Home News Buyers Guide About Advertising
 
 
 
   
Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 49
  1. #11
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Formerly South Wales. Now South Carolina.
    Posts
    7,147
    If you're going Hoya then Hoya SMC will do most things. For time exposures you'll need to remove them or use Hoya Digital Multicoated.

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Ohio, USA.
    Posts
    1,161
    I use a UV (0) filter on all my lenses, mostly Hoya SMC's a couple of tiffens, Hoya CPL. Mostly for my own peace of mind, and hoped for protection. Hoya seems to be the best quality / value filter and CPL. Hoya also makes a "clear glass" element protective filter, guess it really isn't a filter. In therory I would say the bigger the diameter lens go for the higher quality filter and that would mean higher cost, but would/should be more precision optical glass and coatings therefore less if any effect on the lens?
    Sony A700_____________Minolta AF 50mm. F/1.7
    Minolta AF 70-210mm F/3.5-4.5 Tamron AF 17-50mm F/2.8 XR DiII LD Asp. [IF]
    Tamron SP AF 70-200mm. F/2.8 DI LD [IF] Macro
    Tamron AF 70-300mm F/4-5.6 Di LD Macro 1:2
    Tokina AF 28-70mm F/3.5-4.5
    Tokina AF AT-X 80-400mm F/4.5-5.6
    http://flickr.com/

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Formerly South Wales. Now South Carolina.
    Posts
    7,147
    Quote Originally Posted by seanhoxx View Post
    I use a UV (0) filter on all my lenses, mostly Hoya SMC's a couple of tiffens, Hoya CPL. Mostly for my own peace of mind, and hoped for protection. Hoya seems to be the best quality / value filter and CPL. Hoya also makes a "clear glass" element protective filter, guess it really isn't a filter. In therory I would say the bigger the diameter lens go for the higher quality filter and that would mean higher cost, but would/should be more precision optical glass and coatings therefore less if any effect on the lens?
    I'd suggest always a UV filter is better than a skylight (clear glass). Always though look for SMC or digital multi-coated. Single coated, uncoated and ordinary multicoated will be horrible on a digital camera.

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Livin in a redneck paradise
    Posts
    1,867
    As of two days ago I am revamping my filter line by converting all my lenses to 72mm through adapters, this is the largest size lens element I anticipate using. That will allow me to get by with just three filters, thus saving money, while still allowing higher quality filters than otherwise. I will sell off my other filters of various sizes. The three I will be using are: B&W Kaesemann Coated Circular Polarizer (because it was cheaper than the standard Hoya HMC for some reason), Tiffen 0.6 Neutral Density Graduated Multicoated (I recently had need of one and will need it more in the future), and the cheapest Tiffen UV filter I could get hold of.

    I would be interested in protecting my expensive lenses. I think that lenses are worth protecting with permanent UV filters if they are worth 10 times the cost of the UV filter or more, bearing in mind that anything less than a very good filter will not be worth it, even if just from flare. So, depending on the person and lens, $500-$1000 lenses are to me worth protecting. Your lens already has about 20 elements, one more perfectly flat high quality one should be OK.

    However, I don't think my own lenses are expensive enough to justify a permanent filter expensive enough to not hurt IQ. I got the tiffen for use in situations where damage to the lens seems likely: blowing sand, a breeze off an acidic hotspring or geyser, flying hard particles, etc. I figured no sense putting good money in a filter whose purpose is to take a beating be replaced after a few dozen uses.

    Keep in mind glass is harder than steel, and these lenses have special coatings so they are probably even harder than normal. There are almost no materials on earth besides a few precious and semi-precious gems that could scratch one. Chipping or dropping could be a concern, but flying snow and sea spray don't seem like issues to me. I have put my lens through quite severe treatment a few times when the cap fell of in my backpack while I was running down hills. The cap is badly scratched, but the lens has no damage whatsoever, from whatever angle or light I look at it.
    Last edited by raven15; 10-07-2008 at 07:23 PM.

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Georgetown, KY
    Posts
    1,627
    Quote Originally Posted by jedinite View Post
    Ok, so if I want to protect my $1700 lens from the elements when I'm taking sports shots (snowboarding or surfing) what would you recommend? Even when you're standing 100 yards from the ocean you still get an sea mist on stuff. And in the mountains, I want to protect my lens from blowing snow.

    I'm not really using the UV filter for anything but protecting my lens or at the very least keep it clean. If there's another type of filter you'd recommend let me know.

    I also use Photoshop for post-production effects and filters so I guess I could skip out on a lot of the creative filters.
    My primary lens is a Canon ef24-70 f2.8L and it has never had a filter of any sort on it. However, it does always have the lens hood. A hood may minimize the snow, surf, etc. and with/without a hood the mist is going to mess up the filter as well. As long as care is taken it shouldn't be a problem when you clean either the lens or filter. Now, if you're shooting a motorcross or similar where there may be chunks of mud, dirt, whatever coming in contact I would probably spring for a UV, just mist tho then no. "If" my front element ever does get scratched to affect its performance a trip to the Canon repair shop will be in order and the cost will probably be less than a quality UV.

    This has been discussed many times in many different forums. Some choose to use a UV for protection, I don't. Whichever you decide is fine with me.
    Dennis

    Canon 5D
    Canon 20D


    Georgetown, KY Photographer
    Retouching

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    75
    Is there any real benefit in having UV attenuated with a digital AF camera? Are AF sensors weighted for decreased sensitivity for that part of the spectrum?
    I notice that all the DSLRs I've read up on in deciding to jump into the realm of DSLR last week had IR filters just in front of the sensor. I remember years back when I was playing with 35 SLR that it was possible to get very pleasing skin tone from film sensitized to IR frequencies. Is there an option in the DSLR arena for working with that end of the spectrum?
    Lots of questions for a beginner.

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    109
    Quote Originally Posted by D Thompson View Post
    My primary lens is a Canon ef24-70 f2.8L and it has never had a filter of any sort on it. However, it does always have the lens hood. A hood may minimize the snow, surf, etc. and with/without a hood the mist is going to mess up the filter as well. As long as care is taken it shouldn't be a problem when you clean either the lens or filter. Now, if you're shooting a motorcross or similar where there may be chunks of mud, dirt, whatever coming in contact I would probably spring for a UV, just mist tho then no. "If" my front element ever does get scratched to affect its performance a trip to the Canon repair shop will be in order and the cost will probably be less than a quality UV.

    This has been discussed many times in many different forums. Some choose to use a UV for protection, I don't. Whichever you decide is fine with me.
    Thanks Dennis, your response seems to be very much applicable to the exact lens I'll be using primarily. I may hold on the filter but what is your experience cleaning the lens after a day of shooting in the elements. Is it something that is quiet easy to do a good job of?

    I will be picking up a lens hood, I just thought having a filter is a good way of protecting my investment. I guess you guys are right, glass is one of the hardest substances on earth, it would be quiet difficult to scratch it unless I were cleaning it improperly or were in really harsh conditions (blowing sand, dirt, mud etc.) And even if I picked up a good UV filter unless it was glass it would probably be damaged. I'll have to check out what is available in the camera store I'm going to be purchasing my camera at. I just don't want to be attacked with a bunch of high margin accessories (if filters are considered high margin) from a sales person, without knowing what I really need with my camera.

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Brisbane, CA
    Posts
    3,591
    Lots of people buy what they don't need after talking with the salesman. Be careful. The L lens should come with a hood (not positive on that). I would say if crap is flying through the air then I'd have something protecting the front of my lens. The hood will protect it from every day stuff. Use it even indoors. At the beach where there's salt in the air, I usually have a CPL on anyway because it lifts reflections off the water and darkens the sky. Mist is a pain because it gets all over everything and it's hard to avoid.

    As far as cleaning goes, I usually do it in 3 steps. First I use an air blower to remove what I can w/o touching the lens. Then I use a brush. Then a lens pen or lens cloth. The goal is to avoid rubbing anything hard that may have collected on the lens into the glass. Also to avoid getting crap in my pen or cloth that might scratch the lens during a later cleaning.
    Lukas

    Camera: Anonymous
    I could tell you but I wouldn't want you to get all pissy if it's the wrong brand

    Flickr

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Georgetown, KY
    Posts
    1,627
    Quote Originally Posted by jedinite View Post
    Thanks Dennis, your response seems to be very much applicable to the exact lens I'll be using primarily. I may hold on the filter but what is your experience cleaning the lens after a day of shooting in the elements. Is it something that is quiet easy to do a good job of?

    I will be picking up a lens hood, I just thought having a filter is a good way of protecting my investment. I guess you guys are right, glass is one of the hardest substances on earth, it would be quiet difficult to scratch it unless I were cleaning it improperly or were in really harsh conditions (blowing sand, dirt, mud etc.) And even if I picked up a good UV filter unless it was glass it would probably be damaged. I'll have to check out what is available in the camera store I'm going to be purchasing my camera at. I just don't want to be attacked with a bunch of high margin accessories (if filters are considered high margin) from a sales person, without knowing what I really need with my camera.
    As far as cleaning the lens Lukas gave good advice. Like him, I'll first use a blower, followed by soft brush if necessary, and then a lens cloth. Sometimes I'll give it just a little breath before I use the cloth. Light pressure in a circular motion.

    Both of those lenses you mentioned should come with a lens hood and I do keep a hood on every lens I own. I'm also fairly anal about keeping the lens cap on if I'm not going to be shooting for a few minutes. Yes, I've forgotten and raised the 20D to my eye and wondered why the hell everything is black . Exercise care and judgment and you should be fine. Like I said, if you're shooting a dirt track or similar then I'd probably invest in a good UV for protection.
    Dennis

    Canon 5D
    Canon 20D


    Georgetown, KY Photographer
    Retouching

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Des Plaines, IL
    Posts
    9,554

    Exclamation Fujifilm IS Pro

    Quote Originally Posted by stanj View Post
    Is there any real benefit in having UV attenuated with a digital AF camera? Are AF sensors weighted for decreased sensitivity for that part of the spectrum?
    I notice that all the DSLRs I've read up on in deciding to jump into the realm of DSLR last week had IR filters just in front of the sensor. I remember years back when I was playing with 35 SLR that it was possible to get very pleasing skin tone from film sensitized to IR frequencies. Is there an option in the DSLR arena for working with that end of the spectrum?
    Lots of questions for a beginner.

    Fujifilm released a new version of their DSLR camera called the IS Pro (<- Click on this), which is specifically designed for IR/UV photography with an enhanced sensor which acts like film. You still have to use the specialized filters for this type of photography, but THIS is that camera you ask about.

    Name:  IS Pro.jpg
Views: 98
Size:  51.2 KB

    It's not cheap ... and the special filters are just about as much ... but WHAT A CAMERA!
    Don Schap - BFA, Digital Photography
    A Photographer Is Forever
    Look, I did not create the optical laws of the Universe ... I simply learned to deal with them.
    Remember: It is usually the GLASS, not the camera (except for moving to Full Frame), that gives you the most improvement in your photography.

    flickr & Sdi

Posting Permissions

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