Topic: which filter (Read 1141 times)

dominicall · « **Reply #15 on:** March 09, 2010, 05:12:44 AM »

Hoya released a new series of filters a while ago - the HD range. I think a little more expensive than the Pro 1Ds but take a look at this video...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cT6wBQR7iqE

Dominic

rogprov · « **Reply #16 on:** March 09, 2010, 05:20:32 AM »

Very impressive! Okay who's going to be first trying the same with a lens?

vaughaag · « **Reply #17 on:** March 09, 2010, 05:29:20 AM »

Quote from: dominicall on March 09, 2010, 05:12:44 AM

Hoya released a new series of filters a while ago - the HD range. I think a little more expensive than the Pro 1Ds but take a look at this video...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cT6wBQR7iqE

Dominic

I've seen that posted on Facebook. It is impressive, but I bet it gives one day

Dave

zekewhipper · « **Reply #18 on:** March 10, 2010, 03:59:03 AM »

"The best protection for your lens is a decent lens hood - it's the same principal as the crash crumple zone on your car." Except for the fact (that unless a window is rolled down) a car does not have a big hole in it to still let things through if they come from the unfortunately "right" direction. A lens hood does not protect a lens from something coming straight at it.

A polarizer can allow you to take images of things behind reflective glass. If you try to photograph something that is obscured by reflections, that is something that is impossible to correct for in Photoshop. Here are some nice examples:

Before turning the polarizer-

After turning the polarizer-

These incidentally were taken to illustrate how a polarizer can definately aid autofocusing. In both shots, the toy car was the AF target. The AF couldn't get an accurate lock on the car in the first shot because of the reflections.

Stef. · « **Reply #19 on:** March 10, 2010, 04:28:19 AM »

zekewhipper- there is no doubt that a polarising filter can do wonders for your images- also enhancing colours and deepen a blue sky. But I do have my doubts that it would be useful for every situation and should replace a sky or uv filter for protection as you do loose one stop at least. But than...you save yourself a second filter...
Stef.

Sarie · « **Reply #20 on:** March 10, 2010, 02:05:28 PM »

I would have to agree with Stef, yes, you can use the polarizing filter anytime if you so desire, but their is a cost to it the one stop or more. On the other hand you may refer to any photography books, courses, videos, articles etc... they all recommend UV filters for lens protection and not polarizing filters. I think Dominical just posted a video for UV filters and what they can do and the level of abuse they can handle, I have not seen one yet with the same strength for protecting the lens in polarizing filters.

Again, if you are happy with the result of the polarizer and feel comfortable it protects your lens then be it. Otherwise, i would recommend a UV filter. Did not mean to intervene but just to add my two cents worth in the discussion.
Sarie

vaughaag · « **Reply #21 on:** March 10, 2010, 02:42:12 PM »

I think Stef hit the nail on the head when she talked about psychology. Everyone is diffrent and will worry and go about things differently. As I have said above, I personally use a UV filter when ever I am outside for piece of mind. However all filters are removed when working indoors / studio.

I dont think there is a definitive right or wrong answer here, its just personal preference.

Dave

Theresa · « **Reply #22 on:** March 10, 2010, 03:29:56 PM »

I bought a Hoya HD filter when I bought my ZA 135mm f/1.8. I haven't had much of a chance to use it. It may have been a waste of money but I am pretty discerning as far as quality and didn't want to add anything that would degrade the image. I've been using a "clear" filter on many of my lenses since the mid-70s when I referred to it as a "clear lens cap." All the filters I have bought up to this one degraded the image, this one doesn't seem to.

blanko · « **Reply #23 on:** March 10, 2010, 03:35:27 PM »

For what it's worth. I have always always used uv filters to protect my lenses.In the very early 60's when out the far East and on various deployments sand was always a problem and filters saved the worry of cleaning the actual lens and risking minute scratches whereas a filter was more easily replaced.I still take images near beaches and sandy areas so I always use a filter But like Stef states it is up to the individual to take all points into consideration.

rogprov · « **Reply #24 on:** March 10, 2010, 03:51:04 PM »

There is a very good article here http://photo.net/equipment/filters/ a few years old now but still valid I think.

There is another here on filter versus lens hood. http://www.gdanmitchell.com/2007/12/27/uv-filter-or-not

Both are quite long reads but very interesting and informative - if you have the time.

zekewhipper · « **Reply #25 on:** March 10, 2010, 04:34:03 PM »

When did I say not to use a UV filter for lens protection?

When I am outdoors, my lenses have polarizers. When I'm indoors, (and not having a specific need for a CPl), then my lenses have a UV filter.

It is a matter of preferences. I will gladly give up any minute degradation (of which I don't believe is discernable with good filters) of my photos if it will keep my lens from being scratched, or worse.

These sort of threads always lead to interesting commentary. That's because everybody's priorities are different. I always thought it would be interesting to see what folks value in their photography WITHOUT giving elaboration or justification.

For example, my photography priorities are simply (in order of importance):

1) exposure
2) focus
3) composition
4) color
5) image quality/lack of grain or noise

Note: Priorities 3 and 4 sometimes alternate depending on the subject matter.

Therefore, now knowing what my priorities are, comments put forth by folks like LyleG...

"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."

...should be self explanantory now, because for me image quality is the least important thing. Whereas filters help me achieve better results for higher priorities 1, 2, and 4.

Ta-da! Everybody is different in what they value.

Stef. · « **Reply #26 on:** March 10, 2010, 04:56:50 PM »

Quote

These sort of threads always lead to interesting commentary. That's because everybody's priorities are different. I always thought it would be interesting to see what folks value in their photography WITHOUT giving elaboration or justification.

I think justification is important to some extent. There are newcomers to this forum who really go by what members say when deciding on buying new equipment. Therefore IMHO to discuss the advantages and disadvantages in a polite way can only be of advantage. It doesn't mean the one or other way is absolutely correct. You never said that you have your polarising filter on all the time but you did say you leave it on your lens all the time when outside. This is certainly a valid way of using filters albeit not a very common one. Most people at least the ones I know do use polarising filters for very specific reasons. I have to say though that I personally will follow your advice at least for a day and give it a try. You might be absolutely correct and the polarising filyer has more uses than I thought off in the past.
So thanks for pointing this out!
Stef.

rogprov · « **Reply #27 on:** March 10, 2010, 05:01:26 PM »

Just as an aside - two polarising filters can be used as a neutral density filter. Turn one against the other until the desired amount of dimming is achieved.

Some types/makes of filter work better in this way than others.

Stef. · « **Reply #28 on:** March 10, 2010, 05:09:49 PM »

Quote from: rogprov on March 10, 2010, 05:01:26 PM

Just as an aside - two polarising filters can be used as a neutral density filter. Turn one against the other until the desired amount of dimming is achieved. Some types/makes of filter work better in this way than others.

That's good to know. Also one thing I came across the other day: polarising filters do not work well on very wide angle lenses such as the 16-35mm CZ. They give patchy results.
Stef.

LyleG · « **Reply #29 on:** March 10, 2010, 05:56:10 PM »

Then why buy an expensive lens in the first place if IQ is not important? The attributes you are after are more body attributes than lens attributes.

Quote from: zekewhipper on March 10, 2010, 04:34:03 PM

...should be self explanantory now, because for me image quality is the least important thing. Whereas filters help me achieve better results for higher priorities 1, 2, and 4.

Ta-da! Everybody is different in what they value.

Dynax Digital Forums

News:

Author Topic: which filter (Read 1141 times)

dominicall

Re: which filter

rogprov

Re: which filter

vaughaag

Re: which filter

zekewhipper

Re: which filter

Stef.

Re: which filter

Sarie

Re: which filter

vaughaag

Re: which filter

Theresa

Re: which filter

blanko

Re: which filter

rogprov

Re: which filter

zekewhipper

Re: which filter

Stef.

Re: which filter

rogprov

Re: which filter

Stef.

Re: which filter

LyleG

Re: which filter