Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 69,760   Posts: 1,516,081   Online: 893
      
Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 69
  1. #21

    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    72
    Quote Originally Posted by bladerunner6 View Post
    If the optical performance is the same as a less expensive filter, I can not justify spending $50-$60 on a lens that cost less than that or a little more. So let me clarify, how much does a filter that does not diminish my optics but will protect my lens go for? Thanks.
    Even the best filter will prevent some light in reaching your lens in all cases and can increase the likelihood of flare. In fact, a large, flat air-glass surfaces at the front of the lens is just about a worse-case scenario for adding flare, and a filter adds two such surfaces.

    Even with flare an uncoated filter, such as a base model Tiffen, can reflect away 8-10% of the incoming light. A single-coated filter, such as a standard line Hoya, will reflect away about 4%. A high-end multicoated filter can cut that loss to about 1-2%. While it's harder to quantify flare effects, suffice it to say the better the coating, the less increase in the likelihood of flare.

  2. #22

    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    268
    Quote Originally Posted by Klainmeister View Post
    I still have yet to buy into the more expensive filter vs non stuff. From practical experience, a $15 Hoya printed just as sharp and well as a $90 B+W in the darkroom. Visibly nothing different, nada. Yes, light is moving through it, but it's not being focused by it. It's like if you had some crud on your reading glasses. Its out of focus and doesn't really affect your vision minus the smudge you might get.
    This comment is spot on. I keep a UV filter on all my lenses, both to protect the lens (which they have done on various occassions) as well as to cut thru the UV haze. So over the years I have collected examples from every manufacturer, from Tiffen to Heliopan and B+W, and everything in between. I have never seen any image degradation from any of them, or any difference from the high end to the low end. There can be a difference in thread quality from one brand to the next, but I have not generally had a problem with Tiffen (the most problematic filter for sticking is the 100mm dia. Olympus filter that came with my 600mm Zuiko).

    As for lens flare ... really??? If you are so unaware of the sun's position and when a lens hood or shading is required, it would seem that a UV filter would be the least of your worries.

  3. #23
    Poisson Du Jour's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    SE Australia
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,494
    Images
    15
    Quote Originally Posted by thuggins View Post
    [...]

    As for lens flare ... really??? If you are so unaware of the sun's position and when a lens hood or shading is required, it would seem that a UV filter would be the least of your worries.

    Lens flare can and does occur off-axis more readily with a poorly coated filter attached to the front lens because light is reflecting off the inside surface of that filter and onto the front element of the lens, back and forth. This is why many high-end filters have as much as 10 coatings front and rear to realistically reduce the potential for flare. A UV filter is no different to any other filter: it will exponentially increase the risk of flare. A lens hood in whatever configuration provides additional protection to the front element and/or filter.
    .::Gary Rowan Higgins

    A comfort zone is a wonderful place. But nothing ever grows there.
    —Anon.






  4. #24

    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Central Florida, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,907
    Quote Originally Posted by bladerunner6 View Post
    If the optical performance is the same as a less expensive filter, I can not justify spending $50-$60 on a lens that cost less than that or a little more.

    So let me clarify, how much does a filter that does not diminish my optics but will protect my lens go for?

    Thanks.

    I think you got a wrong idea.... Anything you put in front of your lens will change something to some degree. There is no such thing as a filter that does not affect your lens performance. The difference is how much and how badly. I put Nikon NC in front of all of my lenses. I find the protection they afford and reduction in optical quality a worth while trade off.

    You never told us how large of a filter you need. If you need 52mm diameter filter, a decent quality UV or NC filter starts around $15 and go up from there. Hoya multi-coated kind are in this price range and they are pretty good. Nikon NC (which is my favorite) is $30ish. I will not put anything less than these in front of any lens, unless I'm shooting in a sand storm or something and it needs to be disposable.

    Honestly though, if your lens is worth $50 and you are concerned about not impacting optical quality, I really wouldn't put any. If you damage your lens to a degree it's useless, you are out $50. I had several lenses in $100 range before. I didn't put $70 Nikon NC in front of it. It made no sense to me.

    Tell us more about what you have.... that'll make it easier for us to give advise.
    Develop, stop, fix.... wait.... where's my film?

  5. #25

    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    689
    I use filters on ALL my lenses. You should see the filters: scratched, dirty, funny patterns in them...

    This teached me 2 things: A filter is invaluable if I want to keep (protect) the lens' front element clean (new). Also, there is no degradation to Image quality despite all the scratches. Well, if there is a degradation, my customers never saw any. And that's what counts.

    People can complain about the loss of IQ but frankly, if there's a room for improvement in their photography, it has to be in the picture making department, not in the sharpness department.

  6. #26
    Curt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Pacific Northwest
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,527
    Images
    15
    Quote Originally Posted by Leigh B View Post
    If I had a dollar for every old wives' tale about a filter breaking and damaging a lens...

    That's certainly a ridiculous reason to avoid using a filter.

    If you're that concerned, don't take your lens outdoors in the first place and you won't need to worry.

    As to tripods blowing over or missing a lens pouch when you're working... Pay attention to what you're doing.
    The lenses were damaged by operator stupidity, not by the presence of a filter.

    - Leigh
    +1

    I had a filter on a d*****l camera and while in Yosemite I was walking up some stone steps when I slipped on the layer of needles. My camera was around my neck and took a swing at the rock side walk. When I took a look through the viewfinder there wasn't any display. I figured it was toast at that point but taking the battery out and then back in it turned on and worked.

    But I digress, the filter I had on was crushed at the rim. If I hadn't had a filter on the lens would have been crushed and it would no longer be accepting filters.

    If I had put a rubber lens shade on it would have no doubt acted as a bumper. An accident can happen any time, one has to take care in the first place. Walking around with the camera swinging on my neck in the woods wasn't the best idea.
    Everytime I find a film or paper that I like, they discontinue it. - Paul Strand - Aperture monograph on Strand

  7. #27
    Curt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Pacific Northwest
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,527
    Images
    15
    For those who are apt to put or make cleaning marks on their lenses. You know like the ads say, "the lens was cleaned with steel wool but it won't affect the pictures". They should use a filter, any filter on their lenses.
    Everytime I find a film or paper that I like, they discontinue it. - Paul Strand - Aperture monograph on Strand

  8. #28

    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    41
    Quote Originally Posted by tkamiya View Post
    I think you got a wrong idea.... Anything you put in front of your lens will change something to some degree. There is no such thing as a filter that does not affect your lens performance. The difference is how much and how badly. I put Nikon NC in front of all of my lenses. I find the protection they afford and reduction in optical quality a worth while trade off.

    You never told us how large of a filter you need. If you need 52mm diameter filter, a decent quality UV or NC filter starts around $15 and go up from there. Hoya multi-coated kind are in this price range and they are pretty good. Nikon NC (which is my favorite) is $30ish. I will not put anything less than these in front of any lens, unless I'm shooting in a sand storm or something and it needs to be disposable.

    Honestly though, if your lens is worth $50 and you are concerned about not impacting optical quality, I really wouldn't put any. If you damage your lens to a degree it's useless, you are out $50. I had several lenses in $100 range before. I didn't put $70 Nikon NC in front of it. It made no sense to me.

    Tell us more about what you have.... that'll make it easier for us to give advise.
    My lenses are:

    Nikon 28-80, 58mm

    Tamron 75-300, 62mm

  9. #29
    Mark Fisher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Chicago
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    1,625
    Images
    151
    Sorry for the non-responsive answer, but if I had $20 I'd use it for a lens hood and use it all the time. It doesn't help with blowing sand, but that is about it. I have UV filters on a few lenses with very exposed elements, but mostly not. I suspect that a less expensive UV filter plus a lens hood may be better than a high-end UV filter alone both for protection and flare.
    Your first 10,000 pictures are the worst - HCB

    www.markjamesfisher.com

  10. #30

    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Central Florida, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,907
    For your lens, Nikon 28-80 and Tamron 75-300, I'd choose between not putting any filters for sake of protection and putting something like these on.

    http://www.amazon.com/58mm-Ultraviol...ywords=58mm+uv

    http://www.amazon.com/Sigma-DG-58mm-...ywords=58mm+uv

    I would avoid going the lowest end Tiffen or worse, Sunpak type.

    Here's the thing.... I know your lenses were inexpensive, so if you decide you don't want to put anything on them, you aren't taking that much of gamble. But if you do put something on, you have to get at least a half way decent one. But, remember this.... anything you put will affect something to some degree. If you end up shooting in very direct back light condition, you must know enough to take your filters off if you want to minimize the possibility of flare. We all do. None of the filters will block out flares.
    Develop, stop, fix.... wait.... where's my film?

Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin