UV or skylight filters for digital

"Graham Archer" writes:

Is this correct ?

I'd suggest that "lens protection" is unnecessary for most of us. I use one
at Burning Man, where blowing dust is a severe problem, but I don't use one
in the French West Indies on beaches.

I'd suggest a good lens shade instead.

--
Philip Stripling | email to the replyto address is presumed
Legal Assistance on the Web | spam and read later. email to philip@
http://www.PhilipStripling.com/ | my domain is read daily.

"Graham Archer" writes:

Is this correct ?

I'd suggest that "lens protection" is unnecessary for most of us. I use one
at Burning Man, where blowing dust is a severe problem, but I don't use one
in the French West Indies on beaches.

I'd suggest a good lens shade instead.

--
Philip Stripling | email to the replyto address is presumed
Legal Assistance on the Web | spam and read later. email to philip@
http://www.PhilipStripling.com/ | my domain is read daily.

uv filters are ok but skylight filters aren't. skylight filters have a
slightly red tinge to them and is enough to throw out auto white balance.

Yes once upon a time skylights were the poormans uv filters.

Yes most people fit a uv filter to give the lens general protection rather
than actually to filter uv. The UV is practically neutral though it may
have a very faint blue tint when viewed with the human eye.

Uv is mostly a problem in landscapes. The greater the distance the more
likely a faint purple haze as the shear quantity of air between you and the
distant landscape absorbs uv radiation and reflects it.

filter coatings are far more robust and are therefore more easily cleaned.
It is also safe to use cleaning fluids without worrying about penetrating
any seals and entering the lens itself. Especially as you can remove it for
cleaning. I have also dropped a heavy lens and the buckled filter spared
the lens itself any damage.

I have also balanced my camera on the end of my golf trolley on the next
strap when i'm not shooting pictures and actually playing my own shots. nex
thing i know the trolley has tipped over and the camera has gone face down
in the dirt. mud and grass on the front. Very glad i had the filter on the
front that day. once removed even running water is safe to use.

Anyone who says "won't need to worry you probably won't damage anything
anyway" is a fool. The only way to avoid getting the front of the lens
dirty is to not use it at all.
wrote in message
...
"Graham Archer" writes:

Is this correct ?

I'd suggest that "lens protection" is unnecessary for most of us. I use
one
at Burning Man, where blowing dust is a severe problem, but I don't use
one
in the French West Indies on beaches.

I'd suggest a good lens shade instead.

--
Philip Stripling | email to the replyto address is presumed
Legal Assistance on the Web | spam and read later. email to philip@
http://www.PhilipStripling.com/ | my domain is read daily.

uv filters are ok but skylight filters aren't. skylight filters have a
slightly red tinge to them and is enough to throw out auto white balance.

Yes once upon a time skylights were the poormans uv filters.

Yes most people fit a uv filter to give the lens general protection rather
than actually to filter uv. The UV is practically neutral though it may
have a very faint blue tint when viewed with the human eye.

Uv is mostly a problem in landscapes. The greater the distance the more
likely a faint purple haze as the shear quantity of air between you and the
distant landscape absorbs uv radiation and reflects it.

filter coatings are far more robust and are therefore more easily cleaned.
It is also safe to use cleaning fluids without worrying about penetrating
any seals and entering the lens itself. Especially as you can remove it for
cleaning. I have also dropped a heavy lens and the buckled filter spared
the lens itself any damage.

I have also balanced my camera on the end of my golf trolley on the next
strap when i'm not shooting pictures and actually playing my own shots. nex
thing i know the trolley has tipped over and the camera has gone face down
in the dirt. mud and grass on the front. Very glad i had the filter on the
front that day. once removed even running water is safe to use.

Anyone who says "won't need to worry you probably won't damage anything
anyway" is a fool. The only way to avoid getting the front of the lens
dirty is to not use it at all.
wrote in message
...
"Graham Archer" writes:

Is this correct ?

I'd suggest that "lens protection" is unnecessary for most of us. I use
one
at Burning Man, where blowing dust is a severe problem, but I don't use
one
in the French West Indies on beaches.

I'd suggest a good lens shade instead.

--
Philip Stripling | email to the replyto address is presumed
Legal Assistance on the Web | spam and read later. email to philip@
http://www.PhilipStripling.com/ | my domain is read daily.

"Joseph Meehan" wrote:

Personally I don't bother, but I guess if I were going
somewhere that I expected blowing sand, dust or water to be a problem, I
might buy one. Most of the time a lens shade will provide better lens
protection, increased protection of no optical interference.

Personally, I find it alot easier to clean the crap off a flat,
removable filter than the curved, unremovable lens. (Holding the lens
under a tap -- which I've had to do for my filters at times -- just
doesn't seem sensible...)

Far too many times I've been in or found myself in places where crud
is airbourne with a missle-lock on my lens. Afterwards I look at the
filters and say "Praise Allah!"

If one is babying one's equipment (or it never leaves a studio), then
you can get away without the 'protection'. But if one feels the need
for it, then at least buy a good multi-coated one...

"Joseph Meehan" wrote:

Personally I don't bother, but I guess if I were going
somewhere that I expected blowing sand, dust or water to be a problem, I
might buy one. Most of the time a lens shade will provide better lens
protection, increased protection of no optical interference.

Personally, I find it alot easier to clean the crap off a flat,
removable filter than the curved, unremovable lens. (Holding the lens
under a tap -- which I've had to do for my filters at times -- just
doesn't seem sensible...)

Far too many times I've been in or found myself in places where crud
is airbourne with a missle-lock on my lens. Afterwards I look at the
filters and say "Praise Allah!"

If one is babying one's equipment (or it never leaves a studio), then
you can get away without the 'protection'. But if one feels the need
for it, then at least buy a good multi-coated one...

On Thu, 21 Oct 2004 18:49:31 GMT, "Mr Jessop"
wrote:

uv filters are ok but skylight filters aren't. skylight filters have a
slightly red tinge to them and is enough to throw out auto white balance.

Yes once upon a time skylights were the poormans uv filters.

Yes most people fit a uv filter to give the lens general protection rather
than actually to filter uv. The UV is practically neutral though it may
have a very faint blue tint when viewed with the human eye.

Uv is mostly a problem in landscapes. The greater the distance the more
likely a faint purple haze as the shear quantity of air between you and the
distant landscape absorbs uv radiation and reflects it.

filter coatings are far more robust and are therefore more easily cleaned.
It is also safe to use cleaning fluids without worrying about penetrating
any seals and entering the lens itself. Especially as you can remove it for
cleaning. I have also dropped a heavy lens and the buckled filter spared
the lens itself any damage.

I have also balanced my camera on the end of my golf trolley on the next
strap when i'm not shooting pictures and actually playing my own shots. nex
thing i know the trolley has tipped over and the camera has gone face down
in the dirt. mud and grass on the front. Very glad i had the filter on the
front that day. once removed even running water is safe to use.

Anyone who says "won't need to worry you probably won't damage anything
anyway" is a fool. The only way to avoid getting the front of the lens
dirty is to not use it at all.

From purely a protection point of view, in both these cases, the
suggestion of using a lens-hood would probably also saved your lens
The depends on how muddy your golf course is - here in Florida they
have decent layer of lush green grass on them.

My problem is always fingers - my own, when I hang the camera on my
neck. I have a bad habit of checking to see if the lens-cap fell off
by touch, so a filter is essential. This habit is the curse of an
ill-fitting generic cap I bought to replace one I lost on one of my
lenses.

--
Owamanga!

On Thu, 21 Oct 2004 18:49:31 GMT, "Mr Jessop"
wrote:

uv filters are ok but skylight filters aren't. skylight filters have a
slightly red tinge to them and is enough to throw out auto white balance.

Yes once upon a time skylights were the poormans uv filters.

Yes most people fit a uv filter to give the lens general protection rather
than actually to filter uv. The UV is practically neutral though it may
have a very faint blue tint when viewed with the human eye.

Uv is mostly a problem in landscapes. The greater the distance the more
likely a faint purple haze as the shear quantity of air between you and the
distant landscape absorbs uv radiation and reflects it.

filter coatings are far more robust and are therefore more easily cleaned.
It is also safe to use cleaning fluids without worrying about penetrating
any seals and entering the lens itself. Especially as you can remove it for
cleaning. I have also dropped a heavy lens and the buckled filter spared
the lens itself any damage.

I have also balanced my camera on the end of my golf trolley on the next
strap when i'm not shooting pictures and actually playing my own shots. nex
thing i know the trolley has tipped over and the camera has gone face down
in the dirt. mud and grass on the front. Very glad i had the filter on the
front that day. once removed even running water is safe to use.

Anyone who says "won't need to worry you probably won't damage anything
anyway" is a fool. The only way to avoid getting the front of the lens
dirty is to not use it at all.

From purely a protection point of view, in both these cases, the
suggestion of using a lens-hood would probably also saved your lens
The depends on how muddy your golf course is - here in Florida they
have decent layer of lush green grass on them.

My problem is always fingers - my own, when I hang the camera on my
neck. I have a bad habit of checking to see if the lens-cap fell off
by touch, so a filter is essential. This habit is the curse of an
ill-fitting generic cap I bought to replace one I lost on one of my
lenses.

--
Owamanga!

wrote:
"Joseph Meehan" wrote:

Personally I don't bother, but I guess if I were going
somewhere that I expected blowing sand, dust or water to be a problem, I
might buy one. Most of the time a lens shade will provide better lens
protection, increased protection of no optical interference.

Personally, I find it alot easier to clean the crap off a flat,
removable filter than the curved, unremovable lens. (Holding the lens
under a tap -- which I've had to do for my filters at times -- just
doesn't seem sensible...)

Far too many times I've been in or found myself in places where crud
is airbourne with a missle-lock on my lens. Afterwards I look at the
filters and say "Praise Allah!"

If one is babying one's equipment (or it never leaves a studio), then
you can get away without the 'protection'. But if one feels the need
for it, then at least buy a good multi-coated one...

I have never babied my equipment. I got started in a studio in the 50's
and those old 4x5 too a beating. I have used lenses with good size chips
out of them as well as large scratches and never did I see any problem in
results because of them. Then again I have done very little photography in
bad environments. If you do get into those situations then some protection
may be called for

From my experience as a photographer and later as a photo sales
professional, I believe most people worry far too much about it. I have
seen more serious damage done by improper cleaning than anything else. I
have seen people with "protective" filters on their cameras that look like
the had cleaned them with sand paper. I guess it was better than doing that
with their lens, but they were getting crappy results because of it. Just
taking reasonable care of their lens would have been a lot better.

--
Joseph E. Meehan

26 + 6 = 1 It's Irish Math

wrote:
"Joseph Meehan" wrote:

Personally I don't bother, but I guess if I were going
somewhere that I expected blowing sand, dust or water to be a problem, I
might buy one. Most of the time a lens shade will provide better lens
protection, increased protection of no optical interference.

Personally, I find it alot easier to clean the crap off a flat,
removable filter than the curved, unremovable lens. (Holding the lens
under a tap -- which I've had to do for my filters at times -- just
doesn't seem sensible...)

Far too many times I've been in or found myself in places where crud
is airbourne with a missle-lock on my lens. Afterwards I look at the
filters and say "Praise Allah!"

If one is babying one's equipment (or it never leaves a studio), then
you can get away without the 'protection'. But if one feels the need
for it, then at least buy a good multi-coated one...

I have never babied my equipment. I got started in a studio in the 50's
and those old 4x5 too a beating. I have used lenses with good size chips
out of them as well as large scratches and never did I see any problem in
results because of them. Then again I have done very little photography in
bad environments. If you do get into those situations then some protection
may be called for

From my experience as a photographer and later as a photo sales
professional, I believe most people worry far too much about it. I have
seen more serious damage done by improper cleaning than anything else. I
have seen people with "protective" filters on their cameras that look like
the had cleaned them with sand paper. I guess it was better than doing that
with their lens, but they were getting crappy results because of it. Just
taking reasonable care of their lens would have been a lot better.

--
Joseph E. Meehan

26 + 6 = 1 It's Irish Math