Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main Photography Discussion
Question about UV filters
Page <<first <prev 4 of 4
Sep 11, 2014 22:28:42   #
BHC Loc: Strawberry Valley, JF, USA
 
RichardSM wrote:
You know what bothers me most when I visit my local camera store is every time I purchase a new lens is that the sales staff always ask me if I want to buy a filter, my answer to them is why do I need a filter and most can't give me a decisive answer, so I put forth the question to them are you just trying run the purchase up for commission, guess what the answer is. Yes for more commission and answer is no thank you!

That's what happens when the staff's income is based primarily on commission instead of salary. Our local store pays a small commission on cameras, lenses and other high end items, but nothing on small items like filters.

Reply
Sep 12, 2014 11:30:36   #
wj cody Loc: springfield illinois
 
RichardSM wrote:
You know what bothers me most when I visit my local camera store is every time I purchase a new lens is that the sales staff always ask me if I want to buy a filter, my answer to them is why do I need a filter and most can't give me a decisive answer, so I put forth the question to them are you just trying run the purchase up for commission, guess what the answer is. Yes for more commission and answer is no thank you!


looking for an excuse not to provide your lenses with correct protection only hurts you in the long run.

good quality filters, hoya, b+w, will neither degrade your images or interfere with your use of the particular lens. if you want to use them or not is your choice, but don't blame it on the actions of other people.

Reply
Sep 12, 2014 13:19:05   #
RichardSM Loc: Back in Texas
 
wj cody wrote:
looking for an excuse not to provide your lenses with correct protection only hurts you in the long run.

good quality filters, hoya, b+w, will neither degrade your images or interfere with your use of the particular lens. if you want to use them or not is your choice, but don't blame it on the actions of other people.


Hello cody

Maybe you did not see my first post on page one or you did and you choose to ignore it I'm not against using clear glass filters for protection? I prefer the lens hood and or the lens cap for protection however the clear glass is what I use in dirty dusty, sandy and saltwater spray area's and such things! If the impact on the front of the lens from two or three feet of the ground with any filter on it, I truly don't think it will save you lens with out the use of you lens hood attached as well! My lens hoods have lots of dings and scratches on them; they are the best insurance least cost saving thing you can put on your lenses. IMHO

Reply
 
 
Sep 12, 2014 15:00:07   #
Huddy Loc: Fitzgerald, GA
 
There are so many things that can get on your lense...not only finger prints, but smoke from anywhere, even in your home from cooking. Many don't think about it, but oily residue given off by the vinyl in your car. If you don't think that can affect your lens, take a look at the hard to remove fog on the inside of your windshield. I doubt if lens cleaner will remove that. What is the purpose of an expensive lens if such small things won't make a difference in image quality anyway? If nothing else, repeated lens cleanings could damage lens coatings. I have by accident touched my UV filter at a big outdoor performance event leaving a smudge. Nice to have that protective cover, especially if you did not bring the special lens cleaning materials. A "T" shirt at this time can be a blessing and can be used without much worry. As you can tell, I strongly recommend a UV filter or other glass cover of your choice. It only takes one time to ruin your lens....better the UV filter take the damage. As for attachments that stick out from the lens like a shade, they can be useful, but also be in the way of holstering your camera due to the extra length and they may also cause you to bang into things more often with the extra lens length. Just another view....hope it doesn't raise any eyebrows.

By the way, some cameras that use bayonet adapters for lens filters to attach to, will allow those smokey coatings to get under your filter. They have openings that prevent airtight sealing. Something else to consider.

Reply
Sep 14, 2014 12:31:30   #
wj cody Loc: springfield illinois
 
RichardSM wrote:
Hello cody

Maybe you did not see my first post on page one or you did and you choose to ignore it I'm not against using clear glass filters for protection? I prefer the lens hood and or the lens cap for protection however the clear glass is what I use in dirty dusty, sandy and saltwater spray area's and such things! If the impact on the front of the lens from two or three feet of the ground with any filter on it, I truly don't think it will save you lens with out the use of you lens hood attached as well! My lens hoods have lots of dings and scratches on them; they are the best insurance least cost saving thing you can put on your lenses. IMHO
Hello cody br br Maybe you did not see my first p... (show quote)


you are correct, i did miss your first posting. this wasn't really directed at you, personally, but to the general population, as we seem to go through this filter/no filter thing every month.
so, apologies.

Reply
Sep 14, 2014 12:39:22   #
RichardSM Loc: Back in Texas
 
wj cody wrote:
you are correct, i did miss your first posting. this wasn't really directed at you, personally, but to the general population, as we seem to go through this filter/no filter thing every month.
so, apologies.


This true we do get a lot of filter stuff?

Reply
Sep 14, 2014 12:51:34   #
wj cody Loc: springfield illinois
 
god, yes! it seems to never end. tons of opinions based only on personal experience. having worked with photo technician, i always marveled at his collection of shattered filters. way less expensive than replacing the front element. but others have said they have never experience this issue. of course the law of averages is decreasing for them continuously. and all it takes is one little disaster and then, well, the cost can be significant.

but, everyone gets to chose. have a good one!

Reply
 
 
Sep 14, 2014 17:53:09   #
rook2c4 Loc: Philadelphia, PA USA
 
wj cody wrote:
god, yes! it seems to never end. tons of opinions based only on personal experience. having worked with photo technician, i always marveled at his collection of shattered filters. way less expensive than replacing the front element. but others have said they have never experience this issue. of course the law of averages is decreasing for them continuously. and all it takes is one little disaster and then, well, the cost can be significant.

but, everyone gets to chose. have a good one!


But then, not everyone treats their equipment equally. Some photographers cradle their camera and lens as if they are holding a delicate newborn baby, while others are rather rough and/or careless with their camera - placing it on the very edge of tables, not using the strap, slamming it into objects, tossing it about, leaving it unattended, using it while intoxicated, etc. Some photographers go through a lifetime without ever a mishap, yet others seem to experience camera and lens accidents quite often.

When a filter does get shattered while screwed on, there's a good chance the mechanics of the lens are messed up as well due to the severe impact.

Reply
Sep 15, 2014 00:14:17   #
BHC Loc: Strawberry Valley, JF, USA
 
rook2c4 wrote:
But then, not everyone treats their equipment equally. Some photographers cradle their camera and lens as if they are holding a delicate newborn baby, while others are rather rough and/or careless with their camera - placing it on the very edge of tables, not using the strap, slamming it into objects, tossing it about, leaving it unattended, using it while intoxicated, etc. Some photographers go through a lifetime without ever a mishap, yet others seem to experience camera and lens accidents quite often.

When a filter does get shattered while screwed on, there's a good chance the mechanics of the lens are messed up as well due to the severe impact.
But then, not everyone treats their equipment equa... (show quote)

Your first paragraph assumes a variability in the treatment of equipment by the owner/user, albeit somewhat biased toward the extremes of abuse. It has been my observation that most lens-to-object incidents have occurred while the camera was hanging unused from a strap or harness.

Your second paragraph assumes the most traumatic of filter failures. When a filter gets scratched or cracked while screwed on (the most common of failures), any damage likely to occur to the mechanics of the lens is minimized and any lens mechanism damaged by such an incident leads me to question the quality of the mechanism. I once tested a couple of dozen filters with damaged mounts. I was quite surprised by the amount of abuse the glass of a quality lens can take before it "shatters". My tests included the dropping of &#8539; to ½ inch ball bearings from heights of 1-24 inches and the occasional use of a light (8 ounce) ball-peen hammer.

Reply
Sep 15, 2014 00:36:11   #
mcveed Loc: Kelowna, British Columbia (between trips)
 
NealB wrote:
I have read many opinions about the pros and cons of adding a UV filter to a lens for protection. I have seen them priced from $10.00 to almost $300.00. I just purchased a Sigma 150-500mm lens and am unsure if I need to buy one (86mm) and how much to spend if I do. All opinions welcome. Thank you.


You don't need to buy one. If you use a lens hood on your lens and a lens cap when not shooting, you have no need to place another piece of glass between the subject and the sensor. The only time I have seen UV filters have a positive effect on images is at high altitude using slide film. Digital sensors are different and I can't see any benefit to a UV filter. As to the protection afforded by one, I have never seen the need. If you use the lens cap when you are slogging through the swamp you take it off to shoot. If you use a protective filter when slogging through the swamp you either have to unscrew it or clean it to shoot. I vote for removing a lens cap. Now if you are actually going to shoot where your lens could get salt water etc, and your lens isn't weather sealed, then a filter might be the answer. But only in extremis.

Reply
Sep 15, 2014 00:51:30   #
BHC Loc: Strawberry Valley, JF, USA
 
mcveed wrote:
You don't need to buy one. If you use a lens hood on your lens and a lens cap when not shooting, you have no need to place another piece of glass between the subject and the sensor. The only time I have seen UV filters have a positive effect on images is at high altitude using slide film. Digital sensors are different and I can't see any benefit to a UV filter. As to the protection afforded by one, I have never seen the need. If you use the lens cap when you are slogging through the swamp you take it off to shoot. If you use a protective filter when slogging through the swamp you either have to unscrew it or clean it to shoot. I vote for removing a lens cap. Now if you are actually going to shoot where your lens could get salt water etc, and your lens isn't weather sealed, then a filter might be the answer. But only in extremis.
You don't need to buy one. If you use a lens hood ... (show quote)

One of the more logical and well-thought-out responses. And if I could have a penny for every time I've watched some poor schnook dig through his camera bag and pockets looking for a lost lens cap, I could buy my Leica camera and a couple of lenses.

Reply
Page <<first <prev 4 of 4
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main Photography Discussion
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.