Each their own... I go without a "protection" filter especially on wides where dew drops and dust on a dirty filter do their worst to degrade things.
Originally Posted by Poisson Du Jour
Filter are for collor-correction, polarizing, and B+W contrast augmentation... I stopped with the "skylights" in 1994.
My 150mm planar has been rained on more than once... I am happier keeping lens caps on lenses when not in use rather than dealing with micro scratched skylight filters which always seemed to degrade fast...perhaps because I let them get so dirty.
Anyway... I guess I'll just send this 16-35 in when and if I notice the blems are an issue. It is the most blemed up lens I have ever used... sad it was new 8 months ago.
like you i have made my income from using a camera since the same time period ...
one thing i realize is that if you are the biggest critic of your own wdrk and while a "layman" may not find fault from bad /ugy coatings you might, and probably will ... i know i do with things i make when others mwy not notice &c
Relative of yours?
Originally Posted by Poisson Du Jour
I do use a digital device in my photographic pursuits when necessary.
When someone rags on me for using film, I use a middle digit, upraised.
Probably a cousin. He has a brother, too - Soup Du Jour
Originally Posted by lxdude
Last edited by E. von Hoegh; 07-31-2013 at 11:06 AM. Click to view previous post history.
tHIS IS AN ARGUMENT i'VE HAD FOR YRS, i PUT A uv FILTER ON EVERY LENS i BUY, A LOT OF PHOTOGRAPHERS SAY ITS A WASE OF TIME , BUT i DON'T HAVE TO CLEAN THE FRONT ELEMENT FOR YEARS, sorry bou the caps, didn't realise they were locked on
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
Here's a question for you: Is there a difference between using a clear optical glass filter vs. a UV filter to protect your lens? In other words, if you don't need to be filtering UV because you're not shooting in the mountains somewhere, will a UV filter cause image degradation or color shifting at lower altitudes? I'll bet someone out there has done comparison testing or is this a question for Tiffen and/or B+W?
Originally Posted by Nikon Collector
The other thing that's problematic is when some people shoot with UV filters, they store their lenses with those filters in place. That creates a medium for growth of fungus, mold and mildew on the front element (both inside and out) because lack of air circulation promotes those kinds of growths. Those of course, can lead to scarring of the front element which brings us back to the age-old question that I believe came up before photography was actually invented: "How much mold, mildew, dirt, dust and debris is enough to adversely affect image quality?
Take it slow ;>)
Without guys like John Coltrane, Count Basie and Duke Ellington, life....would be meaningless.
The fact that you get income from your photography is unimportant. I'm a pro too...meaning, I expect and strive for professional results. What you mean is you're a commercial photographer I suppose. We all want and expect the best in our photography.
Front element stuff often times has no effect on images, assuming there's a proper hood on the lens. I once had a Nikon 35 70 2.8 lens w/ deep and numerous scratches on the front and never saw any issues whatsoever. Some of the scratches were more like deep gouges, and I filled them in w/ black paint. Stuff on the rear can be an issue. More damning is haze or fungus. That's where you'll get flare and/or image degradation like a softening of the image.
The only times I'll use a filter is for B&W, and that's all I shoot. Everything goes into a darkroom, so there's no post processing of issues in software. I use yellow, orange, that sort of thing. One of my best shots was ruined by flare from a UV filter, and it was a Leica filter w/ a more than adequate hood. Anytime you screw a piece of glass on the front of a lens you risk flare.
Last edited by momus; 08-16-2013 at 04:11 PM. Click to view previous post history.
Uncoated lenses can produce unique images and UV filters are an unnecessary air to glass surface that interfere with the purity of the image.
“The contemplation of things as they are, without error or confusion, without substitution or imposture, is in itself a nobler thing than a whole harvest of invention”
in 45 years I've never had that problem shooting from tropical rain fores to te sahara
Originally Posted by Mark Feldstein
the few time i've droppede a camra, I was shooting and didn't have a lens cap on, MINOLTA THAT GOT JOSLED AT A WEDDING BROKE OUT THE SCREEN BUT DIDN'T HARM THE LENS, A CANNON ftB WHILE ROCK CLIMBING BROKE THEFILTER AND BENT THE EDGE OF THE LENS BUT IT STILL WORKED FINE, THE el i DROPPED IN A PARACHUTE DROP, i NEVER FOUND SO WHO KNOWS, IT WAS 1200 FT UP WHEN THE STRAP BROKE