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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
"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 | |
|
|
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 |