"Upgrade" at zero cost!


Paul East

Link Posted 01/09/2007 - 08:56
I recently became dissatisfied with a Tamron 28- 105 lens that I was given as a birthday present a few years ago. I had taken a couple of pictures with massive flare (under admittedly provoking conditions). When I read about such issues with this lens (on another website) I was almost growling at myself.

The other day, I sat down to tidy up my camera bag and looked at the front of the lens. It had a 1A filter on it, from when it used to be commonplace advice to fit one "to protect the expensive front element".

So I removed the filter and took some "provocative" pictures e.g. of a tree-line facing directly into bright sun. No problem.

Moral: there is a point to all that super-coating and similar, so don't ruin it by false economy!
Has anyone else found themselves doing something daft out of habit?
25 years a Pentax nut. ME Super, Super A, that big clunky one (MFZ?), and now digital.

Flink

Link Posted 01/09/2007 - 12:23
I'm with you, as most people here seem to be.

But don't rule out filters completely; although most filters from the film era are unnecessary (and downright stupid) because you can achieve their results in digital with far more control (while retaining the original), there are some filters that you simply can't emulate digitally.

At least a polarizer, a neutral density, a graduated and a diffuser are on my list of must-haves (I use the Cokin system, it's great). Check them out and have fun!
--
Flink

Clarky

Link Posted 01/09/2007 - 13:57
Quote:
The other day, I sat down to tidy up my camera bag and looked at the front of the lens. It had a 1A filter on it, from when it used to be commonplace advice to fit one "to protect the expensive front element".

Paul i had the same thing happen with a 1A filter on my Tamron 28-300 and could'nt understand why. I just put it down to the conditions of the day. I really only use a filter to protect the lens but its got me thinking do i need to have them on all my glass, probably not
Camera:|K-7|
Pentax Lenses:|DA12-24/f4 ED AL|DA35Ltd Macro|FA31Ltd|FA77Ltd|FA50/1.4|F70-210|FA20-35 f4/AL|A*200/f4 Macro ED|A50/1.7|A50 Macro f2.8|1.7xAF adapter|
Voigtlander|125/f2.5SL Macro APO Lanthar|
Sigma Lenses:|EX DG 100-300 f4|2X & 1.4X TC|
Flashes:|AF540FGZx2|RingFlash AF160FC|

Mannesty

Link Posted 01/09/2007 - 14:39
To use, or not to use, filters on the front element has been discussed many times before here, and can essentially be summed up by the following:-

Pro's use lens hoods, not filters, to protect their lenses. Amateurs/enthusiasts tend to use filters, and not lens hoods.

I fall very much into the amateur user bracket, but I learned from that and have removed all of my 'protective' filters.

I think Matt has had an experience where a filter shattered and almost destroyed the front element of one of his lenses.

And if that's not a convincer, ask yourself, where is the point of covering the important end of a potentially expensive lens, with a cheap bit of glass (or plastic) which is only ever going to reduce your image quality (polarisers excepted)?
Peter E Smith

My flickr Photostream

Paul East

Link Posted 01/09/2007 - 22:14
While I'm owning up to idiocy, a little warning about the K10D - which is great, by the way. For reasons I don't understand, you can set the part of the screen which it focuses on to various areas. When I first got it, I din't know about this and - somehow - must have set it for an off-centre spot. Of course, I carried on doing as I have always done, centre what you want to focus on, hold the shutter-release at half-way and recompose. Needless to say, it seemed for some time that the camera was incapable of focusing and I was feeling prettty annoyed.
As ever, it was a case of "Read The Frightfully-helpful Manual" and when I cam across the feature, I checked the settings and - behold! Sharp focusing. It all ended happily - I still take crap pictures, but that's my fault - but can anyone tell me what is the point of this feature?
25 years a Pentax nut. ME Super, Super A, that big clunky one (MFZ?), and now digital.

amoringello

Link Posted 01/09/2007 - 22:19
Quote:
but can anyone tell me what is the point of this feature?

So that when they remove it, they can add a bullet point of "new features"?

Honestly I don't know why anyone would want it. I guess some people can't grasp the concept of focusing on the center, holding the AF button (or half press the shutter release) and re-composing. So they rely on the camra to guess what they want.
Actually ths would probably work well with a point and shoot with huge DOF, but with an SLR I really don't see the usefullness.

I never use it, but once in a while the wheel turns, and I don't notice for some time and loose a bunch of good shots. I try to check it every time I turn on the camera.

Of course, the manual selection has some more usefulness than auto select. But so limited in when I would use it, I don't worry about it either.

Daniel Bridge

Link Posted 01/09/2007 - 23:07
It can be useful if you're shooting a series of pics with an off-centre subject - you select the focus point which corresponds with the subject you want to focus on, compose the picture as you want it and then fire away.

Yes, you can keep focusing with the centre sensor, then recompose, but if you can do it effectively without having to recompose all the time, why not?

I know the centre sensor is better at getting focus, which is why I have the word 'effectively' in the sentence above.

The mode where the camera selects the focus point might be good for very quick grab shots, but I don't use it. The mode where the photographer selects the points definitely can have its uses. I quite often use it if the camera's on a tripod with an off-centre subject.

Dan
K-3, a macro lens and a DA*300mm...

Mannesty

Link Posted 02/09/2007 - 07:56
Paul East wrote:
While I'm owning up to idiocy, a little warning about the K10D - which is great, by the way. For reasons I don't understand, you can set the part of the screen which it focuses on to various areas. When I first got it, I din't know about this and - somehow - must have set it for an off-centre spot. Of course, I carried on doing as I have always done, centre what you want to focus on, hold the shutter-release at half-way and recompose. Needless to say, it seemed for some time that the camera was incapable of focusing and I was feeling prettty annoyed.
As ever, it was a case of "Read The Frightfully-helpful Manual" and when I cam across the feature, I checked the settings and - behold! Sharp focusing. It all ended happily - I still take crap pictures, but that's my fault - but can anyone tell me what is the point of this feature?

You should have started a new topic/thread with this as it has nothing at all to do with this particular topic.
Peter E Smith

My flickr Photostream

fatspider

Link Posted 02/09/2007 - 11:13
I prefer to keep my "protective" filters in place, not so much because I'm worried about knocking the front element but more for ease of cleaning, I would sooner be constantly cleaning a filter than the lens, plus out in the field I have no problems if I find myself having to clean the front of a filter with a hankerchief or my t-shirt

I haven't bought a filter for my Bigma yet and I dread having to take lens tissues to the front element.

I can always take a filter off if I come up against awkward lighting.
My Names Alan, and I'm a lensaholic.
My PPG link
My Flckr link

Tyr

Link Posted 02/09/2007 - 12:04
I've actually seen a strange problem where a UV filter causes the green channel to clip on the S20Pro. It may be coincidence but, it seems to happen only with the filter on. The sensor has a huge dynamic range but that seems to vanish.
Regards,
Dan

https://www.flickr.com/photos/honourabletyr/

Mongoose

Link Posted 09/09/2007 - 11:10
I find the effect of the UV "protective" filter varies from lens to lens. I'm not sure why this should be, but my SMC-FA 80-320 and Tamron 90 F2.5 seem to particularly hate them, while most of my other lenses only suffer from problems in extreme conditions.
you don't have to be mad to post here



but it does help

MattMatic

Link Posted 10/09/2007 - 08:28
Mannesty wrote:
I think Matt has had an experience where a filter shattered and almost destroyed the front element of one of his lenses.

Not once... but twice
Now it's hoods always. They cost as much as a good filter, but they don't splinter nearly as much and protect the lens far more!

Paul East wrote:
but can anyone tell me what is the point of this feature?

Blame Pythagoras
If you always use the centre focus and recompose you are measuring along the hypotenuse. However, the focus for the image is actually along the edge, not the hypotenuse. Consequently, if you are using a very shallow depth of field (say shooting at f/1.4), and/or shooting very close then the difference between the two sides becomes important and you'll back-focus slightly.
That's why you can select the focus point (which I do 50% of the time, BTW)

Matt
http://www.mattmatic.co.uk
(For gallery, tips and links)
Add a Comment
You must be registered or logged-in to comment.