I tried it on a F3, and everything worked. It is the most expensive lens there[for nikon]
Originally Posted by Jerry Thirsty
We used to have a junk lens in the store where I worked that we'd use to demonstrate the durability of glass on- but only to new employees at the store, not in front of customers. I think it was a Quantaray zoom lens that no longer focused or zoomed. In any case, it was such a piece of junk even when it was new that there was no crime in trying...
Originally Posted by Markok765
Even if you can't see a fair sized objective scratch on the ground glass, it is still there. If you had stopped the lens down, the damage, depending on its severity might become more apparent. Even if you couldn't see it then, it is still there, lowering contrast, and affecting sharpness in your micro contrasts, the exact place were proper printing tweakes make a print sing. I have older lenses that have cleaning wisps, etc. and still perform well, but I'd be happier if they were primo. That's the way it is. Is $10 worth spending to protect an $80 lens? Depends on what $80 is worth to you, and at what point you consider a lens compromised.
Last edited by JBrunner; 12-23-2007 at 06:53 PM. Click to view previous post history.
That's just, like, my opinion, man...
Marko, the lens you have purchased is a really good lens. If you take some pictures with it and you are happy with the results, then it is a really, really good lens for you.
As to whether you should have a UV filter as a protection for the front glass element, only you can really answer that.
However, think about a few scenarios you may encounter with the lens on the camera.
You may be walking around a crowded market with the camera hanging from it's strap near your waist, someone with a hard object, like a box, may just accidently hit the lens element.
You may be near the sea one day, salt laden air with the misty clouds common to this environment, surely isn't too flash for the front element.
Personally, I always have a UV filter on the front, unless I'm running an orange or like filter for my B&W film. The other thing I find good to protect my front element, is a metal lens hood, not the folding rubberised type.
In fact one of the better things you can have on the end of your lens is a correct lens hood. The lens hood will reduce possible flare from extra light as much as possible. Also a hood will be really beneficial for keeping light misty rain off the front element, something which may apply to you where you live, I would assume.
As your ability to purchase lenses and/or photographic equipment as time goes by gets better, you will become more able to figure out which direction you will head to. I think the 28mm lens is a very good semi wide lens, with great possibilities.
The fact that you have a guarantee, for someone in your position, is a bonus, and something not to be sneezed at.
I wish you well with it and look forward to seeing the fruits of your exposures!
Sounds like you just met Paul at the clearance Centre, he is a character and a Pentax freak. Paul is also biased against filters but that is his personal bias showing through, I err on the side of caution. Did Paul, juggle camera bodies while you were there?
Two years ago when shooting at St. Lawerence Market, I dropped my Nikon F on it's lens in a total dufus moment. The Filter was toast but the lens was fine, lesson learned.
"Life moves pretty fast, if you don't stop and look around once and a while, you might just miss it."
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
Actually yes, that was Paul. I got his card. He showed me a pentax brochure. He didn't juggle bodies. Tell him hi for me next time you come in! I'll probably get a filter when I go to my waterloo Henrys. BTW, toronto people, they have tiffen filters, mostly 49mm 3/$30.
Originally Posted by Uncle Bill
He told me a Spotmatic is as durable as a F3. Is this true?
Out with a Pentax MX & 40mm pancake last month.It started to snow and I tucked the camera inside my jacket catching the front element on my zipper.
Tossed the UV filter when I got home because it had sustained a nice vertical gouge across it's surface.
I am a lens hood fanatic. I use filters almost exclusively for simply filtering light, and lens shades for blocking stray light and to protect the lens. The only reason I use a filter for protection is for situations where the wind is whipping up sand, water or other debris. Other than that, I prefer to not have an extra piece of glass between my lens and the subject, if I don't need it. I have zero scratches on all my lenses, many of which are over 30 years old, thanks to the proper use of lens shades and lens caps when the lens is not in use.
To me, a filter on a lens, without a lens shade, would be inviting the chance of stray light (flare) to lower the quality of a photograph. And my first priority is the quality of a photograph.
Last edited by Marc Akemann; 12-26-2007 at 12:25 PM. Click to view previous post history.
This is a digital pic, but I took it a few days ago, with a UV filter on the front of my 50mm lens. I believe that the reflections were caused by the filter.
Because of this, I've taken the UV filters off my lenses
I use UV filters on all my filters as a matter of simple protection.
That doesn't mean you cannot remove them for particular shots.
Hey - they're your lenses you can do what you want with them. Just don't ever ask to borrow one of mine!