| Author | Thread |
|
|
09/02/2012 08:35:35 AM · #1 |
Quick question, i am waiting for my Tamron 90 to arrive in the mail and wondered about a filter for it.
I have read that some say a good quality multi coated UV filter is ok to use for macro photography while others say not to use one at all.
I know the Tamron 90 glass sits down inside the lens so its going to be more difficult to damage but thought id post on here and get everyones opinion.
Still a DSLR noob so bare with me. :) |
|
|
|
09/02/2012 10:06:05 AM · #2 |
| You'll get varying opinions. There are those who swear by "protective" filters, and those that swear at them. I am in the latter group. I see no tangible benefit, and there *will* be optical degradation, however small. |
|
|
|
09/02/2012 01:22:07 PM · #3 |
I am also in the "no filter" boat. I keep one on the old Micro Nikkor 105, but that is just so that the lens shade fits and stays on it when it's in the bag. It's basically a lens cap in my case. It comes off when it's time to shoot. Most of the things you would normally be moving up close to shoot would not damage the lens.
So far, for me anyway, only one lens has been mechanically trashed, and it rolled over the edge and it landed on a big rock about 25 ft below. It was a 70-210 Vivitar Series 1 Macro Focusing zoom. It had a UV on it, but it didn't seem to prevent the lens from being damaged. It was a learning experience, the lesson being to always close your bag when you set it down to shoot. As a coincidence, I just won a similar Vivitar this morning on eBay. |
|
|
|
09/02/2012 02:04:35 PM · #4 |
Originally posted by AussieChris:
Still a DSLR noob so bare with me. :) |
Still trying to figure out which word is the typo ... ;-)
If you are putting the lens in a hazardous situation, such as photographing liquids close-up, a filter is probably a good idea ... |
|
|
|
09/03/2012 01:50:30 AM · #5 |
Originally posted by MelonMusketeer:
So far, for me anyway, only one lens has been mechanically trashed, and it rolled over the edge and it landed on a big rock about 25 ft below. It was a 70-210 Vivitar Series 1 Macro Focusing zoom. It had a UV on it, but it didn't seem to prevent the lens from being damaged. |
I'm in the other camp, but I only use top filters. A B+W would have saved that lens.
But for macro work I wouldn't use it. You're going for hyper-resolution so you don't want an extra, non-performing layer of glass, and your lens will likely be fixed on a tripod in an environment without weather/wind/sand issues, etc., so I wouldn't think it's important. That said, I usually leave mine on just in case I get run over by a lawnmower. |
|
|
|
09/03/2012 02:10:53 AM · #6 |
Originally posted by bohemka:
without weather/wind/sand issues, etc., so I wouldn't think it's important. That said, I usually leave mine on just in case I get run over by a lawnmower. |
The only time I use a filter is to protect from sand in wind... bad day at the beach for instance, I don't want my lens to get sandblasted.
Especially my Canon 17-40mm f/4L with it's little gap where the barrel moves... 70-200mm f/2.8L II doesn't have any gaps but I still don't want that sand on my glass. |
|
|
|
09/03/2012 02:24:57 AM · #7 |
I wouldn't bother on a macro but I have good quality uv and skylights on all my Ls and primes,
I shot a lot of kids and gigs lots of little fingers and bodily fluids and boose flying around
|
|
|
|
09/03/2012 02:34:53 AM · #8 |
I don' t use filter unless needed.
I once took some pics of a dragon fly and climbed some rocks / trees. Once branch broke and I fell about 2 meters. I still have the image in my head, slow motion, how the camera span in the air and then droppen on some boulders, my Canon 100/2.8 touching first with the plastic screw of the barrel. It chipped. Lens is fine but I wished I had a filter that day to offer some protection.
For this
|
|
|
|
09/03/2012 01:17:33 PM · #9 |
Originally posted by bohemka:
Originally posted by MelonMusketeer:
So far, for me anyway, only one lens has been mechanically trashed, and it rolled over the edge and it landed on a big rock about 25 ft below. It was a 70-210 Vivitar Series 1 Macro Focusing zoom. It had a UV on it, but it didn't seem to prevent the lens from being damaged. |
I'm in the other camp, but I only use top filters. A B+W would have saved that lens.
But for macro work I wouldn't use it. You're going for hyper-resolution so you don't want an extra, non-performing layer of glass, and your lens will likely be fixed on a tripod in an environment without weather/wind/sand issues, etc., so I wouldn't think it's important. That said, I usually leave mine on just in case I get run over by a lawnmower. |
Forgive me please, but I have to call bullshit.
I don't think any filter would save a lens dropping element-first onto a rock 25ft below.
For that matter, even if the element was protected, the chance of the lens not suffering other serious damage would be really really low.
Now, back to the discussion at hand:
For me, filters are used when I need whatever it is that they do optically - otherwise, they stay in the bag.
-CB |
|
|
|
09/03/2012 02:22:23 PM · #10 |
The dropped 70-210 still worked, but only at one focus point, about 10 ft. The drop trashed the focusing and zooming parts of it by bending the shell and breaking a couple of screws inside the lens. I think it landed first on the metal lens cap on the back end, judging from the damage done.
If you like heavy glass, and are comfortable with manual focus, the f3.5 model of that lens with the serial numbers beginning in "22" are an excellent lens. They show up on eBay often and are not generally expensive. Minimum focus is about 1/ 2.5 @ 70mm. Avoid the newer models with the logo in the rubber grip. They are also "full frame" being made for 35mm film.
I also use the 55 and 105 f2.8 manual focus Micro Nikkors, but the heavier Vivitar seems to work better for my shaky hands due to the weight and balance reducing camera shake.
Back to the program; I would recommend using a UV at the beach, for any lens and shooting adventure. Salt spray is difficult to remove, even from sunglasses, and with a little fine sand grit, cleaning could easily do some serious damage to the coating or glass of front lens elements.
One other situation that would probably be a good time for a UV would be when shooting close in shots of dog noses.
This thread needs a "tension buster" image.
|
|
|
|
09/04/2012 01:13:44 AM · #11 |
Originally posted by Cory:
Forgive me please, but I have to call bullshit.
|
Completely true. In fact, the plane that had to perform that emergency landing in the Hudson a few years ago (Capt. Sully) didn't break up specifically because of a large shipment of filters in the hold. Check the FAA notes. |
|
|
|
09/04/2012 01:20:07 AM · #12 |
Originally posted by bohemka:
Originally posted by Cory:
Forgive me please, but I have to call bullshit.
|
Completely true. In fact, the plane that had to perform that emergency landing in the Hudson a few years ago (Capt. Sully) didn't break up specifically because of a large shipment of filters in the hold. Check the FAA notes. |
Hey wow!
I just read up on this, and I'm ordering several cases of them from Amazon, clearly only B&W will do, but I figure I'll make it up in insurance costs over the next few years. |
|
|
|
09/04/2012 02:10:56 AM · #13 |
There are valid times that filters are useful, and some of them DO apply specifically to macro.
One of the times its nice to have a filter is when you really think you might be bumping your element into something. Now, depending upon the working distance of your macro lens, when you achieve 1:1, that might be VERY close to the lens and you may inadvertently bump your front into whatever. On a 90, you've got some leeway, on a 60, you're pretty damn close and it's easy to run into crap, so it wouldn't be a bad idea. Keep in mind, MOST THINGS ARE NOT HARD ENOUGH TO SCRATCH GLASS, but there are those that are. Also, if you ever use extension tubes, this becomes even more of a problem because your focal distance is closer and is difficult to get an object into. It also depends if you're planning on using a focusing rail ever, which would obviously avoid this issue. I shoot most of my macro handheld using lighting, so I'm holding a heavy setup very close to whatever I'm shooting.
Next, I like using filters if I'm encountering lots of blowing garbage (like sand- this photo  was taken on a trip that consisted mostly of very high winds... that looked like this  ) or under freezing conditions. Specifically in regard to freezing conditions, it is nice to have a filter because if you ever allow ANY water onto your lens and it is below freezing, it will often flash freeze and you will be faced with removing ice from your filter/or lens. I never thought this would be an issue until I actually took my camera out in cold conditions while snowshoeing in the mountains, and found that it somehow manages to happen more than you would think. In this case, it is easier to remove the filter for the shot, put it in your breastpocket to warm and melt, and then reapply. Otherwise, you're warming your whole camera. It seems odd that water would somehow get onto your lens if its that cold, but somehow, it's happened quite a bit more often to me than you'd think.
Having said that, the use of filters can also CAUSE various problems dealing with condensation and freezing. If you apply your filter in a nice warm humid area, you'll trap that nice warm humid air between your filter and your lens, and it will condense or, better yet, condense and then freeze, when you pull your camera from its bag. There are ways around this but I'd be lying if I said it's never happened to me (camera came straight from inside my climbing pack, which was packed at home in my room, camera was wrapped and cushioned in my pack by my down parka, exposed to cold mountain air and promptly condensed and froze). So there are pros and cons. If you do ever use filters, do not get low quality filters. They are thick (of big consequence on wider angle lenses), suck optically, and made poorly.
So, whether this constitutes a good portion of your shooting or not is a question you'll have to answer on your own, separate to the discussion of whether or not filters pose a meaningful degradation to quality.
ETA:clarity.
Message edited by author 2012-09-04 02:14:24. |
|
|
|
09/04/2012 02:26:11 AM · #14 |
Appreciate everyones tips, i will have to try with and without a filter and see how i go.
Although i dont tend to be out near water or in a sandstorm, just around the garden taking pics of flowers and insects so i might be safe without a filter for now. :)
Oh and the Tamron 90 arrived in the mail today, pouring with rain so cant try it out yet, have had a go inside with coins etc, being a beginner im having a hard time getting the DOF right so it looks like im up for alot of practice.
Will post some pics once i have had a chance to use it somemore.
Message edited by author 2012-09-04 02:27:37. |
|
|
|
09/04/2012 08:51:52 AM · #15 |
DOF gets pretty narrow when you are shooting in the macro range. To get what you may be expecting, or have seen in macro photos, you may have to learn about "focus stacking".
If I ever get stuck, and can't seem to come up with any good subject matter, putting on a macro lens seems to always get me going again. There are always small things nearby that make good subjects. Have fun and enjoy your new gadget. |
|
|
|
09/04/2012 09:20:27 AM · #16 |
Within a week of getting my 60D this spring, I was out on the marsh, and tripped over a log. Did a face plant, with my camera lens-down between my rib cage and the ground. The Tiffen Skylight 1-A filter had a few minor scratches and got replaced, but the lens was fine. Of course a real photographer would have preferred to replace a lens rather than have the quality degradation the filter incurs... ;-p
|
|
|
|
09/04/2012 09:29:29 AM · #17 |
Originally posted by dtremain:
Within a week of getting my 60D this spring, I was out on the marsh, and tripped over a log. Did a face plant, with my camera lens-down between my rib cage and the ground. The Tiffen Skylight 1-A filter had a few minor scratches and got replaced, but the lens was fine. Of course a real photographer would have preferred to replace a lens rather than have the quality degradation the filter incurs... ;-p |
You are making a pretty big assumption that the lens (more sturdy glass than any flimsy filter) would have actually been damaged. But, I am glad to hear that the lens did not get damaged.
Message edited by author 2012-09-04 10:07:54. |
|
|
|
09/04/2012 09:56:31 AM · #18 |
Originally posted by AussieChris:
Appreciate everyones tips, i will have to try with and without a filter and see how i go.
Although i dont tend to be out near water or in a sandstorm, just around the garden taking pics of flowers and insects so i might be safe without a filter for now. :)
Oh and the Tamron 90 arrived in the mail today, pouring with rain so cant try it out yet, have had a go inside with coins etc, being a beginner im having a hard time getting the DOF right so it looks like im up for alot of practice.
Will post some pics once i have had a chance to use it somemore. |
Insects and flowers won't hurt your lens, bump into those all you want. :) |
|
|
|
09/04/2012 11:26:58 AM · #19 |
Originally posted by bassbone:
Originally posted by dtremain:
Within a week of getting my 60D this spring, I was out on the marsh, and tripped over a log. Did a face plant, with my camera lens-down between my rib cage and the ground. The Tiffen Skylight 1-A filter had a few minor scratches and got replaced, but the lens was fine. Of course a real photographer would have preferred to replace a lens rather than have the quality degradation the filter incurs... ;-p |
You are making a pretty big assumption that the lens (more sturdy glass than any flimsy filter) would have actually been damaged. But, I am glad to hear that the lens did not get damaged. |
That's the problem with being an old geezer - you rely on stuff you learned decades ago, and forget things could have changed since then. Are you saying that lens glass is more scratch resistant than filter glass? I could readily see that thicker lens glass would be less likely to break than the thin filter (and I also know that some filters are not glass, but plastic now), but in my case the damage was relatively minor scratches (also kind-of surprising considering how hard I fell - and I'm not small). |
|
|
|
09/04/2012 11:36:52 AM · #20 |
Originally posted by dtremain:
Originally posted by bassbone:
Originally posted by dtremain:
Within a week of getting my 60D this spring, I was out on the marsh, and tripped over a log. Did a face plant, with my camera lens-down between my rib cage and the ground. The Tiffen Skylight 1-A filter had a few minor scratches and got replaced, but the lens was fine. Of course a real photographer would have preferred to replace a lens rather than have the quality degradation the filter incurs... ;-p |
You are making a pretty big assumption that the lens (more sturdy glass than any flimsy filter) would have actually been damaged. But, I am glad to hear that the lens did not get damaged. |
That's the problem with being an old geezer - you rely on stuff you learned decades ago, and forget things could have changed since then. Are you saying that lens glass is more scratch resistant than filter glass? I could readily see that thicker lens glass would be less likely to break than the thin filter (and I also know that some filters are not glass, but plastic now), but in my case the damage was relatively minor scratches (also kind-of surprising considering how hard I fell - and I'm not small). |
I would suggest exactly that - the Nikkor lenses I use are much more robust to scratches than pretty much any filter glass I have in my bag. I still use some MF lenses that my Dad bought in the 1960s that have been used and abused and have no obvious scratches.
Even with all this, I do use lens caps to protect my lenses. I actually have them on pretty much all the time unless I am actively shooting at that moment.
But if you are really worried about your lenses getting damaged, I would recommend using the money you would have spent buying the cheapo filter on buying some actual insurance on your equipment that covers if your gear actually gets damaged...
Message edited by author 2012-09-04 11:45:01. |
|
|
|
09/04/2012 11:49:04 AM · #21 |
Originally posted by dtremain:
Originally posted by bassbone:
Originally posted by dtremain:
Within a week of getting my 60D this spring, I was out on the marsh, and tripped over a log. Did a face plant, with my camera lens-down between my rib cage and the ground. The Tiffen Skylight 1-A filter had a few minor scratches and got replaced, but the lens was fine. Of course a real photographer would have preferred to replace a lens rather than have the quality degradation the filter incurs... ;-p |
You are making a pretty big assumption that the lens (more sturdy glass than any flimsy filter) would have actually been damaged. But, I am glad to hear that the lens did not get damaged. |
That's the problem with being an old geezer - you rely on stuff you learned decades ago, and forget things could have changed since then. Are you saying that lens glass is more scratch resistant than filter glass? I could readily see that thicker lens glass would be less likely to break than the thin filter (and I also know that some filters are not glass, but plastic now), but in my case the damage was relatively minor scratches (also kind-of surprising considering how hard I fell - and I'm not small). |
Glass can vary in hardness, depending on composition, and some higher quality glass has coatings which also help to avoid scratches.
For example, window glass can be scratched with a piece of quartz, but not with a knife. Gorilla glass (Like they use in the iPhone) can't be scratched by quartz, in fact, it's hard enough to scratch the quartz. I haven't done any tests on the Moh's hardness of lens glass, but anecdotally, I'm guessing it's a 7.5-8, which means that theoretically, even sand shouldn't be able to easily scratch it. With that being said, this stuff varies, and glass is expensive, so reasonable steps to lower risk are still quite wise.
My friend Schlake has proven to me exactly how tough this equipment is, but I still don't care to replicate his tests on my stuff.
|
|
|
|
09/06/2012 02:20:23 PM · #22 |
I can't remember where I first saw it, but I took the "why put inferior glass on superior glass" to heart. I have no filters on any of my L series lenses.
It makes my incredibly nervous!!!!!!
|
|
