Ok Ok I know! 17-70 Vs 16-50


Algernon

Link Posted 01/03/2012 - 16:48
Perhaps the filters were upside down!
Half Man... Half Pentax ... Half Cucumber

Pentax K-1 + K-5 and some other stuff

Algi

Stuey

Link Posted 01/03/2012 - 22:14
Algernon wrote:
Perhaps the filters were upside down!


K10D, K5 plus plenty of clueless enthusiasm.

My Flickr site link

jules

Link Posted 01/03/2012 - 23:39
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 lens?"
A: I don't believe in filters for protection on lenses, with the possible exception of a situation where I know dangerous chemicals might be thrown at the front element of the lens (e.g. in a chemical factory). Filters always rob a bit of light (and in some cases, a lot of light), increase flare tendencies, and add to your equipment cost. To date, I've not seen a single controlled study that shows that filters actually offer real protection. Indeed, some of us believe that the opposite is sometimes true with cheap filters: if a glass filter shatters it tends to scratch the front element of the lens. The real reason why every store salesman asks you if you'd like a protective filter with that lens you just bought is because it increases the stores profit margin. Considerably. Consider a US$1000 lens and US$50 filter. The store will make US$150 on the lens, US$25 or more on the filter. Thus, even though the filter added only 5% to the cost of your lens, it added 17%+ to the dealer's profit.
UNQUOTE
Cheers Jules...
tri-elmar-fudd

Back in the room!
“The single most important component of a camera is the twelve inches behind it.”...Ansel Adams
www.exaggeratedperspectives.com

Algernon

Link Posted 02/03/2012 - 07:29
That's just a lot of waffle with no scientific proof
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 highly.

You can actually see an improvement on some of the
Lenstip test shots taken with a filter, particularly
in the balcony area.

Some lenses actually incorporate a UV filter in the design. I've
posted links in the past to some Tamron tests.
Half Man... Half Pentax ... Half Cucumber

Pentax K-1 + K-5 and some other stuff

Algi
Last Edited by Algernon on 02/03/2012 - 07:32

jules

Link Posted 02/03/2012 - 07:57
This has been scientifically proven to be a Waffle

Last Edited by jules on 02/03/2012 - 08:13

genesisphil

Link Posted 02/03/2012 - 09:07
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 the undergrowth with a 1:1 macro lens, extension tubes etc., then with the subject inches or less away and the prospect of scratching from branches/twigs and the like, it is common sense to protect the lens imho. You can of course always remove a filter as and when, but too late to add one 'after the event'.

davidstorm

Link Posted 02/03/2012 - 09:45
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 two shots. Camera was mounted on a tripod, so no movement either.

Of the two shots, the one without the filter was marginally (and I do stress marginally) sharper. On the other hand, the one with the filter had less distracting reflections from the subject. Which was better? I can't say.

I think genesisphil makes a very good point above. There are situations where a filter is necessary to protect the lens, and of course situations where it enhances the picture (polariser, ND etc.). Jules makes the point about a store making more profit from filters. If anyone nowadays buys their filters this way they must need their head examining. You can get great filters for next to nothing on ebay or other online sources, so cost / profit margins do not come into the argument nowadays.

It's a matter of personal preference. I think if I was buying a used lens I would be more inclined to purchase it if I know it had been protected by a UV filter during its working lifetime. All glass needs cleaning and if you keep cleaning the front element you will scratch it.

Regards
David
Flickr

Some cameras, some lenses, some bits 'n' bobs

jules

Link Posted 02/03/2012 - 09:47
Here's some more completely unscientific babble. (Waffle?)
Just for kicks
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 not put a filter on a lens unless I know it was going to be at risk for everything else there is the hood (Mastercard!)


"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 the undergrowth with a 1:1 macro lens, extension tubes etc., then with the subject inches or less away and the prospect of scratching from branches/twigs and the like, it is common sense to protect the lens imho. You can of course always remove a filter as and when, but too late to add one 'after the event"


It was never meant to sound like you should never protect, for me for normal use thats what the super protect coating does, it doesn't rub off! If I was taking pics of someone welding I may change my mind, just that I don't feel that filters are necessary for "Normal" (Define your own normal)use...
Everyones circumstances are different, I too blunder around in the undergrowth but have learned always to have the Lenshood in position and thus far have had no troubles, also I have genuinely had problems with filters on several Lenses in the past affecting Autofocus flare ghosting etc and came to the conclusion that they are just not worth the risk of ruining a whole shoot for, which has happened!
The pictures/moments can't be retaken or relived and anything that comes between me and that goal is binned!
That includes superflous glass, I mearly pointed out Thom Hogans opinion as an experienced outdoorsman who agrees with my position, I'm sure there are thousands who don't! Then there are many thousands who are trying to get you to buy something you don't need too
Cheers Jules...
tri-elmar-fudd

Back in the room!
“The single most important component of a camera is the twelve inches behind it.”...Ansel Adams
www.exaggeratedperspectives.com
Last Edited by jules on 02/03/2012 - 09:53

genesisphil

Link Posted 02/03/2012 - 10:14
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 my old(ish) Sigma 15m semi-fisheye that cannot accept a filter) tend to have one on most of the time. Maybe my images would be better in a lot of cases if I never used a protective filter, but I am happy enough with them and like the peace of mind having one on most of the time.
Last Edited by genesisphil on 02/03/2012 - 10:15

jules

Link Posted 02/03/2012 - 10:24
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!) 17-70 vs 16-50, there will always be two sides and they'll never fully agree...
Cheers Jules...
tri-elmar-fudd

Back in the room!
“The single most important component of a camera is the twelve inches behind it.”...Ansel Adams
www.exaggeratedperspectives.com

tyronet2000

Link Posted 02/03/2012 - 10:37
I fully agree
Regards
Stan

PPG

jules

Link Posted 02/03/2012 - 10:38

Cheers Jules...
tri-elmar-fudd

Back in the room!
“The single most important component of a camera is the twelve inches behind it.”...Ansel Adams
www.exaggeratedperspectives.com

es

Link Posted 02/03/2012 - 12:18
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 in the first place, I decided to get a plain protective Hoyo Pro-1 Digital Protector Filter, when it arrives in the next few days I shall do some comparisons and let you all know the results.
A BIG THANK YOU to you all for your valuble comments in the mean time.
Regards Edward

Algernon

Link Posted 02/03/2012 - 13:02
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.
Half Man... Half Pentax ... Half Cucumber

Pentax K-1 + K-5 and some other stuff

Algi

jules

Link Posted 02/03/2012 - 14:40
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 the WA Lenses without vignetting, solidly made and high grade glass...
Cheers Jules...
tri-elmar-fudd

Back in the room!
“The single most important component of a camera is the twelve inches behind it.”...Ansel Adams
www.exaggeratedperspectives.com
Add a Comment
You must be registered or logged-in to comment.