Topic: which filter (Read 1142 times)

Radr · « **on:** March 07, 2010, 09:36:34 PM »

Hi everyone
I need UV filterr to protect my Tamron 17-50/2.8
have you any suggestion?
what about Polarizing filter?

Rob aka [minolta mad] · « **Reply #1 on:** March 07, 2010, 09:47:25 PM »

Id go for the Hoya pro 1 digital UV filter.
A polarising filter isnt a filter that would be left on the lens at all times.

Rob

Stef. · « **Reply #2 on:** March 07, 2010, 11:02:19 PM »

Agree with Rob.
Stef.

Clive · « **Reply #3 on:** March 07, 2010, 11:36:55 PM »

As noted a polarizer is not what you need for "every day" use.

"what about Polarizing filter?" If this is a separate question ... you will need a thin (LPF, low profile filter) polarizing filter so that you don't get dark corners when shooting at wide angle. Also, if you get a UV filter, remove it before using the polarizing filter. I use a Hoya Pro1 circular...as noted they are expensive, but well worth it if you plan to shoot scenery and blue skies. They also remove some glare from water and leaves.

http://www.great-landscape-photography.com/polarizing-filter.html

Polarization filters are, by their nature, quite thick in comparison to other screw-on filters (after all, there are two pieces of glass in a polarizer). When used with a very wide-angle lens (e.g. a 24mm), the edges of the filter can actually block some of the incoming light and cause vignetting - a darkening in the corners of the photo.

To combat this, if you use wide-angle lenses a lot, you can buy a "thin" polarizer. These are made by B+W and Heliopan, among others. The downside is that they are even more expensive than their thicker counterparts.

LyleG · « **Reply #4 on:** March 08, 2010, 02:09:45 AM »

Use the lens hood and scrap the UV filter. Totally unnecessary imo

zekewhipper · « **Reply #5 on:** March 08, 2010, 03:27:36 AM »

I disagree. You should keep something over the lens to protect it. However, a polarizer is perfectly fine to leave on a lens all the time, IF you don't mind losing a stop or two of exposure. Your lens is a fairly fast one, so depending on your photography, the light loss may be no big deal. I always leave a polarizer on the lenses I use outdoors, and a UV filter on the ones I use indoors, unless I'm photographing something in display cases and such. Then I definately use a polarizer and simply up my ISO.

rogprov · « **Reply #6 on:** March 08, 2010, 05:36:29 AM »

Quote from: LyleG on March 08, 2010, 02:09:45 AM

Use the lens hood and scrap the UV filter. Totally unnecessary imo

I agree. I think this "lens protection filter" was dreamt up by shop staff to increase profits by selling a hugely expensive piece of glass

The best protection for your lens is a decent lens hood - it's the same principal as the crash crumple zone on your car. Of course in some situations like sea spray they are useful but otherwise in 50 years I've not used filters for lens protection - must have saved myself a small fortune, or at least the cost of several lenses

But, if you must, here's a link ....

http://www.ukoptics.co.uk/67mm-lens-protector-filter-marumi-dhg-p-552.html

With a wide angle lens it's usually necessary to use a thin filter frame to avoid vignetting.

Fud · « **Reply #7 on:** March 08, 2010, 09:19:48 AM »

I have seen on a few occasions where a £30 filter has saved the front element on a £1,000 lens so if you do have expensive lenses I would always recommend a filter. The lens hood only offers good protection on something like a telephoto and is pretty much useless for protection once you get to wide angle. Also all the good quality telephoto lenses come supplied with a filter i.e. my 600 F4 so why would the manufacturers bother with these unless they were a good idea

Rob aka [minolta mad] · « **Reply #8 on:** March 08, 2010, 05:01:50 PM »

Quote from: LyleG on March 08, 2010, 02:09:45 AM

Use the lens hood and scrap the UV filter. Totally unnecessary imo

Have to completely dissagree with that like fud, my 300/4 and my CZ16-85 lenses were testamount to being saved from damage due to the UV filter. The 300/4 from a branch that i moved to get a better view and sprung back and left a nice mark on the filter (that wouldnt come off) and the 16-80 from salt spray that i cleaned off and scratched the filter with some grains of sand.

Also have wrecked one lee filter due to salt spray.

£50 to protect a £1000+ lens is a no brainer in my opinion

Rob

rogprov · « **Reply #9 on:** March 08, 2010, 05:48:47 PM »

Quote from: Rob aka [minolta mad] on March 08, 2010, 05:01:50 PM

Quote from: LyleG on March 08, 2010, 02:09:45 AM
Use the lens hood and scrap the UV filter. Totally unnecessary imo

Have to completely dissagree with that like fud, my 300/4 and my CZ16-85 lenses were testamount to being saved from damage due to the UV filter. The 300/4 from a branch that i moved to get a better view and sprung back and left a nice mark on the filter (that wouldnt come off) and the 16-80 from salt spray that i cleaned off and scratched the filter with some grains of sand.

Also have wrecked one lee filter due to salt spray.

£50 to protect a £1000+ lens is a no brainer in my opinion

Rob

I take your point (and Fud's) - but in 50 years of using cameras (without protection filters) I've never damaged anything. Of course most of that time they were unheard of anyway- it's a relatively modern phenomenon - we only used filters for effects and improvement to the old B/W films. Then with the big uptake of SLRs all sorts of crazy stuff with shapes and colour bands came on the market

But if one is happier with them on the lens - then why not? It must be worth the extra cost for peace of mind

Radr · « **Reply #10 on:** March 08, 2010, 09:10:06 PM »

I appreciate all of you for information and recommendations
Radr

Theresa · « **Reply #11 on:** March 08, 2010, 09:50:44 PM »

I've used a filter as a "lens cap" since the seventies, as you say "the black and white days." So I guess I was just a pioneer. I am a klutz and if it can get broken it probably will.

LyleG · « **Reply #12 on:** March 08, 2010, 10:38:22 PM »

When a lens is designed, it is designed to work optimally as is. Why someone would want to stick another piece of glass over an expensive lens is beyond me. Unless you are on assignment in Iraq it really seems unnecessary to me.

vaughaag · « **Reply #13 on:** March 09, 2010, 12:32:10 AM »

I agree with Fud and Rob on this one. Not so long back I slipped down a muddy bank (2nd time in a month) camera in hand, the lens (and camera a little) got some sloppy wet mud over it. I was very careful when cleaning the lens but still managed to scratch the filter.

A UV/Protection filter may not be 100% essential but there is no harm in being over cautious in my opinion.

Rgds,
Dave

Stef. · « **Reply #14 on:** March 09, 2010, 01:41:12 AM »

I personally think that all of you have some valid points:

Negatives:

a) for the purist it is unthinkable to put a cheap filter in front of an extremely expensive or not so expensive lens. IMHO this is correct. A filter will certainly NOT increase image quality but it is much more likely that it decreases it- even if ever so slightly.

b) there have been tests done which have proven that if you smash your filter you will very likely also smash/destroy the glass of the lens. So for serious accidents they will not save your lenses life

c) with some filters you will introduce flare

d) and yes a lens hood WILL protect your lens- in most cases sufficiently

Positives

a) sand/salt/ water/fingerprints...are NOT good for your lens- therefore a filter will protect the lens

b) cleaning a filter is easier and safer than working directly on the lens

c) psychologically for some people a filter will allow them to use their lenses more freely without hesitation and worries which is obviously better for your photographic outcome...

How am I dealing with it:
I have very expensive and very thin professional filters on my lenses. These are UV filters- I would frankly refrain from ever putting a polarising filter in front of my lens as a) I do not want to loose an f stop of my light and have to up my ISO => not good for image quality and b) polarising filters are for certain effects and I would nto want this effect to take place with all my images. I usually remove my filters when image quality is crucial or when I put another filter in front of my lens such as a polarising filter. If out and about I usually leave the filter on my lens more for my own psychological purposes than for the ultimate protection. I also take my hood off from time to time and then the fitler is a real protection. I.E. today I shot some images in an aquarium with the lens pressed right onto the glass windows.

Anyhow ultimately I do believe there is no real right or wrong. But I do believe that for psychological purposes a filter might be useful.
Just my two pennies...again...
Stef.

Dynax Digital Forums

News:

Author Topic: which filter (Read 1142 times)

Radr

which filter

Rob aka [minolta mad]

Re: which filter

Stef.

Re: which filter

Clive

Re: which filter

LyleG

Re: which filter

zekewhipper

Re: which filter

rogprov

Re: which filter

Fud

Re: which filter

Rob aka [minolta mad]

Re: which filter

rogprov

Re: which filter

Radr

Re: which filter

Theresa

Re: which filter

LyleG

Re: which filter

vaughaag

Re: which filter

Stef.

Re: which filter