Protection filters.

[rayonline_nz]

I have a 70/2.8 Zeiss lens bought used of course, the glass is pristine. Protection filter? I have never used them with my other cameras before. Tiffen are about $30, Heliopan cost about $200 but that's almost the cost of the lens.

OTOH if it's for your smaller camea ie - travel when you are out 9am - 8pm each day including when it rains. Would you use a filter then? I've never had but my Nikon lens is still very good but it is no longer pristine.


Like to know your thoughts?

 

[M Carter]

I use them on my "work" lenses - I do a lot of digital video, much of it with Nikkors on lens adapters. I can be hard on that stuff, really hurried and hectic gigs, etc.

Don't have them on my Mamiya RB gear. That's a more thoughtful process I suppose.

I did some pixel-peeper testing with a DSLR - as far as sharpness goes, even cheap Chinese ND and polas - no issues at all. Cheap filters' real achilles heel is color rendering, I've found. And of course, sticking a big flat extra element on a lens can be a recipe for flare, and you need to keep it as clean as a lens. But they guys who say "why would you stick a $50 filter on a thousand-dollar lens??!?" Well, to keep it worth a thousand - the only issues I've had are flare, and that's really more apparent with dust or dried splashes on the filter anyway. A decent hood and I've had no lost footage or stills due to flare.

But over the years, I've thrown out maybe 4 or 5 plain old UV filters on my shouldermount Panasonic, and man, they were pretty trashy looking. But the lens on that camera still looks new. Paid about $6k for the thing, and it's been through some stuff, so glad to have the protection on it. Only remove it to replace it.

 

[AgX]

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

 

[Sirius Glass]

I have a sky light or uv filter on all my lenses, not the WideLux which is a special case, to protect the lens, take out distance haze, and/or to warm color. I remove them when I need a contrast filter for black & white.

 

[Renato Tonelli]

I think it's a good idea to protect your lens with a UV filter; Hoya multicoated filters are not that expensive and their quality is excellent. B+W filters are also excellent but cost more.

 

[chip j]

There are special "P" (protection") filters made by a lot of companies. I never wanted UV filtered out so they're an answer to a prayer for me.

 

[AgX]

Why do you not want the UV part to be filtered out?

 

[jeffreyg]

A couple of things to consider. The more costly filters usually have brass mounts, better to clean the surface of a (replaceable) filter then accidentally marring the surface when wiping the rain drops with whatever is handy. Also consider a lens shade if you prefer to not use a filter.

http://www.jeffreyglasser.com/

 

[Jim Jones]

I agree with M. Carter in post #2, although I rarely use protective filters. Over many decades this has cost me two lenses, a small price to pay for the countless images produced. Modern quality multicoated filters should not noticeably affect image quality.

 

[chip j]

Why do you not want the UV part to be filtered out?

I want "natural" light.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Why do you not want the UV part to be filtered out?

I want "natural" light.

Ah, so you want the "natural" light that you cannot see. Does that include infrared as well as uv? How about gamma rays? Neutrinos?

 

[chip j]

I want haze & fog, my dear man.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Try drugs

 

[AgX]

I want haze & fog, my dear man.

But then you would best use a true UV-filter (in its proper meaning!).

 

[chip j]

Explain, please.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I want haze & fog, my dear man.

Jimi Hendrix used Purple Haze.

 

[AgX]

UV light is only part of the spectrum, it must be pure for best effect.

 

[chip j]

Jimi Hendrix used Purple Haze.

When I was a Hippie in SF in 1969, I used more than purple haze.

 

[chip j]

UV light is only part of the spectrum, it must be pure for best effect.

What does THAT mean??

 

[Sirius Glass]

UV light is only part of the spectrum, it must be pure for best effect.

Maybe for some processes, but not in my photographs.

 

[AgX]

Chip needs the UV light for it being diffuse reflected.

 

[chip j]

I don't want far-away haze missing from my photos.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

I have a 70/2.8 Zeiss lens bought used of course, the glass is pristine. Protection filter? I have never used them with my other cameras before. Tiffen are about $30, Heliopan cost about $200 but that's almost the cost of the lens.

OTOH if it's for your smaller camea ie - travel when you are out 9am - 8pm each day including when it rains. Would you use a filter then? I've never had but my Nikon lens is still very good but it is no longer pristine.


Like to know your thoughts?

I have them on all my lenses;never seen any image degration and when I clean them once a year or so, I'm glad I clean the dirt off the filter and not off a lens.

 

[Bill Burk]

If you will merely unscrew the filter while viewing through an SLR and hold it in front of the lens and move it around, you can observe the movements of the reflected ghost highlights. You will see the image degradation that a filter creates. I've got one Pentax branded "ghostless" UV filter that doesn't cause these double-images. But all the flat ones do.

There's a thread here where a photograph was shown of a movie theater marquis where the name of the theater appeared shifted and upside-down.

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

In most photographs which have already been taken, the artifacts seem to be acceptable, since they are clearly visible but people keep using filters.

But at night, shooting scenes with bright lights and dark backgrounds, take the filter off if you don't want ghost images.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I have them on all my lenses;never seen any image degration and when I clean them once a year or so, I'm glad I clean the dirt off the filter and not off a lens.

ditto