All Forum Comments
Comment by K10D posted on To filter or not to filter... at 27/12/2012 - 04:05
[quote:3496ace15f="cabstar"]Never used them, lens hoods are for protection, I am not putting £10 worth of glass on the front of my £500+ lenses why would anyone want to do that????
Some of my lenses can't take filters. The remainder do and are fitted with "expensive protection" filters. The reason for me is simple, I shoot in some very dusty and harsh locations.
Anything in front of a lens will subtract image quality. In an extreme situation link it can be quite bad.....
However, when there is canned drink spray and food flying about or airborne sand etc, it’s easier to clean/replace a HQ filter than chance a Pentax repair centre obtaining a new front element for your lens.
It's an easy exercise to take two shots with and without a filter to see if you can see the difference. Perception is all.
Each to their own.
Best regards
Comment by K10D posted on To filter or not to filter... at 27/12/2012 - 01:52
That said, a poignant time to think of others rather than oneself.
Wishing ALL a peaceful season and good health.
Very best regards.
Comment by K10D posted on a Merry Christmas at 24/12/2012 - 22:53
Best regards
Comment by K10D posted on a Merry Christmas at 24/12/2012 - 10:53
Best regards
Comment by K10D posted on getting to know my DA 15mm at 23/12/2012 - 13:51
Best regards
Comment by K10D posted on jumping ant at 23/12/2012 - 13:35






Kwinana chemical plant


I suspect that this little 35mm plastic mount lens is hugely underestimated.
I used a Minolta 49mm CPL as they are cleverly made to have a built in step up ring! Never a risk of vignetting.
If your thinking about owning this lens, do it. I still criticise the plastic mount but cannot fault the optics.
Best regards
Comment by K10D posted on Polarized plastic mount 35mm at 23/12/2012 - 10:18
Comment by K10D posted on DA 14 / 2.8 discontinued? at 20/12/2012 - 03:55


This reply was interesting...
On December 28, 2011 at 5:35 AM
LensRentals Employee
Roger Cicala said:
Eric,
Our point would be there’s no sense using a cheap filter to protect a lens – it reduces image quality. Plus the filter doesn’t protect the lens, it protects only the front element which costs only a tiny fraction of what the lens does. A good example is the Canon 70-200 f4 IS, where the front element costs $79. It makes little sense to buy an expensive filter to protect the front element which costs about the same as a good filter. It makes little sense to put a bad filter on the lens and reduce it’s excellent image quality.
I doubt a Pentax service centre in the UK would provide a front replacement lens element for say the 50-135mm for the equivalent of $79 and would that include labour? Then there’s the waiting time involved for the repair and we are talking Pentax not Canon or Nikon.
I would put a good filter on the front. To date, none of the clients I have taken images for would even see a difference and that is what it comes down to. They would not have a clue if I used Nikon or Pentax never mind a filter or not.
I do agree that technically, image quality is affected by filters.
I shoot with other Pentax users over here that won't use them. We just accept each other’s choices.
Best regards