2xConverter

OT: Have you ever tried positioning yourself on the outside of a fast bend of a forest rally stage ?

I made that mistake when I took some time off from marshalling at Wales Rally GB, the UK leg of WRC, a couple of years ago and stood my camcorder on its tripod (I'm not daft enough to have stood there with it) and positioned myself well enough away with my remote to hopefully catch some of the action.

I got some good scenes . . . then it was Gronholm's turn. Throwing up gravel the size of boulders on his second run through Resolven, one of his lumps of rock hit the tripod and knocked the whole rig over. Fortunately no real damage was done because the tripod/camera had a soft landing in the surrounding bushes.

Never again.

I just thought I'd share that with you.

Cheers,

I think the degradation of lens glass by neutral UV filters may be being over-stated. I recently purchased a used Pentax-F 80-200 zoom from the US. It was advertised as having a small piece chipped off the filter ring. The lens also had a promaster skylight 1A filter attached. Now I don't like filters, even to protect the lens, I understood the logic of why you wouldn't choose to put cheap glass in front of the 'state of the art"? Well with the zoom in the condition it was I stuck some black insulating tape over the hole as I realised that anylight entering the lens from anywhere but the 360 aperture at the front of the lens front must be stopped. I then zoomed to 200mm and took some test shots of a letter box with house number 150 yards up the street. I then removed the tape and filter and re-took the same shot with the same settings and the house number was considerably clearer when viewed at 100%.

I ordered a standard Hoya UV haze filter and re-took the same shots and to my surprise the result was quite different and the house number was actually clearer with the filter on, not by much but it was. I took a further pair of shots for a second opinion the outcome was the same. I'm now convinced that if you're taking pics in sunny weather (and we get plenty of that in Queensland) then a decent UV Haze filter is a good thing for those conditions at least.

The haze filter would reduce the blue light that gets scattered and spoils definition and contrast. So, thet's absolutely right, in some cases filters can improve a shot, especially long distance ones like you describe.

However, it would have been counter-productive if you had wanted a misty, atmospheric scene, so it depends on what you are trying to achieve.

John is absolutely correct on this. I'm using Pentax SMC UV and skylight filters in the hope that the SMC coating should be better than other or no coatings but...

I had always used filters for 'protection' until a zoom lens rolled off the top of a Billingham bag which was on a carpeted floor. The lens landed front element down on the carpet, having rolled all of 9 inches and the filter smashed all over the front element. Even after carefully removing the broken filter glass there are scratches on the lens. I cant help thinking that if there had been no filter there would have been no damage.

I suppose it all depends on circumstances at the time.

Ken

Thanks John and Gartmore. With regards to the shattered filter, I'd tend to agree the cheap glass would break very easily and with a drop like you had the shattering glass is potentially a greater hazard to the lens than if you didnt have one. While I don't argue for filters to be used 24/7. I do feel that neutral UV will do a reasonable job on my 80-200 particularly as I intend using it for outdoor work and the amount of sun we get here. I also understand that skylight 1A and 1B should also cut down UV haze, I wonder why the promaster 1A skylight (pink tint) didn't cut it, perhaps its just a cheap thing.

Hehe, I like this comment. Agree 100%.

Andy

Not only the cheap glass. I've been using Hoya Pro-1 filters which have a very good coating, and are lovely and thin... but also fragile.

Duffed in my SMC-FA 24-90 at the weekend - camera and lens slipped round off my shoulder while kneeling down to help my toddler, landed lens down. Nasty crunch. Flicked the shattered filter glass out into the bin. Front element seems ok, but now have a very wobbly filter thread... and I think a couple of flaky aperture blades

Having been using the SMC-DA 12-24 mostly without a filter, I reckon I'll be minus filters from now (especially given the unbelievable SMC coating). It'd be a different story if it were a C lens (which I've heard are not that hard).

Matt

I've been slowly acquiring hard sun shades for my various (wife says "numerous" lenses.

As I install them, I've been removing UV and Skylight filters and putting them in my kit bag for use when and if required.

I figure the front element is quite well protected from most contact by the hoods alone and, as I shoot mostly wildlife and shoreline scenes from the water, I never know where the sun will be. The hoods have often saved a shot.

Only downside, the lenses get considerably bulkier to pack and carry. Now I'm ordering oversized leather drawstring pouches to accomodate.
The only filter that I use consistanly on 50mm and up, is a good quality polarizer. I can really see the difference.

As influenced by Daniel's shots, I'm leaving PL's on my macro lenses 7/24 in place of UV or Sky.

Cheers!

Mac,

Is leather a wise choice of material for drawstring pouches? It's fairly well known that leather hard cases can harbour fungus spores and have contributed to the demise of a number of lenses. Would the same not be true of soft pouches?

Regards,

I just tend to use the polariser all the time, or if not, at least have the Cokin holder mounted. I recently dropped my D with 16-45 mounted, fell about 3 feet onto hard floor (thin carpet), lens first . Lens and camera were fine, Cokin holder and adapter were bent. I guess they absorbed most of the impact, a bit like a car's crumple zone. Think it was £8 to replace the two.

Same would apply to a lens hood I reckon, so I tend to stick with these too.

Dan