Filters

I've just moved up to a Nikon D40. I'm wondering if I should add a
skylight filter to protect the lens. I've heard that they slightly
degrade the image, and I've also heard that they don't.

I shoot half-and-half family pix and macro shots of watches, coins,
etc. I can't see the filter affecting a shot of my grandchildren in
the playground, but I wonder about the macro aspect.

It's a small investment, but I'm just wondering what the thinking is
on filters. Filters in general, for that matter.


--

Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

tony cooper wrote:
I've just moved up to a Nikon D40. I'm wondering if I should add a
skylight filter to protect the lens.

A skylight filter is not a good idea because it alters the colors ever to
slightly. A simple UV filter will be better.

I've heard that they slightly
degrade the image, and I've also heard that they don't.

They do, just because it is yet another pane of glass with all the
associated drawbacks like dirt, distortion, reflections, back reflections,
chromatics, etc, etc.
However you are very unlikely to notice any of this in your daily real-world
photography. IMO the benefits of protecting the lens far outweight the
minute degradation of the image quality unless you are really shooting for
the top 1% of the professional world.

jue

"Jürgen Exner" wrote in message
...
tony cooper wrote:
I've just moved up to a Nikon D40. I'm wondering if I should add a
skylight filter to protect the lens.

A skylight filter is not a good idea because it alters the colors ever to
slightly. A simple UV filter will be better.

I've heard that they slightly
degrade the image, and I've also heard that they don't.

They do, just because it is yet another pane of glass with all the
associated drawbacks like dirt, distortion, reflections, back reflections,
chromatics, etc, etc.
However you are very unlikely to notice any of this in your daily
real-world
photography. IMO the benefits of protecting the lens far outweight the
minute degradation of the image quality unless you are really shooting for
the top 1% of the professional world.

jue

I just keep a UV filter on all my lenses and remove them when taking photos.
Simple.

Paul

The protection the filter affords the lens more than offsets any image
degradation.
You can always remove the filter.
It is much more expensive to replace a lens.
This is a no brainer.

In article , flambe
wrote:

The protection the filter affords the lens more than offsets any image
degradation.
You can always remove the filter.
It is much more expensive to replace a lens.
This is a no brainer.

It's even less expensive not to drop it or smack it into something.

In 41 years of photography with 16+ of that professionally, I have yet
to drop a piece of equipment or smack a camera/lens into something.

"tony cooper" wrote in message
...
I've just moved up to a Nikon D40. I'm wondering if I should add a
skylight filter to protect the lens. I've heard that they slightly
degrade the image, and I've also heard that they don't.

I shoot half-and-half family pix and macro shots of watches, coins,
etc. I can't see the filter affecting a shot of my grandchildren in
the playground, but I wonder about the macro aspect.

It's a small investment, but I'm just wondering what the thinking is
on filters. Filters in general, for that matter.
--

Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

Get a good quality filter with antireflection coating (Hoya or B&W)
and you will not be able to see any visible sign of image degradation.
You can prove it in seconds by taking images with & without filter and
put an end to the "image degradation" nonsense.

Frank Arthur schrieb:
"tony cooper" wrote in message
...
I've just moved up to a Nikon D40. I'm wondering if I should add a
skylight filter to protect the lens. I've heard that they slightly
degrade the image, and I've also heard that they don't.

Get a good quality filter with antireflection coating (Hoya or B&W)
and you will not be able to see any visible sign of image degradation.
You can prove it in seconds by taking images with & without filter and
put an end to the "image degradation" nonsense.
Yes, the nonsens of a filter in front of a 9000$-Lens. Don't think
always within our own limits.
You can see if there's a filter or not.

Andreas

--

Fotos unter http://www.gugau-foto.de/
Special unter http://www.hoellenmusik.de/
Schottland unter http://www.whisky-guide.de/

"Andreas Gugau" wrote in message
...

You can see if there's a filter or not.

Andreas

--

Fotos unter http://www.gugau-foto.de/
Special unter http://www.hoellenmusik.de/
Schottland unter http://www.whisky-guide.de/

Complete and utter rubbish.
You can *sometines* (in special circumstances) see if there's a filter or
not, but even then it's mostly guesswork.

I challenge you to a double blind test. I don't need to take part. Do it
yourself, then come back here and retract that silly statement.

--
Jeff R.

In article ,
"Mr. Strat" wrote:

In article , flambe
wrote:

The protection the filter affords the lens more than offsets any image
degradation.
You can always remove the filter.
It is much more expensive to replace a lens.
This is a no brainer.

It's even less expensive not to drop it or smack it into something.

In 41 years of photography with 16+ of that professionally, I have yet
to drop a piece of equipment or smack a camera/lens into something.

You're very lucky. In the past year there was a question on this group
from someone who had gotten snot or barf or some such material directly
on a lens. There was a lot of discussion about how to clean the lens.
The best answer was to have a protective layer (like a neutral filter)
in front of the lens that one could just remove, wash under running
water, dry and put back on the camera.

You do not have to be clumsy to scratch a lens. Your kid can do it.

--
With or without religion, you would have good people doing
good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good
people to do evil things, that takes religion.

Steven Weinberg

schrieb:
On Sun, 06 Jan 2008 01:15:03 +0100, in rec.photo.digital Andreas Gugau
wrote:

Yes, the nonsens of a filter in front of a 9000$-Lens. Don't think
always within our own limits.
You can see if there's a filter or not.

Last time I looked at the Nikon 200-400mm /f4 VR it had a clear glass
screw-on protective element from the factory.
That's not that kind of lenses I am talking about. Really not. And no, I
do not talk about any 35 mm-lenses. I am talking about lenses like this
one: http://www.mamiya.co.uk/popup.php?pa...mm+f%2F2.8+APO


Andreas

--

Fotos unter http://www.gugau-foto.de/
Special unter http://www.hoellenmusik.de/
Schottland unter http://www.whisky-guide.de/