Topic: Filters?? (Read 2548 times)

Paul Sumi · « **on:** June 02, 2004, 05:22:03 pm »

[font color=\'#000000\']I'm in the filter camp, but YMMV. I have high quality UV filters on all my lenses. I'd much rather blow off dust, etc, and wipe off moisture and stray fingerprints from a filter than the front lens element.[/font]

abredon · « **Reply #1 on:** June 03, 2004, 10:42:29 am »

[font color=\'#000000\']

Quote

Thanks for the novel proposal - passed it on to a few local hobbiests. polarizers are now on my lens rather than in the filter case. will find out how well I do with the 2 stop loss.

conrad

If you shoot a wide angle shot including sky, you may have to remove the polarizer - the variation in darkness of the sky often looks bad with a wide angle shot.[/font]

BryanHansel · « **Reply #2 on:** June 04, 2004, 12:28:43 pm »

[font color=\'#000000\']If you've worried about protection, and think that a UV filter will solve it, I think that you are worrying too much. I've stalked deer through the woods without a filter or lens cap on my camera and it's just fine. I've left my camera in the bottom of my canoe without a filter or cap, and it's has been just fine.

The only time I've hurt a lens is during cleaning it. Luckly, it was a filter. I was photographing climbing in the Black Hills when I cleaned my filter. I didn't notice the fine quartz crystals that were on the filter, and I scratched it. I think that you're more likely to scratch a lens when cleaning it, than when carrying it around.

If you are sold on the filter, then why not a 81A? It will protect and add a nice warm feeling to all your photos.

Bryan[/font]

howard smith · « **Reply #3 on:** June 04, 2004, 04:57:48 pm »

[font color=\'#000000\']Insurance can be great. When I was studying photography, my room mate got a new light meter because he left his on the bumper of his car, and it wasn't there when he got home. Only surprise was the insurance paid.

Insurance seems to be weird in a way. The more honest you are with the carrier, the more they charge for coverage. Even for stupid losses. If I'm a pro (and maybe more likely to be careful with the things that provide my income), the more the insurance company wants to cover me.

My advice is to be honest up front, pay the premiium, and them demad they pay for actual covered losses.[/font]

hfw01 · « **Reply #4 on:** June 02, 2004, 02:02:59 pm »

[font color=\'#000000\']I just received my new camera (Nikon D70) although I am still awaiting the memory card, and was curious if having a UV filter was recommended. Also if there was any real difference between the available brands.

Thanks in advance for the advice,

Hal[/font]

Lisa Nikodym · « **Reply #5 on:** June 02, 2004, 05:07:02 pm »

[font color=\'#000000\']I've seen this question asked a number of times on various photography forums. If it's anything like before, you'll get very strong opinions from both the "you absolutely need a UV filter to protect the lens" people and the "don't use a UV filter because it degrades the image" people. There is no definitive answer here. Both answers are valid (which some people on each side seem to not recognize); it's just a matter of personal preference and what's most important to you.

Re brands: in general, multi-coated filters from a good brand name (B+W, Heliopan and Hoya are the best ones I'm familiar with) will degrade the image quality less than non-coated filters or filters from cheaper brands. If you're using cheap lenses, though, then a cheap filter probably won't make much difference; if you're using excellent-quality lenses, then you should use excellent-quality filters to match, to avoid having the filters screw up your image quality.

Lisa[/font]

hfw01 · « **Reply #6 on:** June 02, 2004, 06:00:12 pm »

[font color=\'#000000\']Thanks for the input. As I don't have the finances to replace my lens, I guess I should buy a filter...[/font]

conradfxt · « **Reply #7 on:** June 03, 2004, 05:21:07 am »

[font color=\'#000000\']Thanks for the novel proposal - passed it on to a few local hobbiests. polarizers are now on my lens rather than in the filter case. will find out how well I do with the 2 stop loss.

conrad[/font]

howard smith · « **Reply #8 on:** June 03, 2004, 11:09:12 am »

[font color=\'#000000\']Polarizers are usually expensive too. Seems a shame to use them as sacrifical glass. Also, you may have spent a lot of money to get that fast lens and nw you spend even mor to throw away 2 stops. Seems to me if you don't need a filter, don't use one.

If you really are worried about scratches, the polarizers will need replacing from time to time. Frequent cleaning may damage the coating. I stll recommend just taking good care of the lens. My newest lens is 15 years old, and no problems yet.[/font]

cgordon · « **Reply #9 on:** June 03, 2004, 02:45:19 pm »

[font color=\'#000000\']i use my polarizer is when the results cannot be replicated in photoshop, ie. removing the glare off snow, water, foliage, etc. i don't see the point in leaving one on, unless you mainly shoot in broad daylight, which to me, isn't the best time of day to be shooting.[/font]

Graham Welland · « **Reply #10 on:** June 03, 2004, 08:24:34 pm »

Quote

[font color=\'#000000\']I sometimes use two polarizers to create both a polarized photo and a variable neutal density filter. I think I have a right to do that.[/font]

[font color=\'#000000\']Hey, well it's an approach I guess.

I've got to think that this must be similar to trying to shoot through amoured glass! At some point you must be hitting the limits of refraction and internal reflection with stacked polarizors.[/font]

jeffreybehr · « **Reply #11 on:** June 04, 2004, 01:04:02 pm »

[font color=\'#000000\']

Quote

i use my polarizer is (SIC) when the results cannot be replicated in photoshop (SIC), ie. removing the glare off snow, water, foliage, etc. i don't see the point in leaving one on, unless you mainly shoot in broad daylight, which to me, isn't the best time of day to be shooting.

Polarizers reduce glare and increase saturation about all the time. If there's enough light to shoot, it's likely a polarizer will work. I use my (single) Cokin-P circ-pol on all lenses most of the time.

However, I do NOT use a polarizer as a protective filter; I do use HOYA multicoated UV(0)s.[/font]

jeffreybehr · « **Reply #12 on:** June 04, 2004, 04:36:57 pm »

[font color=\'#000000\']howard, insurance on foto equipment is a significant subject. I as a professional* fotog, I'm a member of NANPA (here) and buy their insurance thru Rand/Chubb.

I've never thought about my insurance covering inadvertant damage to the lens elements; probably my all-risk policy would cover it, as it covers all other losses and damage but mysterious disappearance.

* I use that word loosely, as I'm probably-more-correctly described as a wanna-be pro if one uses revenue as a standard.[/font]

howard smith · « **Reply #13 on:** June 02, 2004, 02:28:15 pm »

[font color=\'#000000\']Some folks use UV filters as insurance against scratches and dust. I use the lens cap, a lens shade and reasonable care. A filter is a good source of flare and loss of contrast and sharpness. With good coated camera lenses, a UV filter isn't really needed since the lens does a very good job of reducing UV. But there are folks that swear by them.[/font]

boku · « **Reply #14 on:** June 02, 2004, 08:19:21 pm »

Quote

[font color=\'#000000\']Thanks for the input. As I don't have the finances to replace my lens, I guess I should buy a filter...[/font]

[font color=\'#000000\']I have a novel proposal for you...

If you basically just shoot outdoor nature and landscapes, buy a quality polarizer and keep it on the lens. It will protect and enhance. For those few instances when you absolutely must remove it, you will be careful not to do the lens harm, right.

I'd bet that the polarizer, used in this manner, would spend more time on than a UV would. Yes, you loose about 2 stops, but you are going to use tripod, aren't you?

I've recently switched over to this concept. All my field lenses have polarizers on them in my bag. I haven't found the need to remove them. I am considering selling my UVs on eBAy eventually.[/font]

howard smith · « **Reply #15 on:** June 03, 2004, 05:46:54 pm »

[font color=\'#000000\']I sometimes use two polarizers to create both a polarized photo and a variable neutal density filter. I think I have a right to do that.[/font]

howard smith · « **Reply #16 on:** June 04, 2004, 03:46:59 pm »

[font color=\'#000000\']Jeffrey, you seem to use your filters for their intended purpose. I use them when I think I need them or want them. I checked my insurance policy on my cameras and it seems to cover supidity. If I drop or forget a camera someplace, the insurance company will replace. I don't need any other protection. I have a rather ordinary home owner's policy with declared photo equipment. Maybe thers should look into this too.[/font]

Author Topic: Filters?? (Read 2548 times)