| Author | Thread |
|
|
01/28/2008 07:02:27 AM · #1 |
i only want a filter for protection provided that it doesnt effec image quality..
? .. canon/hoya/tiffen? |
|
|
|
01/28/2008 12:17:47 PM · #2 |
| i use a Hoya on my 70-200 for shootin airsoft etc, haven't seen a great decrease in quality.. |
|
|
|
01/28/2008 01:48:54 PM · #3 |
Originally posted by rami:
i only want a filter for protection provided that it doesn't affect image quality..
? .. canon/hoya/tiffen? |
There is no filter that you can put on your lens that will not have an adverse effect on image quality.
|
|
|
|
01/28/2008 03:05:43 PM · #4 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by rami:
i only want a filter for protection provided that it doesn't affect image quality..
? .. canon/hoya/tiffen? |
There is no filter that you can put on your lens that will not have an adverse effect on image quality. |
Then what the heck are all these people doing with circular polarizers & neutral density filters? Seems their effect is hardly adverse... if you're going to answer the question, why not at least provide some useful information? :D
Among filter BRANDS, I've found that B&W is best for me. While more expensive, they are significantly higher in quality and performance. Now, if you're going to stick one on the end of a $100 lens, then paying an additional $100 probably isn't worth your money. Then again, I'm not going to use a cheap little WalMart / Ritz camera filter on a $1000+ lens, either.
Good luck...
|
|
|
|
01/28/2008 03:17:28 PM · #5 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
There is no filter that you can put on your lens that will not have an adverse effect on image quality. |
"Adverse" is in the eye of the beholder. When I use my GND filter, it certain doesn't produce anything adverse.
Message edited by author 2008-01-28 15:17:49.
|
|
|
|
01/28/2008 03:18:54 PM · #6 |
Spaz is right... any piece of glass will have some effect on image quality, no matter how good it is. It may effect sharpness, contrast, or cause more lens flare, along with other adverse effects.
That said, one must decide if the use of the filter is worth possible degradation in image quality. CPs are used most of the time for a purpose, same with ND filters.
As far as using a "protection" filter, well, it has no use other than keeping one from damaging a lens. In such, a lens hood will usually suffice and actually benefit the photo.
That said, I've never been dissatisfied with Tiffen filters for the little that I actually use them.
Message edited by author 2008-01-28 15:20:23.
|
|
|
|
01/28/2008 03:47:25 PM · #7 |
Any filter you put on your lens will degrade the image (ghosting, flare, lower contrast, less sharpness etc.). It's a fact. Argue until you're blue in the face, but you can't change the physics.
The better filter manufacturers do things to try and minimize those effects, but they still exist, even with the most expensive filters.
Filters are not all bad, they provide some visual effect. It's up to the photographer to decide if they effect provided by the filter is worth the decline in image quality. In some cases such as polarizers or graduated ND filters, the effect is difficult or impossible to achieve other wise, so using a filter is a must. On the other hand, if the effect is simple to achieve in other ways (color correction etc.) or mostly useless (UV or Skylight "protective" filters) the trade off becomes much less clear.
Filter Flare Factor
Message edited by author 2008-01-28 16:26:07.
|
|
|
|
01/28/2008 04:53:54 PM · #8 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Any filter you put on your lens will degrade the image (ghosting, flare, lower contrast, less sharpness etc.). It's a fact. Argue until you're blue in the face, but you can't change the physics. |
I'd be the last one to argue physics optics (I think this is a more accurate noun).
At any rate, I was questioning your use of the word "adverse". It is a subjective word. Sure, filters will produce less sharpness, but in the event you want a soft-focused photograph, this type of filter is hardly adverse.
|
|
|
|
01/28/2008 05:02:17 PM · #9 |
The two brands I've always respected are Hoya and Rodenstock. As I said to a friend who just bought a nice Canon 2.8 lens, what's the point of buying nice glass and then scrimping on the filter? I think it's the same argument that audiophiles use for the interconnects between hi-fi separates.
N |
|
|
|
01/28/2008 05:08:46 PM · #10 |
| RILEX makes very good quality filters. Quite happy with them. |
|
|
|
01/28/2008 06:27:32 PM · #11 |
| I use hoya filters,had one on my first digital a panasonic fz10,it screwed to the front of the lens hood so you had to be very careful in pointing the camera anywhere near the sun,took great pictures though.I use them now on my D80 and i haven't seen any problems,i now use Hoya pro 1d uv and hoya pro 1d cpl and i'm very happy with them. |
|
|
|
01/28/2008 09:29:32 PM · #12 |
Tried a quick test of my Sigma 24-70, found a brick wall and took a shot at each aperture at various focal lengths.
Using a Tiffen UV filter, at 70mm f/3.5 was blurrier than f/3.2 or f/2.8, or any higher aperture. Removing the filter made f/3.5 be sharper than f/3.2.
Shot in daylight at 1/2000, ISO 100, so I don't think it was camera shake :) |
|
|
|
01/29/2008 12:40:50 AM · #13 |
Originally posted by AperturePriority:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Any filter you put on your lens will degrade the image (ghosting, flare, lower contrast, less sharpness etc.). It's a fact. Argue until you're blue in the face, but you can't change the physics. |
I'd be the last one to argue physics optics (I think this is a more accurate noun).
At any rate, I was questioning your use of the word "adverse". It is a subjective word. Sure, filters will produce less sharpness, but in the event you want a soft-focused photograph, this type of filter is hardly adverse. |
No, physics is equally correct. Optics is the study of how light interacts with matter. It is just a part of physics.
While you do use a filter for a specific purpose, they have effects on the images that are outside that specific purpose and, I'd call any such effect "adverse". You may use some different term. With your example of a soft focus filter, while the filter diffuses the image and gives you what would be an undesired effect with a different filter, there are other adverse effects to using it.
|
|
|
|
01/29/2008 06:52:11 AM · #14 |
well, yeah....
but that's kinda saying you shouldn't use ANY sunglasses. The point being, should you use some super-cheap brand (of sunglasses), that causes major distortion & strange colors, or use a high quality pair that are optically correct and reduce the strain on your eyes?
(hey - if ya don't like the analogy, gimme a break; I just woke up) :D
btw spaz - ty for providing more information to the OP :)
|
|
|
|
01/29/2008 09:56:04 AM · #15 |
Originally posted by rossbilly:
well, yeah....
but that's kinda saying you shouldn't use ANY sunglasses. The point being, should you use some super-cheap brand (of sunglasses), that causes major distortion & strange colors, or use a high quality pair that are optically correct and reduce the strain on your eyes?
(hey - if ya don't like the analogy, gimme a break; I just woke up) :D
btw spaz - ty for providing more information to the OP :) |
Actually, cheap sunglasses ARE worse than no sunglasses if you are going to be outside in the sun. When you're outside without sunglasses, your pupil constricts letting in less light, UV and visible. Typically, cheap sunglasses allow significantly more UV to pass than good shades do and just because they say they block UV, doesn't mean they do (Chinese made toys are safe for babies too, right?). The mechanism that constricts and dilates your pupil only responds to visible light, not UV light. So when you slip on those $1.99 shades and go out in the sun, your pupil dilates in response to the lower level of visible light. If your sunglasses don't also block a high percentage of the UV in that light, you're letting MORE UV into your eye, which is not a good thing. If nothing else, it causes your eyesight to deteriorate faster than usual. At worst, you can get a sunburn on your retina, which is painful (feels like red hot sand is in your eyes) and can cause temporary blindness.
I'd say it's better to go without the el-cheapo shades, or filter.
Message edited by author 2008-01-29 10:00:24.
|
|
|
|
01/29/2008 11:10:08 AM · #16 |
...which is exactly why I choose to use the higher-quality filters, er, sunglasses, umm, you know what I mean! LOL
(All you did was clarify why not to use the cheap stuff, without addressing the benefits of the better products. But thanks for making my point) :D
|
|
|
|
01/31/2008 01:46:06 AM · #17 |
 Spazmo99, thanks for the link which I think everyone should read. (I usually 'wear' a filter (UV/polarizer) mostly because I am frequently near the water or in the rain, and I have indeed noticed the ghosting). |
|
|
|
01/31/2008 02:03:49 AM · #18 |
Originally posted by rossbilly:
well, yeah....
but that's kinda saying you shouldn't use ANY sunglasses. The point being, should you use some super-cheap brand (of sunglasses), that causes major distortion & strange colors, or use a high quality pair that are optically correct and reduce the strain on your eyes?
(hey - if ya don't like the analogy, gimme a break; I just woke up) :D
|
Ya know... I wear glasses all the time... and they aren't cheap either... because of my vision Nikon is usually the only brand I can get as far as lenses go. I have top dollar glass (plastic) on my face.
But even those do cause their share of glare, reflections and some distortion (at close distance) that I just have to overlook because I NEED them.
The same goes for photographic filters. If you need the filter, you just have to overlook or work around issues they cause. Sure, you can minimize the issues by buying qualityfilters, but in the end they are yet another object between the subject and the sensor.
|
|
|
|
01/31/2008 12:57:26 PM · #19 |
| thats a very nice artivle spasmo |
|
|
|
01/31/2008 01:10:43 PM · #20 |
I have polarizers and UV's for most of my lenses in my bag, and use the UV's like lens caps. I try to leave some kind of filter on the lenses when not using them so that they are protected a little. The only time I use the UV's are where there is a good chance of sand or the like getting on the objective lens.
A bit of advice; Welding or cutting/grinding sparks will adhere to glass, and leave a pit if you try to get them off, so if you are around that kind of activity with your camera, a UV would be very good insurance. I have not trashed a camera lens yet, but have wrecked several pairs of glass sunglasses while welding by forgetting to take them out of my shirt pocket.
ETA- Most of my sunset shots are done with a polarizer, hoya thin pro. It makes a big difference. I could see the difference right from the first shot with it after using several other brand polarizers. I had one cheapie that came with a used lens that was so bad that AF would not work with it, and I couldn't even manual focus with it. The others in my bag are Nikon and Tiffen, both good quality.
Travel protected,
Shoot Naked!
Message edited by author 2008-01-31 13:15:26.
|
|
|
|
01/31/2008 11:59:12 PM · #21 |
Originally posted by MelonMusketeer:
I have polarizers and UV's for most of my lenses in my bag, and use the UV's like lens caps. I try to leave some kind of filter on the lenses when not using them so that they are protected a little. The only time I use the UV's are where there is a good chance of sand or the like getting on the objective lens.
A bit of advice; Welding or cutting/grinding sparks will adhere to glass, and leave a pit if you try to get them off, so if you are around that kind of activity with your camera, a UV would be very good insurance. I have not trashed a camera lens yet, but have wrecked several pairs of glass sunglasses while welding by forgetting to take them out of my shirt pocket.
ETA- Most of my sunset shots are done with a polarizer, hoya thin pro. It makes a big difference. I could see the difference right from the first shot with it after using several other brand polarizers. I had one cheapie that came with a used lens that was so bad that AF would not work with it, and I couldn't even manual focus with it. The others in my bag are Nikon and Tiffen, both good quality.
Travel protected,
Shoot Naked! |
Yes, but remember, welding naked is not a good idea.
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Prints! -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/24/2024 04:51:04 AM EDT.
