Filters

tony cooper <tony_cooper213 DeleteThis @earthlink.net> wrote:
>I've just moved up to a Nikon D40. I'm wondering if I should add a
>skylight filter to protect the lens.

A skylight filter is not a good idea because it alters the colors ever to
slightly. A simple UV filter will be better.

> I've heard that they slightly
>degrade the image, and I've also heard that they don't.

They do, just because it is yet another pane of glass with all the
associated drawbacks like dirt, distortion, reflections, back reflections,
chromatics, etc, etc.
However you are very unlikely to notice any of this in your daily real-world
photography. IMO the benefits of protecting the lens far outweight the
minute degradation of the image quality unless you are really shooting for
the top 1% of the professional world.

jue
 >> Stay informed about: Filters 

The protection the filter affords the lens more than offsets any image
degradation.
You can always remove the filter.
It is much more expensive to replace a lens.
This is a no brainer.
 >> Stay informed about: Filters 

In article <ToTfj.33569$JD.882@newssvr21.news.prodigy.net>, flambe
<fac187 RemoveThis @hotmail.com> wrote:

> The protection the filter affords the lens more than offsets any image
> degradation.
> You can always remove the filter.
> It is much more expensive to replace a lens.
> This is a no brainer.

It's even less expensive not to drop it or smack it into something.

In 41 years of photography with 16+ of that professionally, I have yet
to drop a piece of equipment or smack a camera/lens into something.
 >> Stay informed about: Filters 

In article <050120081455373916%rag@nospam.techline.com>,
"Mr. Strat" <rag.DeleteThis@nospam.techline.com> wrote:

> In article <ToTfj.33569$JD.882@newssvr21.news.prodigy.net>, flambe
> <fac187.DeleteThis@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > The protection the filter affords the lens more than offsets any image
> > degradation.
> > You can always remove the filter.
> > It is much more expensive to replace a lens.
> > This is a no brainer.
>
> It's even less expensive not to drop it or smack it into something.
>
> In 41 years of photography with 16+ of that professionally, I have yet
> to drop a piece of equipment or smack a camera/lens into something.

You're very lucky. In the past year there was a question on this group
from someone who had gotten snot or barf or some such material directly
on a lens. There was a lot of discussion about how to clean the lens.
The best answer was to have a protective layer (like a neutral filter)
in front of the lens that one could just remove, wash under running
water, dry and put back on the camera.

You do not have to be clumsy to scratch a lens. Your kid can do it.

--
With or without religion, you would have good people doing
good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good
people to do evil things, that takes religion.

Steven Weinberg
 >> Stay informed about: Filters 

Frank Arthur schrieb:
> "tony cooper" <tony_cooper213.TakeThisOut@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:4blvn31o176ippnoo19aef2sbva0121lhf@4ax.com...
>> I've just moved up to a Nikon D40. I'm wondering if I should add a
>> skylight filter to protect the lens. I've heard that they slightly
>> degrade the image, and I've also heard that they don't.

> Get a good quality filter with antireflection coating (Hoya or B&W)
> and you will not be able to see any visible sign of image degradation.
> You can prove it in seconds by taking images with & without filter and
> put an end to the "image degradation" nonsense.
Yes, the nonsens of a filter in front of a 9000$-Lens. Don't think
always within our own limits.
You can see if there's a filter or not.

Andreas

--

Fotos unter http://www.gugau-foto.de/
Special unter http://www.hoellenmusik.de/
Schottland unter http://www.whisky-guide.de/
 >> Stay informed about: Filters 

This message is not archived
 >> Stay informed about: Filters 

"Jürgen Exner" <jurgenex.RemoveThis@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:n2nvn31ne1ijmn1f5934r142v81qnas1nc@4ax.com...
> tony cooper <tony_cooper213.RemoveThis@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>I've just moved up to a Nikon D40. I'm wondering if I should add a
>>skylight filter to protect the lens.
>
> A skylight filter is not a good idea because it alters the colors ever to
> slightly. A simple UV filter will be better.
>
>> I've heard that they slightly
>>degrade the image, and I've also heard that they don't.
>
> They do, just because it is yet another pane of glass with all the
> associated drawbacks like dirt, distortion, reflections, back reflections,
> chromatics, etc, etc.
> However you are very unlikely to notice any of this in your daily
> real-world
> photography. IMO the benefits of protecting the lens far outweight the
> minute degradation of the image quality unless you are really shooting for
> the top 1% of the professional world.
>
> jue

I just keep a UV filter on all my lenses and remove them when taking photos.
Simple.

Paul
 >> Stay informed about: Filters 

"Paul Burdett" <pburdett DeleteThis @optusnet.com.au> a écrit dans le message de news:
477fe389$0$17825$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
>
> "Jürgen Exner" <jurgenex DeleteThis @hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:n2nvn31ne1ijmn1f5934r142v81qnas1nc@4ax.com...
>> tony cooper <tony_cooper213 DeleteThis @earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>I've just moved up to a Nikon D40. I'm wondering if I should add a
>>>skylight filter to protect the lens.
>>
>> A skylight filter is not a good idea because it alters the colors ever to
>> slightly. A simple UV filter will be better.
>>
>>> I've heard that they slightly
>>>degrade the image, and I've also heard that they don't.
>>
>> They do, just because it is yet another pane of glass with all the
>> associated drawbacks like dirt, distortion, reflections, back
>> reflections,
>> chromatics, etc, etc.
>> However you are very unlikely to notice any of this in your daily
>> real-world
>> photography. IMO the benefits of protecting the lens far outweight the
>> minute degradation of the image quality unless you are really shooting
>> for
>> the top 1% of the professional world.
>>
>> jue
>
> I just keep a UV filter on all my lenses and remove them when taking
> photos. Simple.

I keep a lens cap on all my lenses and remove it when taking pictures.
Simple AND less expensive, not to mention faster to remove.

Jean
 >> Stay informed about: Filters 

"Andreas Gugau" <news DeleteThis @andreas-gugau.de> wrote in message
news:5uaks9F1h0hf3U1@mid.individual.net...

> You can see if there's a filter or not.
>
> Andreas
>
> --
>
> Fotos unter http://www.gugau-foto.de/
> Special unter http://www.hoellenmusik.de/
> Schottland unter http://www.whisky-guide.de/

Complete and utter rubbish.
You can *sometines* (in special circumstances) see if there's a filter or
not, but even then it's mostly guesswork.

I challenge you to a double blind test. I don't need to take part. Do it
yourself, then come back here and retract that silly statement.

--
Jeff R.
 >> Stay informed about: Filters 

me.DeleteThis@mine.net schrieb:
> On Sun, 06 Jan 2008 01:15:03 +0100, in rec.photo.digital Andreas Gugau
> <news.DeleteThis@andreas-gugau.de> wrote:
>
>> Yes, the nonsens of a filter in front of a 9000$-Lens. Don't think
>> always within our own limits.
>> You can see if there's a filter or not.
>
> Last time I looked at the Nikon 200-400mm /f4 VR it had a clear glass
> screw-on protective element from the factory.
That's not that kind of lenses I am talking about. Really not. And no, I
do not talk about any 35 mm-lenses. I am talking about lenses like this
one: http://www.mamiya.co.uk/popup.php?page=300mm+f%2F2.8+APO


Andreas

--

Fotos unter http://www.gugau-foto.de/
Special unter http://www.hoellenmusik.de/
Schottland unter http://www.whisky-guide.de/
 >> Stay informed about: Filters 

"Andreas Gugau" <news.RemoveThis@andreas-gugau.de> wrote in message
news:5uap3nF1h1cpkU2@mid.individual.net...
> me.RemoveThis@mine.net schrieb:
>> On Sun, 06 Jan 2008 01:15:03 +0100, in rec.photo.digital Andreas Gugau
>> <news.RemoveThis@andreas-gugau.de> wrote:
>>
>>> Yes, the nonsens of a filter in front of a 9000$-Lens. Don't think
>>> always within our own limits.
>>> You can see if there's a filter or not.
>>
>> Last time I looked at the Nikon 200-400mm /f4 VR it had a clear glass
>> screw-on protective element from the factory.
> That's not that kind of lenses I am talking about. Really not. And no, I
> do not talk about any 35 mm-lenses. I am talking about lenses like this
> one: http://www.mamiya.co.uk/popup.php?page=300mm+f%2F2.8+APO
>
>
> Andreas

Humpty Dumpty: When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean -
neither more nor less.
 >> Stay informed about: Filters 

"Peter" <peternew DeleteThis @nospamoptonline.net> wrote:
>"Jürgen Exner" <jurgenex DeleteThis @hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> So basically if I'm not mistaken you are using the filter like a fancy
>> lens
>> cap. I'm wondering why not using a lens cap directly?
>
>Because when working under adverse weather conditions I like to shorten the
>time my front element is exposed to the elements. Therefore I compose
>through the filter and expose without it.

Interesting idea! Thank you for sharing.

jue
 >> Stay informed about: Filters 

If it makes you feel good do it.

I have been in photography for over 50 years, about 20 of those included
professional photography. In that time I have dropped, scratched and
chipped many lenses and I have never had to replace one.

If you use a little black out (India ink or today felt tips) you can
black out the scratch or chip and frankly the lens is almost always as good
as new. The only time I required repair was when one of my cameras was
dropped, and it had a filter on it. The filter ring was bent and needed to
be replaced. The filter was shattered. I doubt if the filter helped or
hurt the lens.

Plane glass, skylight or haze filters do little or nothing nearly all
the time in digital photography. They can cause some additional flair if
you are not careful and I do suggest a lens hood. Of course if you have a
lens hood on, that will do a good job of protecting the lens and help
prevent lens flare.

The only time I suggest a filter for protection is where the environment
(windy sand areas or certain industrial situations) dictates it.

Lenses are more durable than most people think.

"tony cooper" <tony_cooper213.TakeThisOut@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:4blvn31o176ippnoo19aef2sbva0121lhf@4ax.com...
> I've just moved up to a Nikon D40. I'm wondering if I should add a
> skylight filter to protect the lens. I've heard that they slightly
> degrade the image, and I've also heard that they don't.
>
> I shoot half-and-half family pix and macro shots of watches, coins,
> etc. I can't see the filter affecting a shot of my grandchildren in
> the playground, but I wonder about the macro aspect.
>
> It's a small investment, but I'm just wondering what the thinking is
> on filters. Filters in general, for that matter.
>
>
> --
>
> Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

--
Joseph Meehan

Dia 's Muire duit
 >> Stay informed about: Filters