| Author | Thread |
|
|
10/24/2003 05:25:01 PM · #26 |
Since I'm in the mood...
I'm giggling at the whole conversation -- it's one big, long, giant opinion fest.
As for image quality, why doesn't someone go out and shoot a couple of comparison images and place them online for us all to look at?
In terms of safety, either you'll be lucky enough to never need the filter as protection as lens protection, you'll trash the filter and not the lens in some accident, or you'll trash both. That one's all about you and knowing your own working style. Either use a lens as protection, or don't. *shrug* |
|
|
|
10/24/2003 05:28:51 PM · #27 |
There are certain shooting conditions where extra filters definitely degrade the photo. Others are unnoticeable.
|
|
|
|
10/24/2003 05:35:20 PM · #28 |
Put it this way: you're spending a lot of dough to get that great lens, you don't want to put some cheap filter in front of it just for protection against the front element.
All filters will reduce light to some degree and create distortion. The only reason for filters is to make your images look better (i.e. polarizer, Neutral density filter to slow down the exposure, or GND, etc.) If you're really not sure about your ability to protect your equipment, then you should probably something cheaper.
A filter will not protect against dropping your lens on the ground. It may protect against yourself from scratching the lens, but a lens hood will do the same most of the time. A lens cap does it even better. |
|
|
|
10/24/2003 07:45:45 PM · #29 |
Originally posted by paganini:
I think if people who can't handle scratches on their expensive lenses, probably shouldn't buy those lenses in the first place. If your lens is expensive, why pay $15 and put a filter on it htat will significantly degrade the image quality? YOu'll get the same image as a cheap lens. Don't put filters on unless you have to.
use a lens hood for protection against bumping other surfaces. BTW, any catastrophic event, your filter won't help (i.e. dropping the lens). The only lens protection I use is a lens hood and or, well, lens caps :) that's what they're for.
Originally posted by smellyfish1002:
I'd rather trash an inexpensive filter than a high dollar lens! Scratches on filters are insignifanct compared to a scratch on your lens. In the past I have always bought a simple $10 to $15 dollar skylight filter (or UV filter). Since I just got a 10D and nice lenses, I bought Hoyo Super-Multi Coated filters to minimze any quality degradation. It was about $30.
JD Anderson |
|
I guess the question is "Where do you want the scratches?" On the filter where you may have to live with some minor degradation of the image, but you can replace it for $20 or so. Or, would you prefer scratches on the front element of your lens? Where it will cost $100's to fix or you will have to live with the image degradation from that scratch? Some people like the first option, others the second. Me, I'd rather buy a new filter every so often.
|
|
|
|
10/24/2003 08:20:09 PM · #30 |
I just got a UV filter for my stock lens for the 300d
I am going to take some comparison shots for sure, as I belive I've lost clarity, and when AF'ing in low light it has hunted a couple times, which it didn't before...
I might try a better quality one, but so far, don't think I like it.. |
|
|
|
10/26/2003 02:50:19 AM · #31 |
well, I'm happy with my UV, and will never be taking it off unless necessary.
the 2 photo's (uneditied, direct from camera) are available here. //frahneng.com.au/cvt/filter_on_off/IMG_0363.JPG <-filter ON
//frahneng.com.au/cvt/filter_on_off/IMG_0364.JPG <- filter OFF
both images are about 2.35M in size.
I have started them uploading.. and should be up in about an hour after I made this post.
Photo's taken with AWB, it did a bad job.
Both images have the EXIF data attatched so you can see exactly what settings were used.
I am happy to redo it (with better manual settings, and better subject) if anyone wants.
The filter I used is the cheap one of the 3 UV's that hoyo make.
Stock 300D lens (17-55mm)
EDIT: fixed URL's
Message edited by author 2003-10-26 04:29:02.
|
|
|
|
10/26/2003 03:41:38 AM · #32 |
I personally just feel a little safer with a UV filter in place. I was shooting a birthday party the other day and my camera was sitting on the tripod as I tried to gather up people for a group shot. While my back was turned, one kid was admiring himself in my lens, I guess. He also had a balloon he had been attempting to blow up -- more full of spit than air -- anyway, he pulled on the balloon in his mouth, which spayed spit all over the UV filter -- anyway, I THINK that is what happened. I didn't see him until right after this, when he was trying to wipe the spit away from my lens with his fingers. Yeah, I'm glad I had a UV filter on, thank you.
After cleaning the UV filter, the group shot looked great. I guess no scratches from this, so perhaps I could have just as easily cleaned the lens, but what if...?
|
|
|
|
10/26/2003 12:52:59 PM · #33 |
Originally posted by rcrawford:
Why don't you set your camera up on a tripod then take the same photo with and without the filter. |
Personally, I dare *anyone* to see the difference between a picture taken with a naked lens and a lens with a high-grade, multicoated filter on top of it.
Okay, so it might introduce a flare earlier in some situations, but that's why you use a lens hood, no?
HJ
Message edited by author 2003-10-26 12:57:02.
|
|
|
|
10/26/2003 12:57:52 PM · #34 |
Another important thing worth considering: Some lenses have round front elements. it is far more difficult to clean a round element than a flat filter.
HJ
|
|
|
|
10/26/2003 01:40:24 PM · #35 |
Originally posted by SharQ:
Okay, so it might introduce a flare earlier in some situations, but that's why you use a lens hood, no?
|
I get the feeling that a lot of people don't use lens hoods at all and don't notice the big contrast impact it has on a lot of shots - same with a UV filter that is causing flare.
I have UV filters for all of my lenses.
I put them on when I think there is a reason to protect my lenses - e.g., I'm shooting at the beach or somewhere sandy, or I'm expecting 2 year olds to stick their fingers on the lens. The rest of the time I don't put them on.
I use a lens hood 90% of the time too though.
Like any filter you should have a reason why you are using it for a particular shot - you wouldn't have a polariser on 100% of the time so why have a UV filter ? |
|
|
|
10/27/2003 10:18:28 PM · #36 |
I don't use a lens hood, never have, and don't know any pro's, so don;t know anyone who has either.
How useful are they?
I have used my hand before to block the light, to stop the lens flare, is that all?
theres round hard ones, round rubber ones, and flower ones... whats the reason for the different types?
gordon, you mentioned contrast imapct.. can you explain a bit more please. |
|
|
|
10/27/2003 10:29:35 PM · #37 |
| I agree with setzler. When I first starting getting into photography I thought a skylight filter was a smart move. after taking courses and meeting professionals at seminars and confrences, I learned that only amatuers use a skylight filter. Pros just don't use them. Oneof the most important factors in you image is sharp focus on your subject. Adding an extra piece of glass will deterirate your image. If you wanna protect your lense use a lens hood and a lens cap. Other filters are usefull when appropriate. Polarizer filter and ND's are the filter every photographer should have in his or her arsenal. |
|
|
|
10/27/2003 10:31:10 PM · #38 |
| I would only use a skylight filter if it was extremly windy or at the beach. |
|
|
|
11/17/2003 07:21:43 PM · #39 |
Originally posted by cvt_:
gordon, you mentioned contrast imapct.. can you explain a bit more please. |
Even when you don't see the 'classic' aperture shadow/ flare, you can still get reduced contrast on the shots just due to stray light bouncing around.
Lens hood helps protect the lens and improve the quality of the pictures in most cases - unless you have sticky fingers or salt spray or the like flying towards the lens, then a hood is probably a better investment than a UV skylight
|
|
|
|
11/17/2003 08:30:29 PM · #40 |
Most photography teachers will tell you that the skylight filter is worthless. NYIP goes into detail on this. What you are doing is making your camera work harder cause you have now added another layer of glass (or plastic as most filters are now) for your lens to have to focus through. As much sense as this makes they also go further to tell you they are professionals and if they scratch a lens they can afford the repair or replacement but if you can't afford it don't do it.
I keep a uv filter on mine most of the time and I do remove it for some photos. As I look at it right now it has a lot of small marks on it and needs replaced. The marks occur most often in the bag. I take my camera EVERYWHERE with me and the lens cover sometimes pops off in the bag. The filter protects it from anything that might be in my bag. |
|
|
|
11/17/2003 08:54:45 PM · #41 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Lens hood helps protect the lens and improve the quality of the pictures in most cases - unless you have sticky fingers or salt spray or the like flying towards the lens, then a hood is probably a better investment than a UV skylight |
A major problem with the Minolta Dimage 7hi is that when you put on the hood, you can't use the flash. At night, when there's little danger of stray light, there's no problem. But fill-flash for daylight shots becomes limited.
ARRGGGHHHH.
Hoods are essential, imo, but why can't Minolta fix this. |
|
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: 06/17/2025 12:16:03 PM EDT.
