If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Use of UV filters
I would like to see the pro's and cons of a UV filter or some other "lens protecting" glass on a lens.
The small ghosts on very high contrast shots suggests that this is not a good idea. It has to degenerate even normal images. w.. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Use of UV filters
Walter Banks wrote:
I would like to see the pro's and cons of a UV filter or some other "lens protecting" glass on a lens. The small ghosts on very high contrast shots suggests that this is not a good idea. It has to degenerate even normal images. It sounds as though you have already drawn your own conclusions, so what would be the point in replying? |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Use of UV filters
Walter Banks wrote:
I would like to see the pro's and cons of a UV filter or some other "lens protecting" glass on a lens. The small ghosts on very high contrast shots suggests that this is not a good idea. It has to degenerate even normal images. 1. No filter at all, or 2. MC filters and 3. Clear glass (not UV/not Skylight). For my 135 f/1.8 which has a 77mm front element I decided to add such and bought a Nikon MC clear glass filter. My Maxxum 7D, equipped with a Minolta flash is therefore a Minolta/Konica-Minolta/Sony/Carl-Zeiss/Nikon hybrid. -- -- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. -- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Use of UV filters
"Walter Banks" wrote in message ... I would like to see the pro's and cons of a UV filter or some other "lens protecting" glass on a lens. The small ghosts on very high contrast shots suggests that this is not a good idea. It has to degenerate even normal images. w.. Every piece of glass in the light path has some effect on the image. On the other hand, if something scratches the front of the lens, would you prefer that scratch on an easily replaceable filter, or an expensive lens. Yes, I know that good quality filters are expensive, but they would be less expensive than the lens itself. You pays your money and you takes your choices. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Use of UV filters
Walter Banks wrote:
I would like to see the pro's and cons of a UV filter or some other "lens protecting" glass on a lens. The small ghosts on very high contrast shots suggests that this is not a good idea. It has to degenerate even normal images. \ For my druthers, the lens hood always in place gives better protection. At least for me, and the way I use my equipment. -- john mcwilliams |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Use of UV filters
"Ken Hart1" wrote in message news:7wExk.938$Wd.262@trnddc01... "Walter Banks" wrote in message ... I would like to see the pro's and cons of a UV filter or some other "lens protecting" glass on a lens. The small ghosts on very high contrast shots suggests that this is not a good idea. It has to degenerate even normal images. w.. Every piece of glass in the light path has some effect on the image. On the other hand, if something scratches the front of the lens, would you prefer that scratch on an easily replaceable filter, or an expensive lens. Yes, I know that good quality filters are expensive, but they would be less expensive than the lens itself. You pays your money and you takes your choices. For better than 20 years I serviced both 35mm and most medium format systems. I can say that in a small percentage of all the lenses I have repaired (less then 20%) I have seen "protection" filters break into the front element of the lens scratching it. Hoods generally offer better impact protection. IMO |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Use of UV filters
"mj" wrote:
For better than 20 years I serviced both 35mm and most medium format systems. I can say that in a small percentage of all the lenses I have repaired (less then 20%) I have seen "protection" filters break into the front element of the lens scratching it. Hoods generally offer better impact protection. IMO How much protection does a hood offer against damaging the front element of the lens through careless cleaning? A filter is extremely easy to clean. You can even take it off the lens to clean it. If you scratch or damage a filter, it is quick and relatively cheap to replace. Try doing that with the front element of a good quality lens, and you will be faced with a very large bill. [Of course you could always sell it on eBay, claiming that the defective front element did not affect the quality of the images produced ... funny how many lenses on eBay are thus described!] With film, the often alleged optical degradation through using a filter was a non-issue as long as good quality multi-coated filters were used. However, things have changed a little with digital because of the greater reflectivity of the digital sensor. Whether the latest filter coatings have made this a non-issue once again is a moot point. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Use of UV filters
mj wrote:
You pays your money and you takes your choices. For better than 20 years I serviced both 35mm and most medium format systems. I can say that in a small percentage of all the lenses I have repaired (less then 20%) I have seen "protection" filters break into the front element of the lens scratching it. Hoods generally offer better impact protection. IMO You need very careful to understand the implications of that statistic. As a lens repair person you say you see 20% of lenses where the filter has damaged the lens. I don't dispute that at all. But it does *not* mean that 20% of the lenses which have UV filters suffer such damage. Most people, who damage their filters will do it in a far less catastropic manner. They are likely to put a scratch on the filter, replace the filter and not send the lens for repair. Also, whilst I accept filters can damage the lens if hit sufficiently hard, one would have to question whether the lens would have been damaged anyway without the filter. If a knock is sufficient to damage a filter and smash it into a lens, it must have taken quite a knock - quite possibly enough to have damaged the lens anyway. I personally tend to use filters all the time. I might make an exception on my Nikon macro lens though. The front element is very well recessed, making damage to the element unlikely. Whilst I have never proved this, I suspect a filter is more likely to degrade an image if the object is focused very close, which is what one is likely to do on a macro lens. But since the element on the micro nikkor lens is very well recessed, it will be difficult to clean, so perhaps there is a good reason to buy a UV filter. Scratches on lens elements have a very significant effect on resale value. There is for example a Nikon 600 mm lens for sale: http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...m=220278589593 This would be perfect for me. * Just the lens I am looking for. * Seller is only 40 miles away. * Seller happy for me to pick it up. * I can avoid the very significant risks of Paypal on items over $2000. But that 600mm lens has a small scratch on the front element, and is a bit tatty in places. Whilst I did bid, I am not going to bid again. It has reached $4900 which I feel is enough for a lens with a scratch on it. Had the condition been better, I would certainly have bid a lot more, especially as it is very local to me. I would rather see an auction where the seller says "has had a UV filter on from day one" than "has a small scratch but does not degrade image". Clearly scratches are more likely to cause problems when shooting into the light. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Use of UV filters
Ken Hart1 wrote:
"Walter Banks" wrote in message ... I would like to see the pro's and cons of a UV filter or some other "lens protecting" glass on a lens. The small ghosts on very high contrast shots suggests that this is not a good idea. It has to degenerate even normal images. w.. Every piece of glass in the light path has some effect on the image. On the other hand, if something scratches the front of the lens, would you prefer that scratch on an easily replaceable filter, or an expensive lens. Yes, I know that good quality filters are expensive, but they would be less expensive than the lens itself. My lenses that have recessed front elements do not have filters. On those I add a filter only if there is a lot of dust, moisture, etc. -- -- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. -- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Use of UV filters
Bruce wrote:
"mj" wrote: For better than 20 years I serviced both 35mm and most medium format systems. I can say that in a small percentage of all the lenses I have repaired (less then 20%) I have seen "protection" filters break into the front element of the lens scratching it. Hoods generally offer better impact protection. IMO How much protection does a hood offer against damaging the front element of the lens through careless cleaning? A filter is extremely easy to clean. You can even take it off the lens to clean it. If you scratch or damage a filter, it is quick and relatively cheap to replace. Try doing that with the front element of a good quality lens, and you will be faced with a very large bill. Just dab some india ink into the scratch and put the filter back on the lens. I have filters going well over $100. I'm not throwing them out! [Of course you could always sell it on eBay, claiming that the defective front element did not affect the quality of the images produced ... funny how many lenses on eBay are thus described!] With film, the often alleged optical degradation through using a filter was a non-issue as long as good quality multi-coated filters were used. However, things have changed a little with digital because of the greater reflectivity of the digital sensor. Whether the latest filter coatings have made this a non-issue once again is a moot point. I've seen a scant few examples of this effect and the promotion of the idea seems to be bread and butter of Sigma to promote their 'digital' lenses. -- -- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. -- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out. |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Filters | tony cooper | Digital Photography | 30 | January 16th 08 11:58 AM |
Filters | Sameer Agarwal | Other Photographic Equipment | 4 | March 27th 05 07:57 AM |
UV filters | LtX4 | Digital Photography | 0 | January 12th 05 08:43 AM |
Filters | Pieter Tieghem | 35mm Photo Equipment | 12 | August 21st 04 08:54 AM |
LF: Filters | ANDRE | General Equipment For Sale | 0 | February 7th 04 11:56 PM |