Good vs. Bad UV Haze filters?
in [Digital Cameras]
|
From: Paul Ciszek on 6 Jan 2010 18:26 In article <hhu11a$cge$1(a)ruby.cit.cornell.edu>, David Ruether <d_ruether(a)thotmail.com> wrote: > >Even with transparency film, the effects of UV on images at >elevations to at least 11,000 feet are negligible - and any that >you may encounter with digitial can be removed later, or by >auto-white balance in the camera while shooting. Also, most >multi-element lenses themselves absorb quite a bit of UV. If >you want a good UV to just cover the lens with, I like the >Hoya single coated UV or clear filters - but I avoid Tiffen >filters "like the plague". May I ask why? I was given a Tiffen filter with the camera. -- Please reply to: | "Any sufficiently advanced incompetence is pciszek at panix dot com | indistinguishable from malice." Autoreply is disabled |
From: rwalker on 6 Jan 2010 21:02 On Wed, 6 Jan 2010 09:37:08 -0500, "David Ruether" <d_ruether(a)thotmail.com> wrote: snip > But, on the >other side, I do use good (Hoya and Nikkor) filters to keep lenses clean >(cleaning multicoated surfaces completely is very difficult, and I would >rather scrub a filter, which I can also wash, than a lens surface...) snip That is the primary reason I have UV filters on most of my lenses. I've shot without and with the filters, and the difference is not noticeable to me. And since I only shoot for me, that's all that matters. And, as you say, I'd rather clean the filter than the actual lens. I don't have any illusions that the filter is magically going to protect the lens from breaking in a high impact accident.
From: Ray Fischer on 6 Jan 2010 22:39 Neil Harrington <never(a)home.com> wrote: >In well over 50 years of amateur photography I have NEVER used a filter "to >protect the lens," though I have used them for their design purpose, >filtering. I've never yet had a lens damaged by lacking a "filter for >protection." Bully for you. One trip to the beach on a windy day was enough to convince me that filters are very useful protection. Unless you _like_ the front of your lens coated with salt spray? -- Ray Fischer rfischer(a)sonic.net
From: Chris H on 7 Jan 2010 03:27 In message <4b45577f$0$1663$742ec2ed(a)news.sonic.net>, Ray Fischer <rfischer(a)sonic.net> writes >Neil Harrington <never(a)home.com> wrote: >>In well over 50 years of amateur photography I have NEVER used a filter "to >>protect the lens," though I have used them for their design purpose, >>filtering. I've never yet had a lens damaged by lacking a "filter for >>protection." > >Bully for you. One trip to the beach on a windy day was enough to >convince me that filters are very useful protection. > >Unless you _like_ the front of your lens coated with salt spray? It's not just the beach.... dusty locations such as the farms and rural areas have wind blown dust in the air, this will "sand blast" the front of a lens. These days cities are no cleaner You only have to look at windows in buildings and cars to see the sort of stuff that is in the air. Mind you I have never found Neil to be actually connected to reality. -- \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ \/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/ \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
From: whisky-dave on 7 Jan 2010 09:43
"rwalker" <rwalker(a)despammed.com> wrote in message news:etfak5lvh3gsfcp6v253e5manpencsir12(a)4ax.com... > On Wed, 6 Jan 2010 09:37:08 -0500, "David Ruether" > <d_ruether(a)thotmail.com> wrote: > > snip > >> But, on the >>other side, I do use good (Hoya and Nikkor) filters to keep lenses clean >>(cleaning multicoated surfaces completely is very difficult, and I would >>rather scrub a filter, which I can also wash, than a lens surface...) > > snip > > That is the primary reason I have UV filters on most of my lenses. > I've shot without and with the filters, and the difference is not > noticeable to me. And since I only shoot for me, that's all that > matters. And, as you say, I'd rather clean the filter than the > actual lens. I don't have any illusions that the filter is magically > going to protect the lens from breaking in a high impact accident. I've always concidered the filter to be protection from dust and grime but what I found strange was that some people/photographers didn;t consider the fact that cleaning a filter quickly i.e without care because it's cheap and replaceable will degrade the quality of the image. This was in the days of film. So my thoughts were that if a filter gets scratched/damaged then it should be changed but I've rarely heard of people actully doing this and prefer to just keep using the 'protective' and somewhat scoured filter. |