smc FA 50mm f/1.4

smc FA 50mm f/1.4

At last, my birthday pressie I am about to order

When I order the above should I purchase a digital protector filter or just a skylight filter, probably a daft : but as it is not a digital lens as such I presume it would be OK for just a skylight but there again ?
I hope you will put me right

Lilly,
I don't use anything on the lens
Just a metal hood to stop glare and to protect the lens should I drop it

Pentax SMC coating is also very tough...

(I've had two Hoya Pro filters go crunch - and it wasn't a pretty site The splinters of glass very nearly ruined the lens.)
Matt

Oh, Matt that kinda freeks me out, always paranoid about a filter, so you say SMC is tough, what about rain on surface of lens, would you be perfectly happy just to wipe it dry with cloth?

Not any old cloth - use a Pentax Microfibre cloth.

never use anything else

...and I see the 'digital' filters as purely a marketing trick to get people to upgrade from their 'analogue' ones. Anything in front of the last surface of the back element in the lens (the special anti-reflection coating to reduce ghosting from the extra reflective CCD), is as far as I can see no different whatever your medium.

Dan

Oh, and happy birthday Lilly!

Got one of my own coming up...

Dan

For this lens I suggest a basic Hoya UV filter - reputable brand and they're all coated.

Filters simply described as "protectors" don't actually filter anything. This can be fine but they can be more expensive anyway. The "professional" versions are more expensive again - tend to be thinner so are useful for wide angle lenses, as well as being lighter. As for "digital", they just mean multi-coated, really.

Only get a Skylight if you want the colours warmed-up a bit (more useful for film than digital).

There are good arguments against using filters for protection, but personally I feel happier with one, and usually use UV filters for this.

Thank you for your views, I think I will then go for the UV.....watch this space
Hope you get one too Dan

Lilly

I'm another who doesn't used protection filters, not even with my most expensive lenses. I've never seen the point in buying an expensive lens then compromising the lens designers art by sticking another bit of glass in front.

If you're paranoid then get a filter
I have no problem with the front element and rain, or dust, or fingerprints etc.

No filter means you look after your lenses
Matt

In my personal experience, and also based on first-hand accounts I have read, the most common problems encountered with lenses are:

First, fungus, and the chance of this can be reduced by storing lenses in a dry, well-aired, environment.

Second: the coating being rubbed away by excessively enthusiastic cleaning over a long period. It takes a really obsessive person to do this, and to reduce the chance of getting a lens with this problem, my advice is not to buy from people who post to a certain digital camera forum which attracts such weirdos.

Third: being dropped, with consequent damage to the barrel and mechanics of the lens.

Fourth: a long way down, scratches on the front element (other than those caused by cleaning).

Fifth: close to fourth, damage done to the front element caused by a filter smashing when the lens is dropped or knocked. It must be remembered that filters are much more delicate than lens elements, and much more likely to smash. When they do, it's likely that shards of glass will be driven inwards. Lest you doubt me, there are several reports on the PDML of this happening.

There are really three sorts of people. Those who worry about their investment will tend to fit a filter, despite the fact that it affords very little protection. Those who worry about image quality will tend not to fit a filter because it may impair, very slightly, the quality of the image. And finally, those who don't worry, don't bother.

So to sum up, the sensible thing is not to fit a filter to very expensive lenses, where the optical quality is very high, and it would be a waste of all that money to risk reducing the image quality.

Instead, I suggest fitting a filter to very cheap lenses, where optical quality is not such an issue. Nonetheless, one should always fit the best filter one can afford, so if you have spent £20.00 on a second-hand Sigma, you shouldn't spend less than £30.00 on a filter.

But these are only my views, others may disagree.

G

Maybe scratches are a long way down on the list of problems with second-hand lenses because filters for protection are very often used?

I don't think ALL my money on an expensive lens is being wasted by fitting a good quality UV filter. If a lens already has thirteen bits of glass, for example, adding one more can't spoil it that much (if it's a good one).

I'm mostly concerned about minor knocks and scrapes that would not be bad enough to smash the filter but would be bad enough to scratch the lens. Bigger knocks and falls are rarer.

The theory that you look after things better when they're less well protected is good, but this doesn't work all the time for me. The odd moment of forgetfulness and clumsiness still happens.

Hmmmm. As I mentioned earlier some filters will go with a "bang" given the smallest knock that I'm sure wouldn't have harmed the lens. I had two Hoya Pro filters nearly wrecked the front element of £800 lenses. Not funny.

A hood is definitely a better method of protecting the lens. Knock on lens = cracked hood = about £35 to replace (or glue it).

My motto now is - no filter, but hood always on and round the right way

But you can use a filter if you want... I have a 72mm Hoya Pro filter for sale if anyone is interested...

Matt

I tried a few comparisons - with and without a UV filter - not long after I got the K10D, and I couldn't tell the difference.

Not that I'm saying there isn't a difference, but I couldn't see it, admittedly with the 18-55. Maybe flare would be worse with a filter on. I'd be interested in any facts about what sort of shots are adversely affected, and how much.

It is interesting to hear about the shards problem - it is a bit of a worry, I must say.

The only time I ever dropped a lens, touch wood, it was my trusty Sigma A 28-200, and it was getting the camera out of the car.

The filter was absolutely fine, as was the front element. Ripped the mount out of the lens though. Sigma fixed it for me, quite cheaply IIRC, and it's been fine ever since. Couldn't part with it now, although it probably isn't optically all that brilliant.