A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

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.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Digital Photography » Digital Photography
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

The importance of a uv filter?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old August 10th 04, 03:37 PM
Hans-Georg Michna
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Mon, 09 Aug 2004 23:21:35 GMT, "Duffer"
wrote:

OK, I understand the need to protect the lens. But what else? (Yeah, I'm a
point and shoot kind of guy)


Duffer,

normally there is no need to protect the lens. Every filter
degrades your lens performance, mainly through additional
reflections which reduce contrast and create bright spots in
night photos.

Therefore I recommend to use a filter only when you really need
it.

Lenses have a hard coating, so wiping of dust or fingerprints
with suitable materials is no problem.

Hans-Georg

--
No mail, please.
  #12  
Old August 10th 04, 06:15 PM
Crownfield
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default The importance of a uv filter?

Hans-Georg Michna wrote:

On Mon, 09 Aug 2004 23:21:35 GMT, "Duffer"
wrote:

OK, I understand the need to protect the lens. But what else? (Yeah, I'm a
point and shoot kind of guy)


Duffer,

normally there is no need to protect the lens. Every filter
degrades your lens performance, mainly through additional
reflections which reduce contrast and create bright spots in
night photos.

Therefore I recommend to use a filter only when you really need
it.

Lenses have a hard coating, so wiping of dust or fingerprints
with suitable materials is no problem.


for me, any interchangeable lens:

if you scratch or chip the filter, it only costs how much?
new filter, 72mm is about 90.
any camera store will sell you the replacement (45 min).

if you scratch or chip the lens, it only costs how much?
factory service, starts at several hundred dollars.
many days lost. (2-3 weeks?)
only factory will touch damaged lens.



Hans-Georg

--
No mail, please.

  #13  
Old August 10th 04, 06:29 PM
Beowulf
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default The importance of a uv filter?

On Tue, 10 Aug 2004 16:37:33 +0200, Hans-Georg Michna wrote:
...
normally there is no need to protect the lens. Every filter
degrades your lens performance, mainly through additional
reflections which reduce contrast and create bright spots in
night photos.

Therefore I recommend to use a filter only when you really need
it.

...
...

I disagree -- a lens is expensive and any scratches will show on all
subsequent photos. A protective filter is cheap and easily replaceable. I
can not imagine not having a protective skylight or UV filter on each of
my lenses from the first day I buy them.
  #14  
Old August 11th 04, 02:11 PM
Hans-Georg Michna
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default The importance of a uv filter?

On Tue, 10 Aug 2004 10:15:22 -0700, Crownfield
wrote:

for me, any interchangeable lens:

if you scratch or chip the filter, it only costs how much?
new filter, 72mm is about 90.
any camera store will sell you the replacement (45 min).

if you scratch or chip the lens, it only costs how much?
factory service, starts at several hundred dollars.
many days lost. (2-3 weeks?)
only factory will touch damaged lens.


Crownfield, Beowulf,

I've taken tens of thousands of photos over many years, but
never scratched the lens. The main reason is that the lens is
recessed inside a metal ring, so it's actually not simple to
scratch it. For example, put the camera on a concrete floor with
the lens down and the glass of the lens will not actually touch
the floor.

So I don't see why should I put a protective filter on the lens,
particularly if it degrades picture quality.

I don't know what you do to your cameras and lenses. Perhaps you
really need a protective filter. In any case, the points have
been made and everybody can make an informed decision.

Taking night shots with lights with and without protective
filter is an eye-opener. Do it.

Hans-Georg

--
No mail, please.
  #15  
Old August 11th 04, 02:49 PM
Bob Salomon
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default The importance of a uv filter?

In article ,
Hans-Georg Michna wrote:

Taking night shots with lights with and without protective
filter is an eye-opener. Do it.


Coated, single coat or true Multi-coated filter?
Glass or acrylic filter?
Solid glass or sandwiched construction filter?

--
To reply no_ HPMarketing Corp.
  #16  
Old August 11th 04, 02:49 PM
Bob Salomon
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default The importance of a uv filter?

In article ,
Hans-Georg Michna wrote:

Taking night shots with lights with and without protective
filter is an eye-opener. Do it.


Coated, single coat or true Multi-coated filter?
Glass or acrylic filter?
Solid glass or sandwiched construction filter?

--
To reply no_ HPMarketing Corp.
  #17  
Old August 11th 04, 04:25 PM
RonFrank
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default The importance of a uv filter?

I have UV filter on all my lenses, and always have.

As for never scratching a lens, I'm not sure how that is possible if you in
fact do anything in the way of location photography. I've replaced many UV
filters over the years, but no lenses due to scratched front elements. I
take good care of my equipment, but there is zero possibility that when
shooting a large number of days in a year that a front element will not come
into contact with something other that air.....

Just basic cleaning over time is going to destroy the coating on the front
element.

Once can always remove the filter in high flare situations. But in general
UV filters do NOT degrade image quality to any visible degree, and they
definately protect the front element.

BTW, not all lenses have recessed front elements, in fact many WA lens have
protruding front elements. Ironically those R the ones most in need of
protection, and some (like he Sigma 14mm) can not take front filters.

Ron


"Hans-Georg Michna" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 10 Aug 2004 10:15:22 -0700, Crownfield
wrote:

for me, any interchangeable lens:

if you scratch or chip the filter, it only costs how much?
new filter, 72mm is about 90.
any camera store will sell you the replacement (45 min).

if you scratch or chip the lens, it only costs how much?
factory service, starts at several hundred dollars.
many days lost. (2-3 weeks?)
only factory will touch damaged lens.


Crownfield, Beowulf,

I've taken tens of thousands of photos over many years, but
never scratched the lens. The main reason is that the lens is
recessed inside a metal ring, so it's actually not simple to
scratch it. For example, put the camera on a concrete floor with
the lens down and the glass of the lens will not actually touch
the floor.

So I don't see why should I put a protective filter on the lens,
particularly if it degrades picture quality.

I don't know what you do to your cameras and lenses. Perhaps you
really need a protective filter. In any case, the points have
been made and everybody can make an informed decision.

Taking night shots with lights with and without protective
filter is an eye-opener. Do it.

Hans-Georg

--
No mail, please.



  #18  
Old August 11th 04, 04:25 PM
RonFrank
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default The importance of a uv filter?

I have UV filter on all my lenses, and always have.

As for never scratching a lens, I'm not sure how that is possible if you in
fact do anything in the way of location photography. I've replaced many UV
filters over the years, but no lenses due to scratched front elements. I
take good care of my equipment, but there is zero possibility that when
shooting a large number of days in a year that a front element will not come
into contact with something other that air.....

Just basic cleaning over time is going to destroy the coating on the front
element.

Once can always remove the filter in high flare situations. But in general
UV filters do NOT degrade image quality to any visible degree, and they
definately protect the front element.

BTW, not all lenses have recessed front elements, in fact many WA lens have
protruding front elements. Ironically those R the ones most in need of
protection, and some (like he Sigma 14mm) can not take front filters.

Ron


"Hans-Georg Michna" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 10 Aug 2004 10:15:22 -0700, Crownfield
wrote:

for me, any interchangeable lens:

if you scratch or chip the filter, it only costs how much?
new filter, 72mm is about 90.
any camera store will sell you the replacement (45 min).

if you scratch or chip the lens, it only costs how much?
factory service, starts at several hundred dollars.
many days lost. (2-3 weeks?)
only factory will touch damaged lens.


Crownfield, Beowulf,

I've taken tens of thousands of photos over many years, but
never scratched the lens. The main reason is that the lens is
recessed inside a metal ring, so it's actually not simple to
scratch it. For example, put the camera on a concrete floor with
the lens down and the glass of the lens will not actually touch
the floor.

So I don't see why should I put a protective filter on the lens,
particularly if it degrades picture quality.

I don't know what you do to your cameras and lenses. Perhaps you
really need a protective filter. In any case, the points have
been made and everybody can make an informed decision.

Taking night shots with lights with and without protective
filter is an eye-opener. Do it.

Hans-Georg

--
No mail, please.



  #19  
Old August 11th 04, 11:36 PM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default The importance of a uv filter?

"RonFrank" wrote:

Just basic cleaning over time is going to destroy the coating on the front
element.


Camera equipment is expensive. But it is so expensive that one must
speak foolishness?
  #20  
Old August 11th 04, 11:36 PM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"RonFrank" wrote:

Just basic cleaning over time is going to destroy the coating on the front
element.


Camera equipment is expensive. But it is so expensive that one must
speak foolishness?
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
25/30/37/58mm Infrared 'X Ray' filter - SONY DV Cameras yeo seng tong Digital Photography 1 July 17th 04 11:38 AM
25/30/37/58mm Infrared 'X Ray' filter - SONY DV Cameras yeo seng tong Digital Photography 0 July 4th 04 09:08 AM
Order of filters/lenses for camcorder Carl Swanson Digital Photography 3 July 3rd 04 06:42 PM
Using Lee hood with modified Cokin "P" series filter holder Phil Glaser Medium Format Photography Equipment 1 February 27th 04 03:27 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:14 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.