DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register) 
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Hardware and Software >> Happy owner of a new toy ! How to you protect it?
Pages:  
Showing posts 26 - 49 of 49, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 09/24/2010 03:20:55 PM · #26
Originally posted by Strikeslip:
So all you folks are saying I should take the UV filters off of my L lenses and let the poutine fall where it may??? It will improve the quality of my files???

I thought UV filters were supposed to improve the quality a tad.... by filtering out UV light?

:-O


In all honesty, as I understand it, UV is important for film as it's sensitive to UV, whereas it's not important for digital cameras because the sensor isn't sensitive to UV light. I'm not sure of my facts here, but that's my understanding of the logic behind this.
 09/24/2010 03:29:52 PM · #27
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Strikeslip:
It will improve the quality of my files???


I don't think there's anything that can do that in your case...

UV filters are to cameras what Johnson Rods are to autos. :P j/k

I don't know what Johnson Rods are, but according to johnsonrods.com/ they will lift my car up and allow me to install bigger tires...

Now I'm just confused, LOL.
 09/24/2010 03:30:13 PM · #28
Originally posted by coryboehne:
Originally posted by Strikeslip:
So all you folks are saying I should take the UV filters off of my L lenses and let the poutine fall where it may??? It will improve the quality of my files???

I thought UV filters were supposed to improve the quality a tad.... by filtering out UV light?

:-O


In all honesty, as I understand it, UV is important for film as it's sensitive to UV, whereas it's not important for digital cameras because the sensor isn't sensitive to UV light. I'm not sure of my facts here, but that's my understanding of the logic behind this.

Oh great, now I'm even more confused.
 09/24/2010 03:42:52 PM · #29
Originally posted by Strikeslip:
Originally posted by coryboehne:
Originally posted by Strikeslip:
So all you folks are saying I should take the UV filters off of my L lenses and let the poutine fall where it may??? It will improve the quality of my files???

I thought UV filters were supposed to improve the quality a tad.... by filtering out UV light?

:-O


In all honesty, as I understand it, UV is important for film as it's sensitive to UV, whereas it's not important for digital cameras because the sensor isn't sensitive to UV light. I'm not sure of my facts here, but that's my understanding of the logic behind this.

Oh great, now I'm even more confused.


You don't need a UV filter but you might consider getting Chuck Norris' intense stare filter for your viewfinder. Your subjects will thank you for it.
09/24/2010 03:55:44 PM · #30
Originally posted by Strikeslip:
Originally posted by coryboehne:
Originally posted by Strikeslip:
So all you folks are saying I should take the UV filters off of my L lenses and let the poutine fall where it may??? It will improve the quality of my files???

I thought UV filters were supposed to improve the quality a tad.... by filtering out UV light?

:-O


In all honesty, as I understand it, UV is important for film as it's sensitive to UV, whereas it's not important for digital cameras because the sensor isn't sensitive to UV light. I'm not sure of my facts here, but that's my understanding of the logic behind this.

Oh great, now I'm even more confused.


The ostensible reason for mounting a UV filter to your dSLR lenses is to protect them from environmental damage and/or accidental scratching.

The reason UV filters *exist*, however, is to cut down on the UV radiation being transmitted to the film. Note the operative word "film"; color slide film, in particular, was notoriously susceptible to UV radiation, and it was necessary to compensate for that. The digital sensor, however, has built-in UV filtering, so that's no longer an issue. Unless you're running a modified camera where the UV filter has been removed to facilitate infrared photography.

So the bottom line is, you don't *need* the filtration; people are just using them for an extra, sacrificial layer of glass between (expensive) front element and the environment.

Now, back in the day, glass wasn't anywhere NEAR as scratch-proof or as well-coated as it is now, so we DID actually use UV filters for "protection" quite a bit; it didn't take much to mark up some of the old-school lenses. But modern lenses seem to be prsactically as hard as diamonds, and I've never bothered "protecting" mine, except to the extent that I always use the lens hood, which means the lens is a lot less likely to get its front element dinged if camera and object collide.

R.
 09/24/2010 04:04:12 PM · #31
*Puts UV filters on eBay*
 09/24/2010 04:12:17 PM · #32
Unless I'm wrong (and google too)... UV and IR are NOT the same thing. UV is the light just shorter than visable light and IR is the light just longer than visable light.

Yes Bear_Music is right that most modern camera sensors have filters on them that block IR light (and I think UV too) so technically a UV lens filter is less necessary than it was for film...

IMHO seeing as even my cheap" kit lenses are more expensive than any print I will ever sell... a slight degredation in IQ is worth it just in case I happen to smack the front of the lens on something.
 09/24/2010 04:17:42 PM · #33
Originally posted by Silent-Shooter:
... IMHO seeing as even my cheap" kit lenses are more expensive than any print I will ever sell... a slight degredation in IQ is worth it just in case I happen to smack the front of the lens on something.

Good point, but it sounds like I'm practically guaranteed a flood of DPC Ribbons if I take my UV filters off. Heck, it's worked for DrAchoo. ;-)
 09/24/2010 04:23:15 PM · #34
Originally posted by Silent-Shooter:
Unless I'm wrong (and google too)... UV and IR are NOT the same thing. UV is the light just shorter than visable light and IR is the light just longer than visable light.


Right. On the dSLR sensor, the same filter is doing both jobs. It's letting only the visible light spectrum through and blocking UV and Infrared. So when you modify for infrared photography, by removing that filter, you lose the UV protection and then a UV filter would make sense when photographing in UV-intensive conditions.

R.
 09/24/2010 04:24:05 PM · #35
Originally posted by Strikeslip:
Good point, but it sounds like I'm practically guaranteed a flood of DPC Ribbons if I take my UV filters off. Heck, it's worked for DrAchoo. ;-)


Hasn't worked for me... Unless you call 8 ribbons a flood. I call it a pronounced trickle.

R.
 09/24/2010 04:39:14 PM · #36
Originally posted by Strikeslip:

I don't know what Johnson Rods are, but according to johnsonrods.com/ they will lift my car up and allow me to install bigger tires...

Now I'm just confused, LOL.


"Johnson Rod" is slang for an unnecessary part. Probably best used by George Costanza:

George Costanza: [about mechanics] Oh, of course their tryin' to screw ya. No one knows what they're talkin' about! It's like, "Oh, seems you need a new johnson rod." Oh! Yeah! Johnson rod! Well, get me one of those!
 09/24/2010 04:48:14 PM · #37
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Strikeslip:

I don't know what Johnson Rods are, but according to johnsonrods.com/ they will lift my car up and allow me to install bigger tires...

Now I'm just confused, LOL.


"Johnson Rod" is slang for an unnecessary part. Probably best used by George Costanza:

George Costanza: [about mechanics] Oh, of course their tryin' to screw ya. No one knows what they're talkin' about! It's like, "Oh, seems you need a new johnson rod." Oh! Yeah! Johnson rod! Well, get me one of those!

It's funny how I heard George reading that quote in my head. The full meaning must've passed me by in that episode and as a result I wouldn't recall it without more context, but I can sure picture it coming out of his mouth. :-D
 09/24/2010 04:50:31 PM · #38
I have just purchased the canon 17-55mm f2.8 lens.
This lens is known as a dusk sucker.
The dust enters at the front of the lens and by adding the UV filter it completes the seal.
A UV filter will remain on the lens for this reason.

This topic is often discussed with the outcome being some will always use and some will never use UV filters.
I tend to use them even though I have hoods for all my lenses.
Sometimes I will remove them for a shot but not often.
 09/24/2010 04:54:52 PM · #39
Originally posted by RamblinR:

The dust enters at the front of the lens and by adding the UV filter it completes the seal.


Wouldn't any dust only enter the lens through the zoom mechanism? I can't imagine any dust getting in through the front element.
 09/24/2010 05:04:24 PM · #40
Apparently this is where the dust gets in on this particular lens.
 09/24/2010 05:09:52 PM · #41
Originally posted by RamblinR:
Apparently this is where the dust gets in on this particular lens.


Is it a push, pull focus lens? If so, this will suck in dust.

Note to OP: The lens is 16-35mm, not 16-34mm:)
 09/24/2010 07:57:59 PM · #42
Totally agree. Up until a month ago I always had a filter on. Then, one day, I noticed the filter reflecting a ton of light off of it. I took it off and the image quality improved quite a bit.

But, I will say, if I'm ever on a ferry boat on the ocean, I absolutely WILL put a cover on it.

Originally posted by kirbic:
You have an awesome piece of glass there... don't degrade the image quality by putting on a UV filter. Use the lens hood to protect the front element, and only use a UV filter if and when you shoot in very inclement environments like blowing sand or sea spray.
09/24/2010 09:33:57 PM · #43
This is too funny. All this time I've looked at other photographers with filters on their lenses and felt myself somehow less of a photographer because I've never used a filter. I've always been too cheap to buy one ;)
 09/24/2010 09:57:41 PM · #44
Originally posted by Strikeslip:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Strikeslip:

I don't know what Johnson Rods are, but according to johnsonrods.com/ they will lift my car up and allow me to install bigger tires...

Now I'm just confused, LOL.


"Johnson Rod" is slang for an unnecessary part. Probably best used by George Costanza:

George Costanza: [about mechanics] Oh, of course their tryin' to screw ya. No one knows what they're talkin' about! It's like, "Oh, seems you need a new johnson rod." Oh! Yeah! Johnson rod! Well, get me one of those!

It's funny how I heard George reading that quote in my head. The full meaning must've passed me by in that episode and as a result I wouldn't recall it without more context, but I can sure picture it coming out of his mouth. :-D


It's in an episode titled The Fusilli Jerry (the episode before The Face Painter... "yeah, that's right!"). One in which Jerry has to stop using David Puddy because he's upset with Puddy when he finds out Puddy stole his "move" and is using it on Elaine.
 09/24/2010 10:14:07 PM · #45
Originally posted by RamblinR:
I have just purchased the canon 17-55mm f2.8 lens.
This lens is known as a dusk sucker.
The dust enters at the front of the lens and by adding the UV filter it completes the seal.
A UV filter will remain on the lens for this reason.


That's not where the dust enters. It's not possible for dust to enter there, literally. The dust enters in the area where the lens extends as it is zoomed; this is an externally-zooming lens, as opposed to (more expensive) lenses that have internal zoom mechanisms and do not physically extend, like the 17-40mm f/4L or, for that matter, the 10-22mm.

Apparently this particular lens is often not as well-sealed as it ought to be in the area of the zoom. Some examples, apparently, are better than others.

R.
 09/25/2010 12:31:54 AM · #46
Canon 17-55

Many links like the above point to a UV solving the problem.
I've read to many to not use a UV.
If it remains sharp it will stay on.
 09/25/2010 06:40:47 AM · #47
I shoot nekkid most of the time; both Siggy and the 18-200 have petal lens hoods. Recently did I take the filter off the 50mm as I felt it was just extraneous, and as the front element is recessed, is quite safe.

Only time I did wish I had a filter on was when I did get a chunk of wet sand kicked up onto the front element of the 18-200. But after very carefully removing the sand by dabbing it off with a microfibre cloth, then cleaning it with another cloth and lens cleaning fluid, it's fine. So I probably will get a UV filter for that lens soon but only to use in those conditions.
 09/25/2010 08:31:28 AM · #48
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I'm with Fritz on this one and use my lenses au naturel. If I'm buying L-glass, I don't want a cheap piece of plastic between me and my image unless I have to.

I don't think I've ever seen a scratch on my lenses, and I shoot in some crappy conditions on the beach (although I probably have a polarizer on most of the time then).


Plastic filters? Now that's cheap.
 09/25/2010 01:03:35 PM · #49
I agree completely with not using a filter and using the lens hood instead. But should you absolutely feel the need to get a filter, check into RILEX filters. You will spend a very pretty penny for them, but the quality is stellar!
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 11/08/2025 10:45:07 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 11/08/2025 10:45:07 AM EST.