop or a flying stone thrown up by a passing vehicle. My belief, as I will explain further in this article, is that hoods offer more effective protection.


The Negative Effects of Filters

While the use of a UV filter can demonstrably be shown to be useless at best, or ineffective at worst for protection, there are also some negative consequences that arise as a result of using filters: image quality degradation.

Image quality degradation is more often the result of using cheap, non-coated UV filters, but I have seen first-hand image degradation when the filter was a Hoya HMC (Hoya Multi-Coated) filter, so even the better filters can still produce undesirable results.

The first negative side-effect is a loss of contrast and sharpness. There are examples on the Internet showing the same scene captured with and without a filter, and a visible loss of clarity is apparent in the image captured with the filter attached.

The other issue is flare and ghosting when shooting at point sources of light. This problem is likely to be encountered at night when shooting streetscapes and cityscapes, which often feature bright sources of light (eg, street lights or building lights) in the darkness.

This is what happens:

Light from the distance point source enters the lens. The light reflects off the lens and falls upon the inner surface of the UV filter, from which it in turn reflects back into the lens. The result is ghosting and flare. Utterly undesirable.

Multi-coated filters generally reduce this, but as I mentioned, I have seen it occur even with a multi-coated filter. In January of 2010 I took a friend from Queensland to shoot the Sydney Harbour Bridge and Sydney Opera House from Mrs Macquarie's Chair, and while we were there, another photographer was also shooting night scenes. Her images weren't turning out well, and when we removed the filter and she took the same photo again, the image quality visibly improved.

Based on that first-hand experience, I would not endorse the use of any UV filter when doing night photography in locations where there are point sources of light.


My Approach

I stated early in this article that I do not use UV filters. I believe they do not offer adequate protection, and have seen that they can degrade image quality. I do not consider either situation acceptable.

What I instead advocate and practice is the use of lens hoods when shooting, and lens caps when not shooting. These provide far more protection than any filter.

Lens hoods do three things:


reduce stray light hitting the lens at oblique angles and thus causing flare;
increase contrast as a result of keeping angular ambient light out; and
keep the objective element well away from hands and other foreign objects.



If a lens is dropped, the hood or barrel (as described earlier) will be more likely to take the hit. In most cases, lens hoods are made from plastic, so they will flex when they come into contact with a hard surface at significant velocity. This cushioning, much like a car's shock absorber, absorbs the force of the impact far more effectively than the rigid surface of a filter rim or the lens barrel itself.

Lens caps are simply essential to protect the front and rear elements of a lens when it is not in use. Dust, moisture, fingerprints and blunt-force impact are all kept well out of harm's way when caps are attached.

It would be remiss of me to neglect mentioning Hoya's HD (high-density) line of filters. These have up to four times the breaking strength of a normal filter. Videos on YouTube show people deliberately slamming these into the corner of benches to demonstrate the strength of the glass.

While I have not seen these filters, they certainly have more merit than a regular UV filter for impact protection purposes, but I still believe that direct impact to the objective element of lens resulting from a drop would have velocity which exceeds the strength of the HD filter's glass. I'd trust my hoods before I'd trust a filter.

So, hopefully this article provides some insight into what UV filters can and cannot do -- mostly what they cannot do -- and also explains my philosophy behind refusing to use these filters on my lenses.

In parting, the advice I would offer to anyone who would still use a filter is this:


buy the highest quality filters available;
remove the filters when shooting night scenes with point sources of light;
do not rely on these alone as protective devices; and
use lens hoods and lens caps.

[Film Street]

So a few questions
1- would it be ok to leave a CPL on (except perhaps in low light) to avoid paying for 2 new UV's? Or are there any times its bad to have a CPL on? I know the advantages ( remove glass reflections, increase colour intensity in sky/sea etc) but are there any disadvantages?

2 - At the moment I am looking at Hoya pro1D as I would be worried to put cheap filters on nice glass would reduce sharpness. Any thoughts on decent alternatives that are less pricey or do I just have to bite the bullet and go for these?

3 - I was planning on getting all 3 for both lenses as I hate being in the perfect position for a photo and not having the right equipment! I wonder though if this is really necessary?! I'm sure i will use the 35mm for some landscapes as it is better quality lens than my 18-105 so if I want to go less wide than my Tokina then it will get used. So then I'm wondering if I will need a ND8 for sea shots to blur water or the CPL for mountains to improve colours.... What do you think? Realisitically will the 35mm ever be used for landscapes like that or do you reckon its just too narrow a field of view? (My camera has a 1.5x crop factor)

4- Are there any opportunities to buy a set of all 3 to keep costs down? Seems there was previously a hoya set but no one seems to stock it any more!

5- Lastly (you sigh with relief...) Where do you buy your filters from cheaply?!

Any opinions/advice is much appreciated. Thanks a lot!

Hi leanne0333, here's my take on your questions.

1 - No. Don't leave CPL on full time because you will then always have to adjust it for every shot. CPL cuts out too much light for a full time filter but worse, they alter the picture dramatically depending on how it it rotated.

2 - Look at Kenko Pro1D filters. They are made by Tokina. I see no loss of sharpness using these filters. Some Hoya filters are also made by Tokina.

3 - You wont need all three for all lenses.

4 - In that group rarely.

5 - Don't worry about the price, just don't buy cheap filters or you will risk losing sharpness.

In reply to any UV filters vs no UV filters debate, in my time working retail I've seen enough lenses damaged by impact to warrant the use of UV or 'no change' filters for protection against impact damage. If a lens takes a hit at the front, a UV filter will generally save the filter thread on the lens and can prevent possible damage to the front element due to having absorbed the initial shock. Filters are cheap insurance.

[Xenedis]

In reply to any UV filters vs no UV filters debate, in my time working retail

You've convinced plenty of ignoramii that they 'need' UV filters for 'protection'? The only protection such filters offer is to retailers' profit margins.


I've seen enough lenses damaged by impact to warrant the use of UV or 'no change' filters for protection against impact damage

What a furphy.

How does placing a cheap sheet of thin glass in front of a lens protect it from brute-force impact?

It's about as useful as gaffa-taping a sheet of cardboard in front of your car's front bumper to protect it from damage in the event that you rear-end a pantech at 60km/h.


If a lens takes a hit at the front, a UV filter will generally save the filter thread on the lens and can prevent possible damage to the front element due to having absorbed the initial shock.

Could you do an experiment for me?

Go and grab two of your most expensive lenses.

Place a UV filter on one of them, and leave the other unfiltered.

Then take a hammer and give both of them a good, solid whack on the objective element.

I'd be interested to hear how your filtered lens fares.


Filters are cheap insurance.

Hoods are cheaper, and far more effective insurance, and they have other benefits.

[leanne0333]

Xenedis I can see what you mean about the dropping and the filter smashing and potentially scratching the lens. I think sometimes if you drop your lens it will be luck if it survives or not filters or no filters! Im more concerned about scratches etc. My lens cap has a nasty habit of falling off inside my bag and many a time Ive found it like that. Once I found my filter with a large 2 inch scratch along it. Something like this a filter would protect from. Ideally lens caps would be better made and this would not be a problem! But its happened with a few of my lenses. Frustrating. Im also pretty nervous about cleaning my actual lens in case theres something on it that when I clean over, it ingrains and scratches on the lens. What do you think?
At the moment Im thinking just to get an ND8 for my UWA so I can get some blurred water sunset shots or waterfall shots and let the debate continue and hopefully I will have made some solid opinions regarding other filters soon! Thanks for all your advice and opinions - it does help!

Ricktas, good idea about the test. I'll probably do this before i invest in any other filters!

[Xenedis]

Xenedis I can see what you mean about the dropping and the filter smashing and potentially scratching the lens. I think sometimes if you drop your lens it will be luck if it survives or not filters or no filters! Im more concerned about scratches etc. My lens cap has a nasty habit of falling off inside my bag and many a time Ive found it like that. Once I found my filter with a large 2 inch scratch along it. Something like this a filter would protect from.

Do you have another lens cap of the same size? The fasteners may be loose, which would account for it falling off.

I'd be replacing that lens cap with one that will stay attached!


Im also pretty nervous about cleaning my actual lens in case theres something on it that when I clean over, it ingrains and scratches on the lens. What do you think?

I have a lens cleaning pen, which consists of a brush one one end, and a carbon-coated pad on the other. That, and my rocket air blower, allows me to blow away any surface dust before taking to the glass with the carbon-coated end of the lens pen. I've been using this and lens cleaning cloths for years without incident.

It's important to ensure surface dust, hair and other particles are cleared from the glass before applying any sort of cloth or cleaning pad.



At the moment Im thinking just to get an ND8 for my UWA so I can get some blurred water sunset shots or waterfall shots

An ND8 fllter will be a very useful filter for that reason. If you have fast glass, an ND filter will also allow you to shoot wide-open in bright light to minimise depth of field.

[leanne0333]

Thanks for the tips. Yes maybe it needs replacing - didn't realise I could!
Ive used that cleaning pen before. Think its must have been a dodgy one. It coated my lens and I took it to a professional to clean and it took ages - he reckoned it was something to so with the carbon coating! Said it must have been a dud but Im too nervous to try again with those! Instead I use specialised tissue paper with a cleaning solution. I'd be lost without my rocket blower! Especially as I like to take my camera to the coast a lot!
I dp have a fast lens (well soon to arrive) a 35mm f1.8 - maybe I should invest in an ND8 for that one too. Then I just have to decide about Polarisers and ND grads....

[I @ M]

Consider the following scenario for damage protection from a UV filter.

Camera is knocked off a table and hits the floor lens first at an angle.
No direct impact to the front of the lens element or filter.
The camera is fitted with a (cheap) UV filter and the impact has put a large flat spot on the filter alloy ring, the glass is smashed, the lens housing filter thread is cracked and broken. Neither the filter or the lens filter thread are ever going to be usable in the future.
The filter did not provide any protection to the lens element.
The lady who knocked the (borrowed) camera off the table was distraught and was asking me where the nearest camera store was so that she could go and buy her friend a new lens.
She was a little more relieved when I told her that the filter was the most damaged item in the exercise but removing the damaged filter was the most challenging part as it had pushed the threads into a "crossed" situation and whilst she was waving the camera around in the air all broken shards of glass were merrily scouring back and forth across the front element until I grabbed it from her and pointed it element first towards the rubbish bin.
I managed empty out most of the broken glass without further abrasion and eventually unscrew the filter.

The end result to me is that even though the filter was "cheap" and would probably have cost about $20.00 to replace it was pointless as the thread in the lens itself was now US.

IF, and big capitals, IF, the lens had been fitted with a hood I would just about bet my bottom dollar that the hood would have bent and cracked on impact and not damaged the lens itself.

Perfectly workable and usable lens hoods can be bought at $5.00 a pop on e$ay.

[arthurking83]

You will be surprised to see, that for landscape work, the 18-105VR lens will be surprisingly as good as the 35/1.8 at the usual landscape scene lens settings.
There may be some image rendering where the prime lens will be better, but you're pixel peeping, or printing large images and displaying them too close to the viewer.

so an option(although not the ideal option, just an option that will keep costs down for now!!
you could just get yourself a single 77mm CPL of some variety, and this variety being of high quality.

This one CPL fits to the Tokina 11-16 lens, which is your minimum specific requirement!
That is, you have here many requirements, and the lens that needs to be addressed as a priority is the Tokina.
It uses a 77mm filter thread, so has the most specific need of the three lenses.. the others can operate with the (screw on) filter that fits this lens, but this lens can not operate with the filters specific to those lenses.

Armed with that info, you can cut costs dramatically and purchase one single 77mm high quality CPL filter and purchase two filter thread adapters to suit.

That is, I think the 18-105 uses the 67mm filter thread, so you would source a 67 to 77 mm filter adapter ring, where the male threads are 67mm(to fit the 18-105mm) and the female threads are 77mm(to fit the filter).

You can do the same with the prime lens as well and I think the 35/1.8 uses a 52mm filter thread, so you would need to find a 52-77mm adapter.

At first this seems to be the ideal solution! :th3: .. but there can be downsides to this solution. You can't fit lens hoods to lenses fitted with oversized filters, so you may nee to shade the lens in specific conditions so that stray light doesn't hit the over sized filter.
If you lose or break or damage this one filter, you have no backup(if backups are important).
Also, not all sizes are available, so you may be tempted to stack adapters to fit.
That is, you get yourself a 67-77 adapter and a 52-67mm adapter(option 1), instead of a 67-77 and 52-77(option 2).
Using option 1, you use the two adapters to fit the 77mm filter onto the 35mm lens, rather than the single adapter solution of option 2.
Pushing the filter further from the lens may introduce optical anomalies in itself too. The only way to know this is by trial and error.

But this adapter ring saves you a ton of cash!!
Adapter rings cost anything like $2 on ebay, and all you need to look for in terms of quality is that they are metal, not plastic.

[flashc]

Firstly, there's the dreaded lens drop. People drop lenses. I've done so myself. A UV filter offers absolutely no protection whatsoever from an accidental drop. Simple physics explains why.

In the unlikely event that a lens were to hit the ground face-first, it would be even more unlikely for the objective element to strike the ground or an object on the ground. In terms of probability, it is more likely that some part of the lens barrel will strike the ground, owing to the fact that there is far more surface area comprised of the barrel.

Lens hoods do three things:

If a lens is dropped, the hood or barrel (as described earlier) will be more likely to take the hit. In most cases, lens hoods are made from plastic, so they will flex when they come into contact with a hard surface at significant velocity. This cushioning, much like a car's shock absorber, absorbs the force of the impact far more effectively than the rigid surface of a filter rim or the lens barrel itself.

I'd trust my hoods before I'd trust a filter.


This is a true story... I was walking sideways down a totally dry concrete boat ramp at low tide towards the sea taking photos. Near the waters edge, I suddenly found myself slipping over as I hadn't noticed that just the last two metres of the ramp were covered in slippery brown algae.

My 7D camera and 15-85 lens went from eye height to the concrete and I went down too. Just prior to this event, I had bought a petal shaped lens hood because it was felt lined inside the hood and it was attached. A Hoya "HD" UV filter was attached to the lens too.

From my flat position down on the concrete ramp, I could hear this "boing boing" noise as my camera must have hit the ramp hood first, must have jumped up and came down again. Subsequently, it hit the quick release plate attached to the camera base and then must have hit the rubber surrounding the eyepiece.

When I realised that my camera was running around by itself, I looked to find the camera and lens had stopped tumbling about 6cm from the ramp edge and luckily didn't fall the 2 metre drop from the edge to the rocks below.

I think in my case, the hood initially cushioned the fall. The lens filter didn't play a part, but the quick release plate took a fair bit of a hit, and the standard rubber eyepiece surround also was slightly cut.

Picked the 7D up, thinking it would be a writeoff, took some shots and camera and lens is still working. My cuts from the sharp concrete have healed.

I have to say the hood worked for me in a dangerous situation I checked first, but still missed the hazard...