Ugly Hedgehog® - Photography Forum
Home | Photography Digest | Active Topics | Search | Login | Register | Help
Canon vs Nikon: Which is better?
One camera setting that ruins your pictures
(and more, keep reading):
 

Among our users, we have some of the most talented photographers in the world share advice that you won't find even in the most expensive subscription magazines. That's because some of them only post on our website, so you won't find this information anywhere else! Some of them post under an alias, others disclose their studio name, it's up to them. But in either case you get to read and discover photography techniques that will make you very good at taking pictures.

Unlike other websites, we don't try to pitch DSLRs, lenses, and other gear, while collecting sales commission. We don't sell photography tutorials, books, DVDs and courses, while promising that your photography will improve only if you buy what's being promoted.

Instead, we have other people, who are either professional photographers or serious amateurs, some with decades of experience, share with you what they learned, what gear they use, which products really work and which are useless, which techniques work and which don't.

It's all completely unbiased. Our users simply have no reason to lie to you. They are people just like you.

And we provide a free platform for you and them to communicate. So you get to discover this information straight from the source, from people just like you, not from editors of some magazine or sales reps of some company.

This is what makes us different from other photography websites out there that try to sell you something while claiming they are trying to help you.

If you are a beginner, intermediate, advanced, or a professional photographer, then the benefits of signing up for our free daily photography forum digest are:

• We cover both film and digital photography.

• We talk about professional (D)SLR cameras, mirrorless cameras, mid-range/prosumer models, point-and-shoot, and camera phones.

• We cover all types of photography from portraits to landscapes to action shots to macro photography. (Which one interests you the most? Stop and ask yourself right now. You'll need to be able to answer that in just a minute. No matter what you shoot, you'll get better at just that. Read below to find out why.)

• We cover all aspects of photography from picking gear to composition to working with models, and everything in between.

• Each week you'll be receiving new tips and techniques on how to take the kind of pictures that will make your friends, relatives and peers just stare in amazement, speechless, when they see your work. Yep! That's how good your photography will become.

• Daily, you'll be receiving a photography forum digest with the latest photography tips, tricks, reviews and discussions.

• If you ever have a question or need help, you can always ask, and we'll cover your question in the following newsletter issue.

• And of course, it's all completely FREE!

• Let me repeat that. Since for some reason a lot of people contact us asking if the membership is really free: we are a social website for photographers, so we don't sell anything, and we don't charge any fees. It's as simple as that.

Here is how to proceed and what to expect:

Enter your name and e-mail address below, and you'll be instantly added to our photography mailing list distribution. You'll receive a one-time confirmation e-mail. Right after that, the first e-mail with today's digest will be forwarded to you. The signup process is completely automated, so you are just a few minutes away from discovering what our existing users already received earlier today. You'll get up to speed right away on what's the latest on our website, without any long introductions or other delays.

First name:

E-mail address:

Going forward, the next digest will be released in just a few hours. So if you don't sign up now, you'll also miss everything covered in it too.

 
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 (a regular here)
 
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 (a regular here)
 
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 (a regular here)
 
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.