Search results for 'uv filter' - page 139
Ok Ok I know! 17-70 Vs 16-50
I've gropped a couple of lenses in my time that have only been saved because they had a UV filter attached which was smashed completely. Without this the front element would have been broken. And I have seen pictures of lenses that had a filter (and front cap) on that were dropped. The filter bro...
Posted by Mike-P on 29/02/2012 - 23:01
Ok Ok I know! 17-70 Vs 16-50
I use filters on all my lenses, primarily to protect the lens coating from the cleaning it would otherwise require. Before 'digital filters' were an option, optical filters were necessary for many different effects and lenses shouldn't be affected significantly when quality filters are fitted. Ma...
Posted by johnha on 29/02/2012 - 23:02
Ok Ok I know! 17-70 Vs 16-50
A Lens Hood wins this rock paper scissors contest, just got to make sure it attaches securely which some don't of course:wink: Again though it's down to how secure you feel about it, One mans goose is another mans gander, I guess. I flogged all my filters on Ebay and made a tidy sum Mike:D And f...
Posted by jules on 29/02/2012 - 23:21
Ok Ok I know! 17-70 Vs 16-50
I bought a Pentax M 200mm F4 - it arrived with a uv filter attached and was awful - removed the filter and as with Mike's lens it was like night and day in terms of the difference :D
Posted by Stuey on 01/03/2012 - 12:24
Ok Ok I know! 17-70 Vs 16-50
Another Hogan qoute, (I promise no more!)regarding Filters, this time with the serious answer! I think a lot of us have been in a Camera shop over the years with an over enthusiastic staff member giving us the desperate add on sale spiel... QUOTE Q: "Which filter should I buy to protect my new len...
Posted by jules on 01/03/2012 - 23:39
Ok Ok I know! 17-70 Vs 16-50
That's just a lot of waffle with no scientific proof:shock: I've posted links before to Lenstip and other sites that have found no degradation due to UV filters and I have seen improvements with Tiffen Haze filters on tests that I have done. Lenstip didn't even rate that particular filter very ...
Posted by Algernon on 02/03/2012 - 07:29
Ok Ok I know! 17-70 Vs 16-50
Interesting comments about using a filter to protect the lens. I can accept that adding a 'protective' filter such as a UV or Skylight could, to a very small degree, affect image quality - though generally not in my experience. However, if, like me, you spend quite a lot of time crawling about in t...
Posted by genesisphil on 02/03/2012 - 09:07
Ok Ok I know! 17-70 Vs 16-50
This thread has become really interesting. I did a test last night (not scientific of course) where I shot a still life of a porcelain ornament with my DA 16-45, both with and without a UV filter. The subject was chosen because I could control lighting and focus to be 100% identical between the tw...
Posted by davidstorm on 02/03/2012 - 09:45
Ok Ok I know! 17-70 Vs 16-50
Here's some more completely unscientific babble. (Waffle?) Just for kicks:arrow: http://www.digitalrev.com/article/uv-filter-vs-no-uv/OTMwNA_A_A Yes it's Kai, makes about as much sense as "Top Gear" but occasionally has a point. Look were never all going to agree on this, suffice to say I'll n...
Posted by jules on 02/03/2012 - 09:47
Ok Ok I know! 17-70 Vs 16-50
I quite agree Jules in that it is up to the user to decide if they need a protective filter in any given situation. I do sometimes myself remove the filter if taking a picture in a 'safe' environment, though being inherrently lazy and absent minded I must admit that my lenses (with the exception of ...
Posted by genesisphil on 02/03/2012 - 10:14
Ok Ok I know! 17-70 Vs 16-50
I think thats the point really, if you think you need them and feel happier that way bung them on and forget em, the filter thing is a discussion that will get old and grow a beard. Just like the orginal point to this thread that was I seem to remember (In B+W not the filters!:wink:) 17-70 vs 16-50,...
Posted by jules on 02/03/2012 - 10:24
Ok Ok I know! 17-70 Vs 16-50
WOW...... I received my new Pentax 16-50 Lens yesterday what a nice and solid piece of structure, it looks and feels great and the quality of the photos are very good (only 20 photos taken so far ) will put it to the real test on he weekend.. Now as for the Filter, and I am sorry for starting this ...
Posted by es on 02/03/2012 - 12:18
Ok Ok I know! 17-70 Vs 16-50
If your going to put a filter on a UV is better it at least cuts out most of the UV light. A Skylight was OK on film, but not needed on digital. A Protector will at least keep the main element clean. It's impossible to clean a lens back to it's original condition.
Posted by Algernon on 02/03/2012 - 13:02
Ok Ok I know! 17-70 Vs 16-50
Ok Edward your decision is made, read point 2 of the first section thouroughly though: http://www.dpreview.com/articles/8049091537/the-uv-filter If you still must, here's a test: http://www.lenstip.com/113.1-article-UV_filters_test.html Hoya Pro 1's are ok by the way, nice and slim and fit on...
Posted by jules on 02/03/2012 - 14:40
Ok Ok I know! 17-70 Vs 16-50
Tiffen's site shows an example of a haze filter. It not only removes haze it increases sharpness... probably by increasing contrast. I found it sharper, more so at the edges with a Pentax-K 28mm f/3.5 lens and the Tiffen Haze-1 filter. A quote from a web page I came across: "Isn't it a...
Posted by Algernon on 02/03/2012 - 15:30
Ok Ok I know! 17-70 Vs 16-50
I seem to spend most of my time with a yellow, orange or red filter on the end of my lenses... :D K.
Posted by womble on 02/03/2012 - 17:19
Ok Ok I know! 17-70 Vs 16-50
I seem to spend most of my time with a yellow, orange or red filter on the end of my lenses... :D K. B+W? No there Hoya! Ha Ha Ha I crack myself up! :D
Posted by jules on 02/03/2012 - 17:38
Ok Ok I know! 17-70 Vs 16-50
Spotted this in a camera dealers in Margaret River yesterday. Saw it and thought about this thread. To filter or not to filter, that is the question. While your arguing your points of view, retailers are selling filters based on cold, hard sales techniques. Best regards
Posted by K10D on 05/03/2012 - 12:01
Ok Ok I know! 17-70 Vs 16-50
If Filters are such a waste of time and money etc., why do most of the sellers in the Classified say the lens they are selling have had a filter on since day one (and how do they prove it). I think I only recall one seller saying he doesn't normally use a filter but will include an UV filter if requ...
Posted by tyronet2000 on 05/03/2012 - 12:07
Ok Ok I know! 17-70 Vs 16-50
Sellers simply use the fact a filter has been on a lens as a selling point, and it is in the sense that it implies that they have kept their cleaning excesses off the lens and scratched the filter instead.... In fact, cleaning a lens should be very infrequent, but if it's going to be overdone the...
Posted by johnriley on 05/03/2012 - 14:42
