Good vs. Bad UV Haze filters?
in [Digital Cameras]
|
From: Neil Harrington on 7 Jan 2010 09:57 "Chris H" <chris(a)phaedsys.org> wrote in message news:uqctcSEhrZRLFAZA(a)phaedsys.demon.co.uk... > In message <4b45577f$0$1663$742ec2ed(a)news.sonic.net>, Ray Fischer > <rfischer(a)sonic.net> writes >>Neil Harrington <never(a)home.com> wrote: >>>In well over 50 years of amateur photography I have NEVER used a filter >>>"to >>>protect the lens," though I have used them for their design purpose, >>>filtering. I've never yet had a lens damaged by lacking a "filter for >>>protection." >> >>Bully for you. One trip to the beach on a windy day was enough to >>convince me that filters are very useful protection. >> >>Unless you _like_ the front of your lens coated with salt spray? > > > It's not just the beach.... dusty locations such as the farms and rural > areas have wind blown dust in the air, this will "sand blast" the front > of a lens. These days cities are no cleaner > > You only have to look at windows in buildings and cars to see the sort > of stuff that is in the air. > > Mind you I have never found Neil to be actually connected to reality. You and Fischer make a perfect pair. Sort of a match made in heaven. By all means use a filter to prevent all that "sand blasting." In fact you should put another filter on top of that one to protect it from sand blasting too. Maybe stack two or three more on there just to be on the safe side. <guffaw!>
From: David Ruether on 7 Jan 2010 11:45 "Paul Ciszek" <nospam(a)nospam.com> wrote in message news:hi367t$lbk$3(a)reader1.panix.com... > In article <hhu11a$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. The answer is in another post of mine, below - but briefly, they appear to be uncoated, and they "self-fog" over short periods of time and therefore require cleaning (on both sides) before use, plus the rims are thick, which can cause vignetting with some lenses at some settings. "Bottom of the barrel" quality, but they do have one plus that makes them desirable to some professionals, especially motion-film cameramen - Tiffen offers a wide range of colors in thread-mount glass filters... (but otherwise, YUCK!). --DR
From: David Ruether on 7 Jan 2010 11:55 "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 have also made comparisons of lens performance with/without UV filters (including using a 400mm f3.5 on a good distant subject with multiple refocus exposures for accuracy, with no filter, only the rear UV, only the front UV, and with both UV filters in place - with no differences noted). I also don't find multicoating on filters very useful. The exception to the above can happen when shooting nearly directly toward a relatively very bright and smallish light source, when a reflection off the sensor/film may be bounced back to the front filter, and then imaged again, but.........;-) --DR
From: David Ruether on 7 Jan 2010 12:04 "whisky-dave" <whisky-dave(a)final.front.ear> wrote in message news:hi4rvf$99e$1(a)qmul... > "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. 8^) And, remember the days when "pros" used to "clean" their lenses with quick swirls of their neckties on them? Those lenses were soon good for little more than taking "moody portraits"... :-( I agree that anyone concerned about optimizing the performance of their gear should examine it and replace it as needed - but it is surprising how many *barely visible* scratches an optical surface can have without impairing its optical qualities. --DR
From: Neil Harrington on 7 Jan 2010 12:45
"David Ruether" <d_ruether(a)thotmail.com> wrote in message news:hi547g$1rq$1(a)ruby.cit.cornell.edu... > > "whisky-dave" <whisky-dave(a)final.front.ear> wrote in message > news:hi4rvf$99e$1(a)qmul... >> "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. > > 8^) And, remember the days when "pros" used to "clean" their lenses > with quick swirls of their neckties on them? Those lenses were soon > good for little more than taking "moody portraits"... :-( A local studio photographer about 50 years ago told me he left a lens uncapped on a shelf to soften it for portraiture by acquiring dust. It seemed to me a rather haphazard method, but evidently it worked all right for him. > I agree that > anyone concerned about optimizing the performance of their gear > should examine it and replace it as needed - but it is surprising how > many *barely visible* scratches an optical surface can have without > impairing its optical qualities. Not in my personal experience, but I have read that even a fairly deep scratch is unlikely to make any visible difference in imaging. And some used to say that a bubble in the glass was the "sign of a good lens." That's probably a silly notion, but my guess is that many years ago bubbles in optical glass were not rare and if reasonably small probably did not substantially affect image quality. About 45 years ago I had a Piesker 85mm f/2 with a small bubble in a front element, but that's the only bubble I ever saw in a lens. |