Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 74,100   Posts: 1,636,336   Online: 1306
      
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 31
  1. #21
    colrehogan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    St. Louis, MO
    Shooter
    Large Format Pan
    Posts
    2,016
    Blog Entries
    3
    Images
    16
    So what do you do when your lens has no filter threads or has already been dinged on the filter threads by the time you get it?
    Diane

    Halak 41

  2. #22

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Louisiana, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,325
    Quote Originally Posted by Nick Zentena View Post
    The times you all ended up with damaged filters. How do you know the lens would have been damaged?

    Did the filter protect the lens? Or would nothing have happened without the filter?

    If I tape an egg to my bumper will the egg protect the car?

    Of course if your filters come with built in shock absorbers.
    I can think of two occasions off hand.

    I was changing lenses and put one of them on the roof of my vehicle and immediately knocked it off. It smashed onto the concrete parking lot, glass went everywhere and it rolled under the car. I crawled under, expecting the worst and only discovered the filter was broken. Needle-nose pliers removed the filter ring and I went on with my pictures. No damage other than the broken filter.

    On another occasion, same circumstances. I placed a lens on a countertop while changing lenses and knocked it off. It hit on the lens shade, bending it and shattering the filter. No other damage. I bent the hood back into shape, removed the broken filter and continued with my pictures.

    Maybe the lenses would have survived unscathed without the filters in place. Maybe the egg saved the bumper. Was the bumper made of eggshell?

    But the main point is that I have thrown away a few dozen UV filters over the years that had become scratched. The scratches came from overly aggressive cleaning on my part to dings of unknown etiology. If the filter hadn't been there, I'm sure the lens would have become scratched instead.

    Most of the time, I use a filter on my lenses but sometimes I don't. I have a couple of telephotos that have long, securely attached lens hoods and I very seldom find a filter necessary to protect these lenses. I'm just really careful with cleaning the front elements. I also have several lenses I bought used that already had scratches or damaged filter threads (or both). They were cheap to buy and already damaged so I don't take as much care of them.

  3. #23

    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Dedham, Ma, USA
    Shooter
    Med. Format Pan
    Posts
    625
    Quote Originally Posted by Nick Zentena View Post
    The times you all ended up with damaged filters. How do you know the lens would have been damaged?
    The way you rationalize is strange. When I see a ding on one of my filters I'm glad it's on the filter ring and not the lens - when I see a ding on one of my lenses, I wonder about it's optical integrity.
    "Pictures are not incidental frills to a text; they are essences of our distinctive way of knowing." Stephen J. Gould

  4. #24

    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Italia
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,679
    Quote Originally Posted by panastasia View Post
    The way you rationalize is strange. When I see a ding on one of my filters I'm glad it's on the filter ring and not the lens - when I see a ding on one of my lenses, I wonder about it's optical integrity.
    I fully expect a filter ring to be softer then my wimpiest lens. If it isn't then normal use of the filter will damage the lens.

    Just because the filter was damaged doesn't mean the lens would have been. It's possible the filter could even have made things worse.

  5. #25
    PhotoJim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Regina, SK, CA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,221
    Quote Originally Posted by Steve Smith View Post
    Just one thought. If it's a good idea to always use a skylight filter (and I'm not arguing either way). Why don't lenses come with this coating on the front (or any) element as standard?
    Some lenses have a clear glass front element for protection. The idea is that it is cheaper to replace than an element that forms part of the optical formula.

    The filtration isn't always desirable, but is rarely harmful.
    Jim MacKenzie - Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada

    A bunch of Nikons; Feds, Zorkis and a Kiev; Pentax 67-II (inherited from my deceased father-in-law); Bronica SQ-A; and a nice Shen Hao 4x5 field camera with 3 decent lenses that needs to be taken outside more. Oh, and as of mid-2012, one of those bodies we don't talk about here.

    Favourite film: do I need to pick only one?

  6. #26

    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Dedham, Ma, USA
    Shooter
    Med. Format Pan
    Posts
    625
    Quote Originally Posted by Nick Zentena View Post
    I fully expect a filter ring to be softer then my wimpiest lens. If it isn't then normal use of the filter will damage the lens.

    Just because the filter was damaged doesn't mean the lens would have been. It's possible the filter could even have made things worse.
    ?????

    Nick,

    Believe me, I'm trying to understand you.

    If the filter ring is made of a softer material, that's a good thing because softer material will absorb any impact better than hard material. Besides, filter rings are made of brass, like most lenses. It's not really a materials issue - or, do you mean damage to the screw threads?
    "Pictures are not incidental frills to a text; they are essences of our distinctive way of knowing." Stephen J. Gould

  7. #27
    wheelygirl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    [for now] Arizona, U. S. A. [near future?] "Land of Enchantment"[NM]
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    204
    Images
    14
    Alright, I gotta add my 2 cents worth: I believe the more chances a "shooter" takes with their preferred lens without any UV filter attached to that lens. the more possibilities of having damage done to that lens. At this point of my photographic 'hobby', I've paid no money for any of my leses; however, I treat these as though I did indeed pay for them, and attach a UV filter on most. Oddly enough, it was only a few months ago, I realized I had a UV filter on my standard [55mm] lens!! Talk of being unobservant and grateful as well!!
    [FONT=Verdana]"the real truth of a photographic image is in its ability to evoke emotion."--Bryan Peterson[/FONT]
    [COLOR="DarkOrchid"]My Muse wheels Herself about in a wheel-chair![/COLOR]

  8. #28
    IloveTLRs's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    the new switzerland
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,034
    Images
    2
    When I was a kid I dropped my parents camera and luckily only broke the filter. They had a fit because they thought I'd broken the lens (which would've cost plenty to fix - Canon 35AF.)

    I always try to fit filters on myself since You Never Know when something might happen. I look at it like pushing the elevator button more than once: you know the elevator's coming but you do it anyway. I know I may never bang/drop my lens, but I fit filters on anyway.

    Er, that wasn't so good but you get the picture.
    Those who know, shoot film

  9. #29
    declark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    So. Cal
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    245
    Images
    79
    No one has yet really commented on whether image quality takes a hit. I really don't care to do the testing but I was hoping someone more analytical than myself had gone to the great lengths to see if it does make any difference optically.

    Personally it is just economics to me. If a lens costs less than the filter, I don't care, I'll just buy another lens. Usually anything less than $100 I don't worry too much about. I did drop a Nikon 200mm F4 smack on a rock at the beach from about 3 ft up and the filter did save the lens, because had it not been on, it surely would have had dented filter threads just like the filter's dent. I have a 50mm F2 with the metal lens hood and never bother to cap it or keep a filter on, but it only cost $25, same goes for the 75-150mm that also cost less than a good filter. I do put a filter on my Rollei 35s, only because it's just asking for finger prints and it gives it a bit more meat to grab for focusing.

  10. #30

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Montgomery, Il/USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,597
    Interesting point regarding image quality.
    Brings up the differences between lens brands doesn't it
    I think most of the hypercritical amongst us would defend NOT using a filter because they imagine they see a difference. Certainly it has some minor effect but other than using a microscope to examine the negative, I believe they're delusional.

    DUCK!
    Expletive Deleted!

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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