Which skylight filter?

gypsy3001 DeleteThis @yahoo.com wrote:
> When I first got into photography, I was also worried about protecting
> my lens with UV or skylight filters. Over time, I learned that the more
> element you have between your lens and your subject, the less image
> detail you would capture.

I'm with you, Gypsy. Granted, it is very hard to spot the difference
(maybe impossible with a really good filter *most* of the time), but I
can't see why you would put an extra layer of glass between reality and
your image, when the designers of the lens have gone to such pains to
get it right with as few bits of glass as possible...

A filter, even the very best, places a new set of refractions into the
light path, along with two new reflective surfaces which *may* increase
flare when shooting into the light. Like I said - I happily concede
that the degradation *may* be infinitesimal, and unseeable in most
circumstances. But I *have* been able to spot the difference on some
images.

So when there is mist/rain/sea spray around, I may throw on a uv (or
polariser if applicable), but otherwise.. And skylight filters have a
color cast and limited usefulness for digital. Whatever filters you
use, make sure they are a good brand (=optically flat and coated to
reduce reflections/flare).

In 30 odd years of photography including on boats, hiking, storms,
beach scenes, etc, etc, I have never damaged a lens. Had to clean
them? yes.. But nowadays with microfibre cloths, that is far easier
and safer than it ever was, too.
 >> Stay informed about: Which skylight filter? 

Wizzard wrote:
> I am fairly new to Digital SLR and have just got Canon 350D. I need a
> protection filter for the 58mm lens.

You really NEED one??

> I plan to get a circular
> polorizer later. Will a simple glass filter do for the lens
> protection? Are Hoya filters good enough?

Good enough for what? You want a really good filter that will cause the
least amount of image quality reduction go for the high end B&W filters.
generally simple glass filters are more expensive since they sell less of
them. Also even a simple glass filter usually comes coated to reduce image
loss.

In real life the image loss caused by even a cheap filter is too small
for most people to ever see, but it is there. Also the chance of real lens
damage is so small that very few people will ever experience it. In fact I
would be willing to put good money up that if the facts were known, far more
money has been spent on filters to "protect" lenses than would have been
spent to repair or replace any damaged lenses.

My experience as a professional photographer, many years ago, taught me
that cameras are tools, not works of art. Most scratches and chips on
lenses can be fixed with as black felt tip marking pen and the resulting
images are less diminished by that repair than by a cheap filter on the
lens.

My experience as a photo retail manager (also many years ago) taught me
that often more money was made selling bags and filters (to protect lenses)
than on the camera itself. You can bet any camera salesman on commission
(and most were) told lots of scary stores about lend damage. I never worked
anywhere that had commission sales. I never would have lasted in a place
that did.



--
Joseph Meehan

Dia duit
 >> Stay informed about: Which skylight filter? 

"Joseph Meehan" <sligojoe_Spamno RemoveThis @hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:s%PBg.56770$u11.34751@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com...
> Wizzard wrote:
>> I am fairly new to Digital SLR and have just got Canon 350D. I need a
>> protection filter for the 58mm lens.
>
> You really NEED one??
>
>> I plan to get a circular
>> polorizer later. Will a simple glass filter do for the lens
>> protection? Are Hoya filters good enough?
>
> Good enough for what? You want a really good filter that will cause
> the least amount of image quality reduction go for the high end B&W
> filters. generally simple glass filters are more expensive since they sell
> less of them. Also even a simple glass filter usually comes coated to
> reduce image loss.
>
> In real life the image loss caused by even a cheap filter is too small
> for most people to ever see, but it is there. Also the chance of real
> lens damage is so small that very few people will ever experience it. In
> fact I would be willing to put good money up that if the facts were known,
> far more money has been spent on filters to "protect" lenses than would
> have been spent to repair or replace any damaged lenses.
>
> My experience as a professional photographer, many years ago, taught me
> that cameras are tools, not works of art. Most scratches and chips on
> lenses can be fixed with as black felt tip marking pen and the resulting
> images are less diminished by that repair than by a cheap filter on the
> lens.
>
> My experience as a photo retail manager (also many years ago) taught me
> that often more money was made selling bags and filters (to protect
> lenses) than on the camera itself. You can bet any camera salesman on
> commission (and most were) told lots of scary stores about lend damage. I
> never worked anywhere that had commission sales. I never would have
> lasted in a place that did.
>
>
>
> --
> Joseph Meehan
>
> Dia duit
Hi.

Up until I changed to Digital, the lens I used most on my Film Camera was a
Tamron 80-210mm.

It took excellent shots and no-one ever mentioned any quality problems with
any of my 16 x 12 competition prints. That lens did not just have a
scratch, it actually had a quarter inch chip out of the front Element. I
bought it very cheaply, with that damage, just to see if I liked using a
Zoom. I liked it so much that I kept it for 10 years, and still have it as
part of my back-up system.

Do not worry too much about lens damage.

Roy G
 >> Stay informed about: Which skylight filter? 

This message is not archived
 >> Stay informed about: Which skylight filter? 

gypsy3001.TakeThisOut@yahoo.com wrote:

> Wizzard wrote:
>
>>I am fairly new to Digital SLR and have just got Canon 350D. I need a
>>protection filter for the 58mm lens. I plan to get a circular
>>polorizer later. Will a simple glass filter do for the lens
>>protection? Are Hoya filters good enough?
>
>
> When I first got into photography, I was also worried about protecting
> my lens with UV or skylight filters. Over time, I learned that the more
> element you have between your lens and your subject, the less image
> detail you would capture.
>
> Today, I don't protect any of my lens with filters. Not even my
> thousand dollars lenses. In effect, I feel the $100 to $200 lens that
> comes in camera kits are not worth protecting with filters at all.
>
> Having said that, I am not against lens protection. In fact, I
> encourage it However, I encourage lens protection through the use of
> lens hood rather than through filters.

I dunno. I get outdoors a lot.

I find it a lot easier and cheaper to clean dirt off a filter than to
clean it off of expensive glass lens elements.
 >> Stay informed about: Which skylight filter? 

no_name wrote:
> gypsy3001.DeleteThis@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>> Wizzard wrote:
>>
>>> I am fairly new to Digital SLR and have just got Canon 350D. I need a
>>> protection filter for the 58mm lens. I plan to get a circular
>>> polorizer later. Will a simple glass filter do for the lens
>>> protection? Are Hoya filters good enough?
>> Having said that, I am not against lens protection. In fact, I
>> encourage it However, I encourage lens protection through the use of
>> lens hood rather than through filters.
> I dunno. I get outdoors a lot.
> I find it a lot easier and cheaper to clean dirt off a filter than to
> clean it off of expensive glass lens elements.
So far I just took care not to touch the lens, but after a pretty
convincing shooting (glowing embers at a medieval festival) with an UV/IR
blocker I think I'll just leave that filter on until the missing detail
cathes my eye.

Lots of Greetings!
Volker
 >> Stay informed about: Which skylight filter?