Ugly Hedgehog® - Photography Forum
Home | Photography Digest | Active Topics | Newest Pictures | Search | Login | Register | Help
Main Photography Discussion
Lens filters
(?)
If you would like to post a reply, then please login (if you already have an account) or register (if you don't).
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 9 next>>
Jan 9, 2017 19:50:41   #
PaulB
 
David McKay in his book "Photography Demystified" suggested that using filters, except in rare circumstances, isn't a good idea. He suggests that putting a $20 or $30 filter on a $2000 lens undermines the quality of the lens. It does seem make sense. He says that using a lens hood will protect the glass from damage and not degrade image quality. Any comments from the "hogs"? Are there high quality filters that work without degrading images made with high end lenses?
 
Jan 9, 2017 19:54:47   #
BrettProbert
 
Oh no.
Jan 9, 2017 19:56:54   #
imagemeister (a regular here)
 
PaulB wrote:
David McKay in his book "Photography Demystified" suggested that using filters, except in rare circumstances, isn't a good idea. He suggests that putting a $20 or $30 filter on a $2000 lens undermines the quality of the lens. It does seem make sense. He says that using a lens hood will protect the glass from damage and not degrade image quality. Any comments from the "hogs"? Are there high quality filters that work without degrading images made with high end lenses?


ALL filters degrade, but Yes, some degrade very little and they are high end money .....

Keep the hood on the lens in taking position 24/7 and cap the hood when not in use.
Jan 9, 2017 20:00:14   #
Gene51 (a regular here)
 
PaulB wrote:
David McKay in his book "Photography Demystified" suggested that using filters, except in rare circumstances, isn't a good idea. He suggests that putting a $20 or $30 filter on a $2000 lens undermines the quality of the lens. It does seem make sense. He says that using a lens hood will protect the glass from damage and not degrade image quality. Any comments from the "hogs"? Are there high quality filters that work without degrading images made with high end lenses?


And some degrade very little and are not very expensive. Some very expensive filters degrade more than the more reasonably priced ones, too.

http://improvephotography.com/34507/feisol-tournament-ct-3442-review/
Jan 9, 2017 20:01:29   #
JohnFrim
 
I am old school and still keep protective filters on my lenses, but I also have clear photographic evidence of a filter degrading an image. I have gone the route of keeping a lens hood in shooting position (as apposite to mounted backwards) and foregoing a front lens cap because it is awkward to handle with the lens hood in place. Some day I might scrap the filters as well.
Jan 9, 2017 20:23:41   #
CHG_CANON
 
If you buy a cheap filter, you deserve what you get. But, if you consider your lens a valuable and expensive investment, you're justified in buying a top-line filter, whether clear or UV. Here's a serious analysis of the protective aspects of a lens filter on current lenses along with an analysis of the impact of filters on image quality and the impact of scratches on the resale value of a lens ...

http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2016/12/front-element-lens-protection-revisited/
 
Jan 9, 2017 20:30:57   #
Mac (a regular here)
 
PaulB wrote:
David McKay in his book "Photography Demystified" suggested that using filters, except in rare circumstances, isn't a good idea. He suggests that putting a $20 or $30 filter on a $2000 lens undermines the quality of the lens. It does seem make sense. He says that using a lens hood will protect the glass from damage and not degrade image quality. Any comments from the "hogs"? Are there high quality filters that work without degrading images made with high end lenses?


Anybody who would put a cheap $30 filter on any lens no matter of price is not thinking straight.
There are a number of manufacturers who make good quality filters. My choice is B+W, and the cost can run well over $100 depending on type and size.
Remember, when buying filters, to get multi-coated.
Jan 9, 2017 20:35:50   #
Photographer Jim
 
PaulB wrote:
David McKay in his book "Photography Demystified" suggested that using filters, except in rare circumstances, isn't a good idea. He suggests that putting a $20 or $30 filter on a $2000 lens undermines the quality of the lens. It does seem make sense. He says that using a lens hood will protect the glass from damage and not degrade image quality. Any comments from the "hogs"? Are there high quality filters that work without degrading images made with high end lenses?


I'm not sure if by "rare circumstances" he is including those times where a polarizer or neutral density filters would be appropriate, (which I would not consider to be all that rare at all). If so, then I would disagree with him. If however he is just referring to a clear or UV filter kept on all the time as a protection, then yes, I agree. The rare cases possibly being somewhere where blowing sand is present and the cLear filter is being used as some insurance against preventable damage to the lens coating and front element.
Jan 9, 2017 21:29:40   #
TriX (a regular here)
 
Gene51 wrote:
And some degrade very little and are not very expensive. Some very expensive filters degrade more than the more reasonably priced ones, too.

http://improvephotography.com/34507/feisol-tournament-ct-3442-review/


Gene, this looks to be a tripod review - could you check the link please? Thanks - would love to read the review.
Jan 9, 2017 22:40:50   #
Bram boy
 
PaulB wrote:
David McKay in his book "Photography Demystified" suggested that using filters, except in rare circumstances, isn't a good idea. He suggests that putting a $20 or $30 filter on a $2000 lens undermines the quality of the lens. It does seem make sense. He says that using a lens hood will protect the glass from damage and not degrade image quality. Any comments from the "hogs"? Are there high quality filters that work without degrading images made with high end lenses?


I have been saying the same thing for years , but no one seams to under stand , it has been proven, and tested , they put a bunch of lenses , old ones that were collect and given to them , under all sorts of test from rolling down hills with a lot of rocks to dripping on rocks , falling out of cars , and a bunch more , to many different things to list , and the out come was a lens hood saved many more than a filter did , the filter was smashed then the lens was damaged if all you had was a filler , but a lens hood on the end ,you had to have the lens hit the rock or what ever and it had to be the right size to to let the rock in and right length , , and this was written up in a photo mag in the seventies , I never use a filter now a polarizer some time for the glare not to protec , never damaged a lens yet since and I'm taking a lot more photoes than the average shooter , a few thousand a year but not as many as some , in my slide days it wasn't as many
Because of the cost of a roll of slides . But now there is no cost you can shoot a few hundered and save them on some
Medeium and start over or deleat what you don't want , and there is no need for colour filters you can do all that in computer .
Jan 10, 2017 00:33:51   #
rgrenaderphoto (a regular here)
 
PaulB wrote:
David McKay in his book "Photography Demystified" suggested that using filters, except in rare circumstances, isn't a good idea. He suggests that putting a $20 or $30 filter on a $2000 lens undermines the quality of the lens. It does seem make sense. He says that using a lens hood will protect the glass from damage and not degrade image quality. Any comments from the "hogs"? Are there high quality filters that work without degrading images made with high end lenses?


Then do not use a cheap $20 filter. I have saved expensive lens repairs twice in my life by having a UV/Daylight/CPL filter on a lens when damage occurred. A good UV filter with a superior coating will cost you $100; is that worth saving a $2000 lens?
 
Jan 10, 2017 02:26:46   #
Bram boy
 
Maybe you would be more careful . If you didn't have the filter on the end . I'm aware of every thing I do when I'm packing my camera ,
Jan 10, 2017 05:47:31   #
picsman
 
I thought I was aware of everything as well but forgot I hadn't zipped up my camera bag so when moving it a lens fell out and dropped 2 feet onto a concrete floor. The filter got dented but the lens was damaged internally and the AF fails most of the time. Maybe the filter saved the glass but not the internals.
Jan 10, 2017 06:06:49   #
jerryc41 (a regular here)
 
PaulB wrote:
David McKay in his book "Photography Demystified" suggested that using filters, except in rare circumstances, isn't a good idea. He suggests that putting a $20 or $30 filter on a $2000 lens undermines the quality of the lens. It does seem make sense. He says that using a lens hood will protect the glass from damage and not degrade image quality. Any comments from the "hogs"? Are there high quality filters that work without degrading images made with high end lenses?


Filters are essential for getting certain effects, and a decent filter isn't going to ruin an otherwise good shot. I have Hoya clear filters on my lenses for general dust and dirt protection. I attach them with Xume magnet adapters, so I can have them off in less than a second.
Jan 10, 2017 06:11:25   #
Haydon
 
Whenever I see these threads, I think of just one word "Cholly" :)
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 9 next>>
Main Photography Discussion
Home | Latest Digest | Back to Top | All Sections
Contact us | Privacy policy | Terms of use
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2016 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.