Home News Buyers Guide About Advertising
 
 
 
   
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 33
  1. #11
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    26
    Quote Originally Posted by eduardofrances View Post
    If you have a detailed figure -like a toy, sculpture, etc- do the test in a controlled environment with and without the filter, that is the only way to know for sure.
    hmm......i'll defintely try it tonight with and without the filter to see what the difference is....hopefully there isnt any

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Charlotte, NC
    Posts
    1,148
    Controlled environment as mentioned... Also EXACT settings on the camera. Put it in manual mode, etc.

    Also shoot at a light. Put a light at different angles above the lens but directly hitting the front of the lens. and see if it is producing lens flare - with and without the filter.

    shoot low light, see if there is a difference in brightness. Likely it can be measured, but it may not be immediately visible.

    Cleaning: this is what I was referring to when I suggested not using it the filter. Cleaning dust off the lens should not damage it. Current lens coatings are pretty resilient, just use a good lens cleaner / cloth / brush.

    I haven't taken the time to go through all of this testing. I just know that any glass is going to lower the speed of the lens, and the speed of this particular lens is its biggest limitation! By the way, not talking about focusing speed, talking about the amout of light that gets through the lens.... more light = faster. f5.6 when zoomed in.... not very fast at all. (VR does not stop moving subjects, only helps reduce shake)
    Nikon D70s
    Nikkor 50mm 1.8D (If you don't have it you need it)
    Nikkor 18-200mm VR II
    SB-600
    Bogen/Manfrotto Tripods/Heads
    NAS (D300, Nikkor 80-200mm (or 70-200mm)f/2.8, Tamron 90mm Macro)

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    26
    Quote Originally Posted by tcadwall View Post
    Controlled environment as mentioned... Also EXACT settings on the camera. Put it in manual mode, etc.

    Also shoot at a light. Put a light at different angles above the lens but directly hitting the front of the lens. and see if it is producing lens flare - with and without the filter.

    shoot low light, see if there is a difference in brightness. Likely it can be measured, but it may not be immediately visible.

    Cleaning: this is what I was referring to when I suggested not using it the filter. Cleaning dust off the lens should not damage it. Current lens coatings are pretty resilient, just use a good lens cleaner / cloth / brush.

    I haven't taken the time to go through all of this testing. I just know that any glass is going to lower the speed of the lens, and the speed of this particular lens is its biggest limitation! By the way, not talking about focusing speed, talking about the amout of light that gets through the lens.... more light = faster. f5.6 when zoomed in.... not very fast at all. (VR does not stop moving subjects, only helps reduce shake)

    again....very constructive comment.....thank you

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    So Calif
    Posts
    3,226
    Recurring posts about the feasibility/practicality of using filters always result in the usual 3 responses (or variations of them).
    1. What?! Put cheap glass in front of your lens!?
    2. I never use a filter because lenses don't scratch easily.
    3. I like to use a filter to protect my lens.

    In the interest of full disclosure...I use inexpensive filters, except on the fisheye which does not accept a filter at all (same as my old Canon 15mm. I think the old 600mm mirror lens would have taken one up front, but how much do saucer-size filters cost anyway?). Realizing that my possibly-favorite lens (10-17mm) does not have a protective filter makes me question the need for one on my other lenses. Although I like the "idea" of protecting the lens, I can't recall ever actually smacking the filter which made me say - "boy, I'm glad I had the filter on there". And, a lens hood really should be sufficient - except getting poked with a tree branch or something. I know I'd keep a filter on in locations such as the dusty-windy Palm Springs environment or perhaps a muddy tractor-pull competition, but for the typical Southern California day, maybe not.

    So...I "googled around the web" looking for "real" information or tests about filters. The following are only a few of the results, and as you can see, they are not so helpful :-)

    Opinions from around the web...

    ----> Photo.net (a little old?)

    Which Brand?
    Neurotics use B+W or Nikon-brand filters. Tiffen is about half the price and probably just as good (cinematographers use Tiffen on their $10,000 lenses to make their $100 million movies). Nobody seems to like Canon-brand filters.

    What Filters for a Beginner?
    I don't think a beginner should buy any filters, except possibly a UV filter to protect an expensive lens. Thinking about filters is a distraction when you should be thinking about light, composition, and subject. After you've burned 500 rolls of film, then it might be time to think about filters. (This doesn't apply to B&W landscape photographers, who typically will need a couple of filters very quickly.)

    What Filters do I Have?
    I own a huge pile of filters. Which ones do I use? The graduated neutral density for sunsets. The circular polarizers for special assignments where reflection control is demanded. Some B+W UV filters to protect my investment in Canon EOS L glass (though I probably should take them off for critical shots).


    ---> Camerahobby.com

    Hoya

    I'm a bit ambivalent about Hoya filters. I have several 77mm sized filters that include a Polarizer, an 81A, a 25A Red, an 80A Blue, a 4X ND filter, and a color intensifier. While Hoya filters are definitely a cost effective solution for photographers that cannot afford to outfit themselves with German-made filters, some qualities of Hoya leave a little to be desired. Mechanical build quality for a few of my Hoya filters have not inspired confidence with loose glass elements within the metal ring, unlike the solid build and feel of all my B+W filters. Hoya also makes much ado about their use of multi-coated glass, which sounds great, but are a bitch to keep clean. If you don't clean multi-coated filters correctly, you might end up with a piece of glass that's far worse off than any cheaper, single-coated filter. Now Hoya isn't the only one to blame for the difficulty in cleaning multi-coated glass, as other brands' multi-coated filters are apparently just as difficult to keep clean and pristine. They're enough trouble that I just get the regular B+W UV or 81A filters for my lenses and have stayed away from Hoya HMC and SMC filters for many years now. While I have misgivings about some Hoya filters, they are a huge supplier of optical glass for Tokina, which has a good reputation for producing excellent lenses. And likely, Hoya is a supplier of optical glass for a few other companies with a rumour that they OEM filters for Nikon. I'd suggest that if you can try before buying, this will ensure that you get a filter with good mechanical build and if you do go with HMC and SMC types, to understand that the cleaning process may be difficult.

    Cokin

    This issue has been discussed before on the newsgroups but is it logical to put a piece of $30 plastic (high quality I'm sure but still plastic) in front of a $1500 or more lens? I have several Cokin filters (17) ranging from colored split ND filters to warming to soft and diffusion type to a few for B&W use. I bought most of them before I realized that I didn't need so many to begin with and before I came across the debate about their quality. There is no debating their cost effectiveness though. Cokin filters are even cheaper then Hoyas yet don't seem as cheesy. For some types of low use filters like my 4 point star filter, it's the way to go without paying $100 more for the same B+W filter in 77mm thread size.
    <snip>
    My gut instinct tells me that I don't have much to worry about because they seem to have found favor with many pros. The fact that Singh-Ray makes its own square filters for the Cokin P holder would seem to validate it to some degree. As I type this, I just recalled that I have actually enlarged a couple of photos to 8x10 size using a Cokin filter. The day was overcast and I used a Cokin 81C warming filter for most of the shots with my Bronica kit. The quality seemed quite acceptable but I think the 81C was a bit too strong for the day. Other then that there seem to be no other detrimental effect from the Cokin filter.

    B+W

    As much as I question Hoya filters, I love B+W filters. As much as I have difficulty cleaning Hoyas, B+Ws are easy to clean and stay that way with no spots or gunk still clinging to the glass (most likely the result of my B+W's being single-coated versus Hoya's multi-coated HMC and SMC filters). Belated research into B+W revealed that it is actually Schneider of Germany, one of the finest lens makers in the world, that produce B+W filters. Since that time onwards, I have tried to ensure that every one of my lenses is protected with a B+W UV filter. All my Nikkors have B+W UV filters as well as all five of my Bronica lenses. Henry at xxx Camera often jokes that I'm the reason why they bring in B+W filters as I'm the only one willing to pay the additional cost.

    ----> Naturephotographers.net

    I recommend buying a quality polarizer. Cheap polarizers are worse than no polarizer at all. Stick with well-known brand names such as Singh-Ray, Tiffen, Hoya, Heliopan, and B+W and you won't go wrong.

    ---> news.thomasnet.com

    Archive Press Release - Release date: September 9, 2005

    The Tiffen Company, the world's leading manufacturer of photographic filters and lens accessories, this week added the Digital Ultra Clear filter to their comprehensive line of filters for the motion picture, broadcast, still photographic and digital markets.

    The Digital Ultra Clear was developed for today's digital cameras and camcorder lenses as well as the traditional photographic lenses. Designed for the discerning photographer, from ultra quality optical glass, the Digital Ultra Clear filter offers the optimum protection for today's camera lenses. It protects the lens against dirt, grime, fingerprints and those unexpected bumps and bruises. It can be kept on the camera lens at all times without compromising image quality.

    The Digital Ultra Clear is available in sizes up to 82mm and retails for $30.00 to $110.00.

    Tiffen filters are backed by a 10-year warranty. They are used in almost every major movie and TV production around the world. Tiffen has been honored with two Technical Achievement Awards from the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences: one for innovative product design, and the other for its unique lamination process which gives complete control over filter color and density. In 2000, the Academy presented Nat Tiffen, one of Tiffen's founders, with a Scientific and Engineering Award for consistency in filter quality. Tiffen also received a 1998 Emmy Award for Engineering Excellence.

    ---> photo.net/equipment/filters

    (this one has some charts and graphs, which is what I was originally looking for)... this is the summary:

    This last plot makes the order of UV absorbing effectiveness quite clear

    The Tiffen Haze-1 is best. It's a neutral filter so color balance is unaffected.
    Next is the Tiffen 812. Good UV blocking if you also want a warming filter
    The Hoya 81B is very similar to the Tiffen 812.
    The Hoya UV filter comes next, neutral, but with 2 stops of UV blocking.
    The B+W KR1.5 gives about 1.5 stops of UV blocking with slight warming.
    The Tiffen polarizer gives less than a stop of UV blocking, but that's not why you use a polarizer!
    The B+W and Hoya 1B aren't very good UV blockers. The 1B is slightly warming
    The three "generics" and the Tiffen UV protector are pretty useless for blocking UV, though they may make fine, neutral, lens protectors.

    What I actually use when I need a UV filter or a protective filter is a Tiffen 812. Usually, for the type of work I do, a warmer image isn't a problem, indeed it's often desirable. I also like to minimize the number of filters I carry so my 812 serves three functions. It blocks UV, it protects the lens and it's a warming filter. Some people use an 81B for this, but I slightly prefer the color shift of the 812. Not everyone wants a warming filter, so the clear winner for a neutral filter that really bocks UV is the Tiffen Haze-1, though the Hoya UV should also be pretty effective.

    -----

    Sorry for the long post - and from a non-Nikon person. I'm still on the "filter or no-filter" fence...however, as I don't have really expensive stuff, perhaps it does not matter either way :-)

    Edit - Believe it or not I forgot to add my bigger question - If we can get a single piece of optically flat and clear multicoated glass (i.,e., filter) with only a mounting ring as the other part for say $100, then why is a stabilized 18-200 lens with many elements all having been ground to precise curvatures and assembled into an optically sharp system with many moving parts such as diaphragm and barrel mechanism including some type of motorized focusing and stabilization system only cost 10 times as much?
    Last edited by SpecialK; 12-29-2006 at 09:18 PM.
    Pentax K20D/K5/15/21/40/70/10-17/12-24, Sigma 17-70 2.8-4.5/150-500, Tamron 90 Macro/70-200 2.8, Canon SX20 IS/Elph 500HS
    (formerly Pentax 50 1.4/50-200/55-300/K100D, Sigma 18-50 2.8/70-300 APO, Tamron 28-75, Viv 800, Tele-Tokina 800, Canon S3 IS, Samsung L210)
    http://s133.photobucket.com/albums/q78/KylePix/

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    God's Country - Australia
    Posts
    10,421
    Quote Originally Posted by SpecialK View Post
    . Although I like the "idea" of protecting the lens, I can't recall ever actually smacking the filter which made me say - "boy, I'm glad I had the filter on there". And, a lens hood really should be sufficient - except getting poked with a tree branch or something. I know I'd keep a filter on in locations such as the dusty-windy Palm Springs environment or perhaps a muddy tractor-pull competition, but for the typical Southern California day, maybe not.
    i totally agree. i have had slr's for 20 years and "touch wood" never dropped one, or had any occasion where a filter provided impact protection, even from a prodding brach and the like.

    the only time i use a filter is on an extremely windy day or at the beach/ ocean where sand/ dust/ water spray could be an issue.

    EDIT: since this thread was rehashed i just wanted to say my free UV filter is making a ver ynice beer coaster.
    Last edited by Rooz; 06-10-2007 at 04:30 AM.
    D800e l V3 l AW1 l 16-35 l 35 l 50 l 85 l 105 l EM1 l 7.5 l 12-40 l 14 l 17 l 25 l 45 l 60 l 75
    flickr

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    245
    Neurotics use B+W or Nikon-brand filters. Tiffen is about half the price and probably just as good (cinematographers use Tiffen on their $10,000 lenses to make their $100 million movies). Nobody seems to like Canon-brand filters.
    You seem 10x times more neurotic than me with your reply... that I have to say is needlessly aggressive

    Cheap filters only help to detriment the IQ, If you are going to buy one get one that works as protection and doesn't lowers IQ, I am not saying Tiffen is bad, but B+W has worked very good for me so that is the one I recommend.

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    So Calif
    Posts
    3,226
    You seem 10x times more neurotic than me with your reply... that I have to say is needlessly aggressive
    What I posted was not my view. It is one of many I found on the web, as indicated.
    Last edited by SpecialK; 01-29-2010 at 10:49 PM.
    Pentax K20D/K5/15/21/40/70/10-17/12-24, Sigma 17-70 2.8-4.5/150-500, Tamron 90 Macro/70-200 2.8, Canon SX20 IS/Elph 500HS
    (formerly Pentax 50 1.4/50-200/55-300/K100D, Sigma 18-50 2.8/70-300 APO, Tamron 28-75, Viv 800, Tele-Tokina 800, Canon S3 IS, Samsung L210)
    http://s133.photobucket.com/albums/q78/KylePix/

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Charlotte, NC
    Posts
    1,148
    It is one of many I found on the web, as indicated
    ...No worries SpecialK it was clear to me... and probably just an oversight (or witch hunt) by eduardo.
    Nikon D70s
    Nikkor 50mm 1.8D (If you don't have it you need it)
    Nikkor 18-200mm VR II
    SB-600
    Bogen/Manfrotto Tripods/Heads
    NAS (D300, Nikkor 80-200mm (or 70-200mm)f/2.8, Tamron 90mm Macro)

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    City of Lights, City of Casinos, City of Sin -- Must be Las Vegas!
    Posts
    1,512
    Quote Originally Posted by Rooz View Post
    i totally agree. i have had slr's for 20 years and "touch wood" never dropped one, or had any occasion where a filter provided impact protection, even from a prodding brach and the like.
    ...Unlike me since I've actually had flying debris crack a lens filter while taking action photos.
    Canon G10 - Nikon D3 - Sony P&S - Flickr Account - Non-updated Website

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Guelph, Ontario
    Posts
    1,903
    i know i don't belong here but since its on topic i'm gonna ask....i have a bunch of 52mm 1A Skylite filters.....2x Hoya, 1x Vivitar, and 1x Berkley and also few other filters.....don't have any UV ones at the moment.
    Is it ok to use the 1A filter for 24/7 use as a lens protector or is the UV filters better?
    Canon EOS 7D

    flickr
    FLUIDR

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •