Yes I know super-wide angle lenses are around and have been for a long time. All I am suggesting is that they are relatively uncommon for the average 35mm film photographer
Goodness me, that is remiss: 20s are everywhere. So too are 16, 17, 21 and 24mm...
I use a 20mm, with a HOYA HD CIR-POL or B+W KR1.5 (skylight). This lens is a simple, versatile Canon EF 20mm bought 27 years ago and no matter how hard I try it is darned near impossible to introduce any light-induced flaw.
There's also a 17-40mm L-series zoom often shooting in strong angular light (found here in New Zealand, bathed in a southern temperate glare between days of rain and gloom), again with a slim B+W KSM Cir POL or KR1.5 filter. It's very, very infrequent to experience flare (especially) with this lens. There is a bit of flare with my SMC Pentax 67 90mm but not the uber-fancy 75mm f2.8AL. Horses for courses..., you might get appalling flare, ghosting and misc. aberrations shooting with cheap, ancient lenses no matter what sort of filter you put on. If that's what rows your boat, go for it.
Something to remember: irrespective of the filter, it needs to be understood that flare and ghosting can be, and often is used, creatively in photography. It is a skill knowing when it is useful or when it needs to be avoided. I don't sit in one camp but freely move between the two.
Not just that, but... It seems to me that only half of the facts are provided to support his opinion. He shows that MTF is not affected in one lens with a high quality filter but never showed the effect on MTF of an inexpensive filter. Nor did he ever show images that had detrimental effects. Nor did he discuss the attributes of a good versus bad filter. It’s been a while since I bought a filter new but the last one was a 67mm Orange Hoya multicoated. I think I paid a price about what he call a cheap and inferior filter. I beg to differ. An interesting article though....
In this paper, that you might like to read, lens renter Roger Cicala explains his position concerning anti-UV filters as protection elements. I more or less agree with his points, and I would like to remark that nowhere in the article he points out that the final image would have any improvement, actually an entire paragraph is aimed at showing that if a high quality (read: costy) filter is used, the image would not be too much damaged (read: it would be damaged).
...[\B]
But sometimes bright sources have to be included within the image, and the ghosting from this thus cannot be coped with a lens hood.You may want to re-think the lens hood. It’s value isn’t in how good it looks on your camera.
That’s true, but more often than not that situation can (or should be) avoided. The exception should become the rule in terms of generic best practices.But sometimes bright sources have to be included within the image, and the ghosting from this thus cannot be coped with a lens hood.
Youre right, that expensive ass uv filter also needs protection. Will look for something nice (lens hood)You may want to re-think the lens hood. It’s value isn’t in how good it looks on your camera.
What is a ass filter?
I like the Nikon metal hoods. Look better than the rubber ones.
In fact, that expensive-ass filter is much too valuable and should be displayed on a shelf and not be used on your camera in the field. Just kidding, of course.
Colloquialism.. when something/someone is really really stupid, American slang: “dumb-ass”.
When something is really really expensive...
. .
You could be right. BTW, thanks for quoting me because I think I inadvertently deleted it. In The term originally discussed, I’m not certain that it specifically refers to either a 4-legged mammal or a mammal’s posterior. I think it’s just an expression that evolved.I thought an ass was a donkey. As in "he made a complete ass of himself". Arse on the other hand is something different as in "after making a complete ass of himself he tripped over and fell on his arse".
Does this mean you can't find your original ass?BTW, thanks for quoting me because I think I inadvertently deleted it.
Never had much of one. But that’s TMI.Does this mean you can't find your original ass?
What is a ass filter?
It's slang. He's using "ass" to emphasize expensive. For example: Ferrari, Lamborghini and Porsche are expensive ass, cars.
For general use there will be ABSOLUTELY no perceptible difference with a filter or not, unless you do a test on an optical bench.
No filter on left, soviet filter on the right.
https://periscope.com.ua/foto-accessories/o-kachestve-sovetskih
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?