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 » Photo Equipment » 35mm Photo Equipment
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

To filter or not to filter



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old August 28th 04, 02:33 AM
ColynG©
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On 28 Aug 2004 00:54:14 GMT, "Justin F. Knotzke"
wrote:

Hi,

I just plunked down a lot of change on a rather expensive piece of glass,
and I am wondering if people generally put protective filters on their
expensive lenses or not.

The lens in question is a wide angled zoom.

Thanks


The best protection for your lens is a lens hood.

If you drop the lens, the hood takes the beating instead of a filter
that can shatter and damage the front element..


Colyn Goodson

http://home.swbell.net/colyng

http://www.colyngoodson.com
  #2  
Old August 29th 04, 05:24 PM
Alan Browne
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default To filter or not to filter

Justin F. Knotzke wrote:
quote who= Alan Browne /:


I recently surveyed the group on this matter, and you can google
with "survey" "filter".



Ooh, thanks for that Alan. I missed that thread in a recent google.


With a "rather expensive piece of glass" one should perhaps
invest in a multicoated filter rather than the bargains, unless
you believe it will rarely have a filter on it...



Ok. Thanks again for your input. That helps me a lot.

The lens arrives this week. I think I will purchase a filter and then if
someone would be as so kind as to maybe help me setup a test, I'd like to try
a filter on/filter off test. Any ideas Alan what would be a fair test for
this?


...depending on the lens but you could try:

-shooting a white sheet of fine print (resolution and color cast
test) don't use newspaper as it is not white.

-shoot a subject without direct light in the viewfinder, but
falling on the front element (or filter) from the side (eg:
remove the hood and allow flare to occur.

-backlit trees or other backlit subject (flare/contrast test)

For all the above, try wide open and a couple/three stops closed
(with and without filter).

-if it is a wide angle lens, try filters such as pol and color
corr filters (81A/82A etc) and check for vignetting wide open
(this is a lens test rather than a filter test).

But, having said the above, the main effect will be that flare
and ghosting will increase and contrast will decrease with the
filter when light gets at the glass directly... the multicoats do
better at the expense of a few more $. When light is not on the
glass directly, I doubt you will be able to see any effect at all
with less than optical lab equipment.

So look for opportunities to shoot without a filter, and be
vigilant and prepared for those times when you want to protect
the front element from the elements.

Cheers,
Alan
--
-- rec.photo.equipment.35mm user resource:
-- http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.--
  #3  
Old August 29th 04, 06:07 PM
Donald Specker
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

I've been a stock nature photographer for something like 30 years and have
generally used straight coated Hoya UV filters for protection, but not
against the elements but from myself. I try to keep my equipment fairly
clean, and sooner or later, you'll mar either your filter or lens after many
years of use and cleaning. I think it's better to throw away a scratched
filter than a lens. I've also done tests with and without filters and the
loss of image quality is generally imperceptible. That being said, if I'm
in a situation where I have the time, I'll take off the filter before the
shot. I've also foresaken filters where the front element is well recessed,
as in some of the macro and standard designs.

As others have noted, there are far more important things that affect image
quality, so don't agonize over that aspect.

Hope this helps.


"Alan Browne" wrote in message
...
Justin F. Knotzke wrote:
quote who= Alan Browne /:


I recently surveyed the group on this matter, and you can google with
"survey" "filter".



Ooh, thanks for that Alan. I missed that thread in a recent google.


With a "rather expensive piece of glass" one should perhaps invest in a
multicoated filter rather than the bargains, unless you believe it will
rarely have a filter on it...



Ok. Thanks again for your input. That helps me a lot.

The lens arrives this week. I think I will purchase a filter and then
if
someone would be as so kind as to maybe help me setup a test, I'd like to
try
a filter on/filter off test. Any ideas Alan what would be a fair test for
this?


..depending on the lens but you could try:

-shooting a white sheet of fine print (resolution and color cast test)
don't use newspaper as it is not white.

-shoot a subject without direct light in the viewfinder, but falling on
the front element (or filter) from the side (eg: remove the hood and allow
flare to occur.

-backlit trees or other backlit subject (flare/contrast test)

For all the above, try wide open and a couple/three stops closed (with and
without filter).

-if it is a wide angle lens, try filters such as pol and color corr
filters (81A/82A etc) and check for vignetting wide open (this is a lens
test rather than a filter test).

But, having said the above, the main effect will be that flare and
ghosting will increase and contrast will decrease with the filter when
light gets at the glass directly... the multicoats do better at the
expense of a few more $. When light is not on the glass directly, I doubt
you will be able to see any effect at all with less than optical lab
equipment.

So look for opportunities to shoot without a filter, and be vigilant and
prepared for those times when you want to protect the front element from
the elements.

Cheers,
Alan
--
-- rec.photo.equipment.35mm user resource:
-- http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.--



  #4  
Old August 29th 04, 06:32 PM
Alan Browne
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Justin F. Knotzke wrote:

quote who= Al Denelsbeck /:


I have run into too many situations where a filter degrades the
image, and not once have I seen one do any kind of "protection".



I'd be lying Mr Denelsbeck if I wasn't hoping you'd reply to this question
because I had a sense that you would argue that the use of a filter was not
worth the degradation of the image.

I don't think we shoot the same kinds of subjects, but I may be wrong.

My camera goes everywhere with me. I take it to buy milk. Local shop
keepers know me as the guy with the camera. I also drag it with me to cycling
events etc.

Given that I only own one AF body, I have to switch lenses as opposed to
bodies when I shoot sports. I often rent a 80-200AFS and this year, I got a
few questioning looks from the salespeople of my local rental shop when I
brought back the lens with a scatched B+W filter. It happens when I drop the
lens in the bag, yank out the next lens and one of the lenses gets scratched
in the process.


A L W A Y S P U T T H E L E N S C A P O N

B E F O R E P U T T I N G T H E

L E N S I N B A G.



Luckily, they didn't charge me for the filter because they know me (ie make
money off me).


At the rate you're renting, you'd be better off plunking out the
cash for the lens even if it drove you into interest paying mode
for a brief while.



I am going to purchase a Lowepro Steath Reporter bag because I need a way
to swap lenses without scratching filters. However, the point I am attempting
to make is that I'm not as careful as you in how I treat my stuff.


Being careful does not neccesarilly equate to lost time or
opportunities. Plan.

--
-- rec.photo.equipment.35mm user resource:
-- http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.--
  #5  
Old August 29th 04, 08:30 PM
Justin F. Knotzke
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

quote who= Alan Browne /:

A L W A Y S P U T T H E L E N S C A P O N

B E F O R E P U T T I N G T H E

L E N S I N B A G.


LOL. Well I get that. But 4 lenses, a flash, batteries, film galore, all
the caps etc plus limited time to switch and the worry of dropping a body
makes one appreciate owning two bodies..

At the rate you're renting, you'd be better off plunking out the
cash for the lens even if it drove you into interest paying mode
for a brief while.


Since April, an F5, 17-35 F2.8, darkroom equipment, a film scanner.. it
adds up. I gotta dig myself out of debt first before I buy any more glass.

Thanks for the reply Alan,

J



--
Justin F. Knotzke

http://www.shampoo.ca
  #6  
Old August 29th 04, 09:03 PM
Alan Browne
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Justin F. Knotzke wrote:

quote who= Alan Browne /:


A L W A Y S P U T T H E L E N S C A P O N

B E F O R E P U T T I N G T H E

L E N S I N B A G.



LOL. Well I get that. But 4 lenses, a flash, batteries, film galore, all
the caps etc plus limited time to switch and the worry of dropping a body
makes one appreciate owning two bodies..


Do it all the time. Keep caps in a pocket os they can be put on
quickly.



At the rate you're renting, you'd be better off plunking out the
cash for the lens even if it drove you into interest paying mode
for a brief while.



Since April, an F5, 17-35 F2.8, darkroom equipment, a film scanner.. it
adds up. I gotta dig myself out of debt first before I buy any more glass.


No, no, no! Maximize your debt and increase your inability to
get consistent results with any given piece of equipment ... only
then will you really understand.

Congrats on the 17-35 ... same is on my short wish list. Did you
get my e-mail L-508?

Cheers,
Alan

--
-- rec.photo.equipment.35mm user resource:
-- http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.--
  #7  
Old August 29th 04, 10:50 PM
William Graham
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Colin D" wrote in message
...
William Graham wrote:

"Justin F. Knotzke" wrote in message
...
quote who= William Graham /:

I know not what others may do, but as for me.....No. I keep my

lenses in
the
best protective case I can find when not in use, and then when I use

it,
I
remove it from the case, remove the end caps, and attach it to my

camera
and
use it. Afterward, I return it to its case. I only use a filter if

its
called for in the shot. A possible exception to this rule is if I am

taking
pictures on a boat, or in the wind at the beach, or somewhere else

in a
hostile environment where I feel that a protective filter (UV

filter) is
called for.

May I ask why you don't feel the need? You mention that you don't

feel
you
need the protection in most cases, but what is the downside of having

one
on
all the time?

Thanks for the reply,

J

A fair enough question. It's because I feel that the optical quality of

the
lens might be compromised by the lesser/inferior quality of the filter.

IOW,
why spend a lot of money on a high quality lens, only to shoot all your
pictures through a windowpane? Now, in all fairness, a good quality

filter
should be a lot better than a windowpane, but still and all, unless you
really need the protection, why not just use the lens, and nothing but

the
lens?


In some countries, notably Australia and New Zealand, the preponderance
of UV radiation is much greater than others - ozone hole etc. - and film
shot without a filter can look decidedly blue, despite claims made that
modern lenses are more or less opaque to UV.

Colin D.


Ah yes.....Were that the case here, I would probably keep a UV filter on my
lenses......But, after all, I live in Oregon....:^)


  #8  
Old August 29th 04, 10:56 PM
William Graham
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Justin F. Knotzke" wrote in message
...
quote who= Jeremy /:

The OP may have simply posed the question incorrectly. If "maximum

image
quality" is what the OP is really seeking, there are other factors that

will
have a much greater effect on his lens' performance than will the use of

a
filter.


I was aware of some of the tradeoffs of using a filter vs not before
posting the question. I had googled for existing posts on the subject. I

was
more concerned with what people's personal choices were and why.

I was looking to see if quality loss was significant or not and if the
amount of protection offered by a filter was significant or not and how

the
two related.

Thanks,

J

Well, you must be aware that others, if their opinions are worth anything,
will also have, "googled the subject" and will have formed their opinion
based on the same criteria that you have. Personally, I have to admit that I
have never done any kind of comprehensive test to find out whether my
filters introduce any noticeable distortion into my shots. If I did, I might
change my mind and begin using them. So, actually, I have just formed my
biased opinion based on the literature.......


  #9  
Old August 29th 04, 11:01 PM
William Graham
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Justin F. Knotzke" wrote in message
...
quote who= Al Denelsbeck /:
Let me throw this out, what would be the best way to test lens with

filter
and lens without filter? Would setting the camera up with a tripod,

pointing
it at a brick wall and shooting a frame with filter and without be a good
test? Or should I shoot into the sun? I'd like to maybe see for myself how
much of a different it makes.


Doing both would be nice, and, I can't think of a better tool to do it with
than a digital camera.....In a few minutes you could find out what effect
the filter has without waiting for the finished prints, and knowing that no
one else has screwed with them to lesson the effect. This is a case where
digital cameras are clearly better than film........


  #10  
Old August 29th 04, 11:15 PM
William Graham
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Jeremy" wrote in message
nk.net...

"William Graham" wrote in message
news:eCfYc.201089$8_6.100026@attbi_s04...


A very good article, and I agree with everything he says. However, I

think
that even Mr. Traudt would admit that having all those situations

maximized
for any given shot is virtually impossible.


I believe that his objective was to set forth the ideals that

photographers
should be aiming at (no pun intended), not suggesting that a shot was
unworthy unless all those criteria were met.

My images have become much better, at least technically, since I began
following his advice. The small size of the 35mm frame places increased
demands if a good image is to be recorded. It is not just a matter of
buying excellent lenses, and expecting superior results. With every shot,
the photographer must maximize his equipment's capabilities, to the

maximum
extent.

In my case, that meant using tripods and lens shades on as many shots as
possible. Especially for my particular shooting style (mainly landscapes,
cityscapes and other static subjects) there is little excuse for shooting
handheld.

I have also begun bracketing my important shots. It seems silly to say

this
now, after having been an amateur photographer for over 40 years, but I

was
reluctant to bracket because it was wasting film! Probably some belief I
held as a child, that stuck with me all these years. My Spotmatic and ES
bodies have averaging meters--nothing special at all. But I can always

get
a perfectly exposed shot by bracketing (and I have time to do this,

because
I don't shoot many action subjects). So I can get results that almost

equal
the most advanced metering systems available today whenever I require it,
just by expending a couple of extra frames.

Most importantly to me, my equipment now feels familiar--like a
well-broken-in old shoe, and I don't want to replace it. My SMC Takumar
lenses are legendary in their own right, and I doubt that I would see any
significant improvement if I were to "upgrade" to today's plastic-barreled
lenses. By using Traudt's advice, I can maximize my equipment's

performance
to equal or exceed that of the most modern equipment. I might not be able
to say this if I shot fast-moving subjects, but I am not a press or sports
photographer. I could probably shoot most of my material on large format,
so I already have a lot more automation available to me than the guy that

is
toting that 4x5 camera around.

The image we carry of the 35mm photographer as characterized in movies and
tv--that of a camera that shoots frame after frame, often with an auto
winder (and maybe a couple of those are actually keepers)--is not my idea

of
excellent photography. The guy that shoots from the hip, and who produces
tons of imperfect images, (and who thinks he is so cool because he has the
latest and most expensive gear hanging from his neckstrap) relies upon

luck
more than skill to get a good result.


This is true, but remember that in a movie, or other popular medium,
photography is always done, "from the hip", because otherwise the audience
would fall asleep while the guy was setting up. - This reminds me of a movie
where Steve McQueen (or sombody) throws his silver dollar on the bar, goes
out to his motorcycle, and drives away. (total screen time, 20 seconds) With
me, its wait for the bartender to come over, give him a $20 bill, wait for
the change (maybe 5 minutes) Then go out (after making a restroom call
first) Put on my helmet, gloves, leather coat, and make sure everything else
is secured so it won't blow away, and then, after the "audience" has been
sleeping for over ten minutes) start up the bike and drive away.........


 




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
How to test a Polarizer's Quality (was - Bad Kenko filter) John Doe Digital Photography 1 August 24th 04 05:14 PM
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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:45 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.