 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Film Photography / 35 mm / December 2006UV/protection filter recommendations
If this is the wrong group, please direct me to the correct one. I recently bought a second-hand Tamron 200-400mm zoom for my Nikon. It didn't come with a UV or other filter to physically protect the outer element. So I need to buy one. However, at 77mm, the first-tier filters (B+W etc) are *really* expensive. So, I'd like to consider my options. Would anyone care to recommend for or against (and why): brand X Sunpak Adorama Kenko Hoya Tiffen B+W others? Also, would anyone care to discuss the relative (dis)advantages of using UV, Sky1A, Sky1B, etc for this purpose? ~ Scenic Man ~ > If this is the wrong group, please direct me to the correct one. > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > ~ Scenic Man ~ If you've really got your heart set on a filter, then this probably won't help. but what I usually do is to buy a metal, screw-on lens cap. This does an excellent job of protecting the lens when I'm not shooting, and when I am, I usually don't need any protection anyway. Now, there are exceptions, like when I am shooting in an unfriendly environment....During a sandstorm, or on a small boat, where there might be salt spray or the like. But the cap is a first, cheap, approximation of, "protection". > If this is the wrong group, please direct me to the correct one. > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > ~ Scenic Man ~ Go with the B+W if you 'want' a filter. My cheapo's are in the trash. Cheers > If this is the wrong group, please direct me to the correct one. > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > ~ Scenic Man ~ Tiffen makes a UV filter that is purported to outperform virtually all the others. I cannot recall the name they gave to that filter, but perhaps someone else can clarify this for us. Hoya has three grades of filters. The lowest grade is cheaply made and should be avoided. Their multicoated filters are good, but they are priced up there with the Heliopans and B+Ws. The Sunpaks, Kenkos, Adoramas and other filters are probably no-name filters badged with whatever brand name. They are probably not ground to be perfectly parallel and they will probably result in an unacceptable degree of image degradation. If you want the best quality at the lowest price, I'd suggest Heliopan. You may also find them on eBay. Be careful of Hoya on eBay because they are virtually all the cheapest grade of Hoya filters, and the sellers are exploiting people's lack of knowledge about Hoya. I am a Pentax man, and I use Pentax filters exclusively. I've gotten several on eBay and they arrived in excellent condition. I use filters to protect all of my lenses because it is extremely difficult to find replacement lenses in excellent condition. My SMC Takumars have been out of production for over 30 years, and it is not like I can just order up new ones if my existing ones become damaged. I have not had to clean the front elements of my lenses in years, because the filters take the brunt of any grunge from air pollution, or smudges from my fingers (I am always smudging filter surfaces). So, for me, filters make a lot of sense. Their major benefit for me is that they keep my lenses clean, not so much that they protect the front elements from physical damage. Erwin Puts, the Leica specialist, has estimated that a good filter might degrade your image by 2%, while a cheap filter might degrade it by as much as 10%. I have heard that Pentax filters are actually made by Olympus, but I have found no way to confirm that rumor. >The Sunpaks, Kenkos, Adoramas and other filters are probably no-name filters >badged with whatever brand name. They are probably not ground to be >perfectly parallel and they will probably result in an unacceptable degree >of image degradation. Sunpak has started selling a pretty reasonable multicoated clear filter, but I suspect they are still a step below the top brands: http://www.2filter.com/sunpak/sunpakuv.html Kenko filters are typically rebadged Hoya's.  SignatureMichael Benveniste -- mhb-offer@clearether.com Spam and UCE professionally evaluated for $419. Use this email address only to submit mail for evaluation. >>The Sunpaks, Kenkos, Adoramas and other filters are probably no-name >>filters badged with whatever brand name. They are probably not ground [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Kenko filters are typically rebadged Hoya's. Well, kinda. Actually, they're both products of THK Photo Products, Inc., which stands for Tokina-Hoya-Kenko. Which is also why Kenko teleconverters match with Tokina lenses so well. - Al. SignatureTo reply, insert dash in address to match domain below Online photo gallery at www.wading-in.net > Well, kinda. Actually, they're both products of THK Photo Products, > Inc., which stands for Tokina-Hoya-Kenko. > > Which is also why Kenko teleconverters match with Tokina lenses so > well. THK is a U.S. corporation, which lists Tokina Japan, Hoya, Kenko and others as parent companies: http://thkphoto.com/company/ci-02.html Tokina lists THK as a distributor, and Kenko and Tokina share a japanese website advertising Pro 1 Digital lenses: http://www.tokinalens.com/distributors.html http://www.kenko-tokina.co.jp/e/index.html Trying to unravel Keiretsu relationships too much further is beyond my skills, resources, and/or patience. Any other insights? SignatureMichael Benveniste -- mhb-offer@clearether.com Spam and UCE professionally evaluated for $419. Use this email address only to submit mail for evaluation. > Tiffen makes a UV filter that is purported to outperform virtually all the > others. I cannot recall the name they gave to that filter, but perhaps > someone else can clarify this for us. Most Tiffen filters use the same dyes as the Wratten gel filters. I believe that the dye layer in most Tiffen filters is in the adhesive between two pieces of glass. Filters with the dye in the glass are generally a better idea for optical reasons: a sandwich filter can suffer mechanical damage which is practically invisible to the naked eye, but which can cause serious optical problems. The advantage is that the range of dyes which can be used on adhesive or gelatin is much greater than the range of dyes that can be used in glass. The Tiffen "haze 1" is very effective against UV light without cutting out any visible light. The Tiffen "haze 2A" is even more effective but also cuts a little at the extreme violet end of the spectrum. If you really need to cut UV than either the Tiffen filters or the Wratten 1 or 2A gels will be very effective. If you really want "lens protection" then you are better off with a filter that uses a single layer of optical glass. I rarely use filters for "lens protection" unless I know I'm going to be in a hostile environment, but I did once drop my Praktica lens first on pavement. The orange filter I had on the lens had its filter ring dented quite badly, and the back of the camera popped off, but no other harm seems to have been done. Peter. Signaturepirwin@ktb.net >> Tiffen makes a UV filter that is purported to outperform virtually all >> the [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > the range of dyes which can be used on adhesive or gelatin > is much greater than the range of dyes that can be used in glass. These two statements don't "gel". (Pun intended) 1. Filters with the dye in the glass are generally a better idea for optical reasons. and: 2.The advantage is that the range of dyes which can be used on adhesive or gelatin is much greater than the range of dyes that can be used in glass. So which is better? - The filters with the dyes in the glass, or the filters with the dyes in the adhesive? > These two statements don't "gel". (Pun intended) > 1. Filters with the dye in the glass are generally a better idea for > optical reasons. Filters with the dye in the glass have the advantage of only requiring one piece of glass. With a sandwich construction you need two pieces of glass with a total of four surfaces and there is the added problem that if the middle layer of the sandwich is put under stress the filter can be ruined without any obvious change in appearance. This was a major problem with the old gel sandwich construction, I think it is less of a problem with the modern type. > 2.The advantage is that the range of dyes which can be used on adhesive or > gelatin is much greater than the range of dyes that can be used in glass. > > So which is better? - The filters with the dyes in the glass, or the filters > with the dyes in the adhesive? It depends on what your priorities are. High quality dyed glass filters such as B+W and Heliopan are the least likely to impair optical definition. In some cases a sandwich filter may be better at the actual job of filtering. Peter. Signaturepirwin@ktb.net >> These two statements don't "gel". (Pun intended) >> 1. Filters with the dye in the glass are generally a better idea for [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > Peter. In general, I would be afraid the sandwich type would deteriorate over time due to fungus attacks on the glue. Especially if kept in damp tropical climates like Florida......But, I guess filters are disposable, in a way....They are a lot cheaper than lenses......And even lenses are subject to fungus damage..... I made the mistake of keeping a camera in a small safe that was designed to protect papers in a fire....When it got too hot during the Summer, the material on the inside walls shed moisture, and the camera was ruined by the resulting fungus growth....It turned completely bright green.....:^) > In general, I would be afraid the sandwich type would deteriorate over time > due to fungus attacks on the glue. Especially if kept in damp tropical > climates like Florida......But, I guess filters are disposable, in a > way....They are a lot cheaper than lenses......And even lenses are subject > to fungus damage..... Well, I'm up here in New England, albeit in one of the damper parts (Massachusetts, about equidistant from Boston and Providence). I certainly don't want to *invite* fungus to attack my filter. OTOH, if I have to replace the soon-to-be-current filter in 2 to 5 years, that's a lot more acceptable than having to save up that long for the filter before I dare to use my lens. > I made the mistake of keeping a camera in a small safe that was designed > to protect papers in a fire....When it got too hot during the Summer, the > material on the inside walls shed moisture, and the camera was ruined by the > resulting fungus growth....It turned completely bright green.....:^) Ugh! How horrible! Not something I'd wish on anybody (and I'm *very* vindictive). > I certainly don't want to *invite* fungus to attack my filter. > OTOH, if I have to replace the soon-to-be-current filter in 2 to 5 years, > that's a lot more acceptable than having to save up that long for the > filter > before I dare to use my lens. Fungus is not a critical problem for a filter. You can clean a filter or you can discard it and get another one. On the other hand, fungus attacking lens elements can be fatal to a lens' viability. I view filters as disposable. I can always get a filter, but getting replacements for lenses are no longer in production is not always easy. It might take a long time to locate a used one in excellent condition. No, I'll sacrifice a filter any day, rather than risk damaging a lens. I realize that there is another side to this issue, and others may place a higher priority on getting the best possible image rather than protecting the front elements of their lenses. There is no correct answer. It depends upon how one prioritizes things. > I believe that the dye layer in most Tiffen filters is in the > adhesive between two pieces of glass. Filters with the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > the range of dyes which can be used on adhesive or gelatin > is much greater than the range of dyes that can be used in glass. I tend to agree with you that filter glass that is dyed in the mass is a better choice over sandwiched filters, but one source (Bob Monaghan?) said that testing showed no more image degradation with the Tiffen over other filters. If I were going to buy a Tiffen filter at all, it would be only that one that does such a great job of filtering out UV. And, since my lenses are all multicoated (which is reputed to absorb most or all UV light), I figure that my Pentax UV filters are good enough. For lenses that are not multi-coated, the Tiffen might make a difference, but I agree with you that I probably wouldn't use Tiffen filters ordinarily. > Erwin Puts, the Leica specialist, has estimated that a good filter might > degrade your image by 2%, while a cheap filter might degrade it by as much > as 10%. 2% or 10% of what quantity? >> Erwin Puts, the Leica specialist, has estimated that a good filter might >> degrade your image by 2%, while a cheap filter might degrade it by as >> much as 10%. > > 2% or 10% of what quantity? He was comparing excellent filters, like B+W against cheap "no-name" brands. He was also pointing out that a filter represented a relatively insignificant amount of image degradation, whatever type was used, relative to hand-holding, failure to use lens shades and inaccurate focusing of the lens. My personal take on this is that if I am going to use excellent lenses and proper technique (lens shade, tripod), I might as well use good filters so as not to make the filter the weakest link in the chain. BUT--buying excellent, expensive filters may be a waste of money if the other image quality factors are ignored. And that, I believe, was Puts' point. >> Erwin Puts, the Leica specialist, has estimated that a good filter might >> degrade your image by 2%, while a cheap filter might degrade it by as >> much as 10%. > > 2% or 10% of what quantity? Of, "grade".....(Whatever that is....:^) > If this is the wrong group, please direct me to the correct one. > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > ~ Scenic Man ~ This is the one I recommend, and the best deal I think. Tiffen Haze 2A, blocks 100% of UV light. I bought this one for my Tamron SP 70-210 3.5 @ 62mm, from Adorama: http://www.adorama.com/Search-Results.tpl?page=searchresults&searchinfo=Haze%202 A%2077mm Signature}<)))*> Giant_Alex cravdraa_at-yahoo_dot-com not my site: http://www.e-sword.net/ >Also, would anyone care to discuss the relative (dis)advantages >of using UV, Sky1A, Sky1B, etc for this purpose? A UV filter is a clear, colourless filter. Skylight 1A adds a subtle warm tint, either pink or yellow, depending on brand, and Skylight 1B adds a slightly stronger tint, although the effect is still subtle. If you want a filter mainly for protection of the front element of your lens, the UV is the one to go for, unless you actually want the warm tint of a Skylight 1A or 1B. Your choice! > It didn't come with a UV or other filter to physically protect the outer > element. > However, at 77mm, the first-tier filters (B+W etc) are *really* expensive. > So, I'd like to consider my options. In addition to filters, there are also plain, clear glass items that are designed strictly for protection of the front element. I was looking at Adorama's site recently, and they had them on sale, for under $4.00 in the 49mm size. I assume that larger sizes are also on sale. I do not know who makes them, and they are presumably mass-produced, not precision ground, so the issue of image degradation comes up. I don't mean to sound insulting, but your lens' image quality may be such that using a cheaper filter would not really matter all that much. Clearly, when using excellent prime lenses, a good filter makes sense, so as not to be the weak link in the image chain. I would recommend that you get "something" right away, to protect the surface of your front element from dust, dirt, air pollution, smudging, etc. You can do a few test shots, with the filter on and others with the filter off, to see if you can detect any image degradation when the filter is used. You could also remove the filter when actually shooting, but that seems a bit cumbersome to me. If you can afford them you won't go wrong with B+W or Heliopan filters. You might also want to check out filters from camera manufacturers, like Nikon, Pentax and Olympus. You might be able to get them at less cost while still getting precision ground glass. [SNIP] > If you can afford them you won't go wrong with B+W or Heliopan > filters. You might also want to check out filters from camera > manufacturers, like Nikon, Pentax and Olympus. You might be able to > get them at less cost while still getting precision ground glass. I've been very happy with all of these. Pentax has the best coating (get the SMC ones, or, if you want the ne plus ultra, the ghostless ones). To this list I'd add Minolta, Yashica, and Singh Ray. My personal choices are Pentax or B+W where possible, but I have filters from other manufacturers where these two don't make the size or type that I need - the Nikon A2, for example, isn't made by anyone else. Peter > The Nikon A2, for example, isn't made by anyone else. Do you find the A2 to give you significantly different results than, say, B+W's multicoated 81A? One other minor comments to the thread. First, the "UV blocking" part of a UV filter is largely obsolete. Most dSLR sensors and modern C41, E6, and K14 films are insenstive to UV. Traditional Black and White Film is sensitive to UV, but most modern multicoated lens elements absorb UV anyway. Ironically, the only camera lens I own which would pass UV is a 135mm f/4.7 Graphex Optar for which I don't have any filters at all. SignatureMichael Benveniste -- mhb-offer@clearether.com Spam and UCE professionally evaluated for $419. Use this email address only to submit mail for evaluation. "Michael Benveniste" <mhb-offer@clearether.com> wrote in message > One other minor comments to the thread. First, the "UV blocking" part > of a UV filter is largely obsolete. Most dSLR sensors and modern C41, > E6, and K14 films are insenstive to UV. That is the first time I've seen that. When did films become insensitive to UV? One would think that the manufacturers would have publicized that. > "Michael Benveniste" <mhb-offer@clearether.com> wrote in message >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > insensitive to UV? One would think that the manufacturers would have > publicized that. Take a look at the spectral sensitivity curves in the Tech Pubs at either the Fuji or Kodak sites. Kodachrome: http://www.kodak.com/global/en/consumer/products/pdf/e88.pdf Velvia 50: http://www.fujifilm.co.uk/technical/download/velvia_RVP_AF3-960E.pdf Kodak 160NC: http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/e4040/e4040US.pdf Tungsten balanced films do show a little more sensitivity: Fuji RTP: http://www.fujifilm.com/products/professional_films/pdf/T64.pdf Fuji Eterna: http://www.fujifilm.com/products/motion_picture/pdf/ETERNA500_curve.pdf (This is an ISO 500 speed tungsten-balanced color negative film and requires ECN-II processing. I've got about 120' left in my freezer...) As for why film manufacturers don't publicize it, multicoated lenses pretty much make the point moot. SignatureMichael Benveniste -- mhb-offer@clearether.com Spam and UCE professionally evaluated for $419. Use this email address only to submit mail for evaluation. > As for why film manufacturers don't publicize it, multicoated lenses > pretty much make the point moot. I've been unclear regarding how much UV is actually absorbed by multicoating--especially since there are different multicoating standards out there. May we presume that ANY multicoated lens will pass NO UV? Has anyone ever tested that? I've assumed that some or most UV was probably absorbed by multicoating, but I would still select a UV filter over a plain glass one. I don't see how extra UV protection could hurt. > I've been unclear regarding how much UV is actually absorbed by > multicoating--especially since there are different multicoating > standards out there. May we presume that ANY multicoated lens will pass > NO UV? Has anyone ever tested that? I wouldn't assume that even of most common UV filters. There are a few UV filters which do block 100% of UV, such as the Tiffen 2A, but they also cut into the blue and violet portions of the visible spectrum. But for practical purposes, the combination of multicoating and UV cured adhesives block sufficient UV to make it a non-problem. Testing isn't hard, but getting the test results is harder. The link below is for a large format lens, but it's one of the few I've found with a spectral response curve: http://www.schneiderkreuznach.com/foto_e/an_su_classic/pdf/AN_SU_68_90_R44907_1AE.pdf By 380nm, the lens has absorbed as much UV as Tiffen claims for its Haze 1, which is in turn more than they claim for their UV protector. > I've assumed that some or most UV was probably absorbed by multicoating, > but I would still select a UV filter over a plain glass one. I don't > see how extra UV protection could hurt. Unless it's too agressive, the only real "hurt" in using UV over a NC or "Digital clear" filter is if it's too agressive (like the Tiffen 2A) or you have to do critical color matching of shots with and without the filter. If you place your UV filters on a sheet of bright white paper, you'll see that the filter does impart a slight color cast. SignatureMichael Benveniste -- mhb-offer@clearether.com Spam and UCE professionally evaluated for $250. Use this email address only to submit mail for evaluation. > But for practical purposes, the combination of multicoating and UV > cured adhesives block sufficient UV to make it a non-problem. The El-Nikkor enlarging lenses are multicoated, but they not only pass near UV, but are also well corrected for UV. I'm not sure how multicoating would be related to UV filtering. It is true that the SMC Takumar lenses block UV while the old Super-Takumars pass near UV, but I'm not sure if this is actually related to multicoating or is an unrelated change made at the same time. Leica seems to have been the first to incorporate UV filtering in their lenses in 1965 and this does not seem to be related to multicoating. Near UV photography using a UV pass filter (I have a B+W 403) is very interesting. If you have a fair sized lens collection you are almost certain to find some lenses which are suitable. Most traditional B&W films record near UV just fine. Plus-X appears to be filtered, but AFAIK it is the only one. Aggressive UV blocking filters such as the 2A are used in UV fluorescence photography. A UV pass filter is placed over the light source, and since you do not want to record reflected UV, a strong UV blocking filter such as the 2A is placed over the camera lens. > Testing isn't hard, but getting the test results is harder. The link > below is for a large format lens, but it's one of the few I've found with > a spectral response curve: > > http://www.schneiderkreuznach.com/foto_e/an_su_classic/pdf/AN_SU_68_90_R44907_1AE.pdf You have to be careful with spectral response curves to be sure that the UV falloff is in the device under test and not in the measuring equipment. I'm not suggesting that this is the case here, but there is a good example of such a thing in the wedge spectrograms printed in the Ilford film data sheets which appear to show a UV falloff which does not actually exist in the films themselves. Peter. Signaturepirwin@ktb.net Here's a list of Tiffen filters I found at a sales site: UV filter ------------ Standard UV. Most popular protection filter. UV MC ------------- Multi coated for extra flare protection. UV Warm ---------- Combines UV with Tiffen's '812' warming filter. Haze 1 -------------- Absorbs 75% of UV light. Haze 2 -------------- Absorbs 100% of UV light. Haze 15 ------------ Absorbs 81% of UV light. Haze 16 ------------ Absorbs 86.5% of UV light Haze 17 ------------ Absorbs almost all UV light. Signature}<)))*> Giant_Alex cravdraa_at-yahoo_dot-com not my site: http://www.e-sword.net/ > Here's a list of Tiffen filters I found at a sales site: > > UV filter ------------ Standard UV. Most popular protection filter. > UV MC ------------- Multi coated for extra flare protection. > UV Warm ---------- Combines UV with Tiffen's '812' warming filter. > Haze 1 -------------- Absorbs 75% of UV light. I know this is meant to be helpful, but these figures are almost meaningless. The old Tiffen "filter facts" booklet listed the Haze 1 as transmitting 29% at 400nm which is just at the border between violet and ultarviolet. At shorter wavelengths it blocks practically all UV light. I wish I had a graph of the old Wratten 1 filter I could link to, but there is a pretty steep slope to the left of 400nm. Peter. Signaturepirwin@ktb.net > > The Nikon A2, for example, isn't made by anyone else. > > Do you find the A2 to give you significantly different results > than, say, B+W's multicoated 81A? I feel it is different, yes, though not vastly so. The A2 seems subjectively 'warmer' in tone, even though its effect on the image is only to move it as far as an 81A - that is, it's not an 81A but more so, that would be an 81B, but rather that it is a more amber, redder shade of the 81A. It's not a big difference, but it is visible, and I like the A2, especially with Velvia where the yellowish tint of the 81A is sometimes a bit too pronounced. Another alternative is B+W's KR series: these are pinker than the 81 series. The Nikon A2 is also a very thin piece of glass, which in theory at least should be a good thing, especially with wider lenses, and it comes ina nicely made mount. Peter > In addition to filters, there are also plain, clear glass items that are > designed strictly for protection of the front element. I was looking at [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > I do not know who makes them, and they are presumably mass-produced, not > precision ground, so the issue of image degradation comes up. Yes. I saw those, too, and I kind-of wondered how much degradation they would cause. > I don't mean to sound insulting, Well, then, don't *be* insulting. ;-) Seriously, though, while I would love to have the Nikon equivalent of my lens, or better yet an array of Nikon prime lenses covering this zoom range, the fact is that I couldn't afford it. So I got the Tamron. If it turns out that it just doesn't make the grade, I'll sell it off, and just forget that particular area of photography. > but your lens' image quality may be such that using a > cheaper filter would not really matter all that much. Clearly, when using > excellent prime lenses, a good filter makes sense, so as not to be the weak > link in the image chain. OTOH, it may be that my lens is on the hairy edge of having usable image quality, and introducing a loser UV filter would tip it over the edge. > I would recommend that you get "something" right away, to protect the > surface of your front element from dust, dirt, air pollution, smudging, etc. Heh. Well, I took it out for a test run, and made do by stretching a piece of <horrors> plastic wrap drum-tight over the end of the lens *hood* and held it in place with two rubber bands. Of course, the resulting pictures did have some blur. Equally of course, I can't tell whether that's a problem with the lens (which you implied above may be the case) or introduced by the jury-rigged lens protector. Anyway, that's not an acceptable solution, obviously. But I didn't want to just run out and plunk my money down on the first filter I found and either get junk (not much better than the plastic wrap) on the hand or be unable to buy any other equipment for the next 12 months on the other. > You can do a few test shots, with the filter on and others with the filter > off, to see if you can detect any image degradation when the filter is used. That's certainly what I'd *like* to do, but I can't really do that until I've already spent the money. > You could also remove the filter when actually shooting, but that seems a > bit cumbersome to me. Not acceptable to me either. Not only cumbersome but leaves the lens exposed to potential destruction, even if only temporarily. > If you can afford them you won't go wrong with B+W or Heliopan filters. Well, initially it didn't look like I could. But now I'm seeing "USED" ones on the Adorama site for $29, which still leaves room in the budget for club dues and the like. >> In addition to filters, there are also plain, clear glass items that are >> designed strictly for protection of the front element. I was looking at [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Yes. I saw those, too, and I kind-of wondered how much degradation they > would cause. If they are not coated, they would probably lesson the contrast of your lens, and perhaps introduce unwanted reflections or flaring.....I try not to use filters at all, but if I do, I go for the best quality I can get. After all, you pay a lot for a good lens, so why would you lesson its quality with a poor filter element? In general, you should buy filters to fit the largest lens you have, and then get step-up rings so they will fit your smaller lenses. This way, you will save money over buying filters to fit all your lenses. And, (as I said above somewhere) I use aluminum screw on lens caps to protect my lenses when I am not taking pictures with them..... > If they are not coated, they would probably lesson the contrast of your > lens, and perhaps introduce unwanted reflections or flaring.....I try not [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > on lens caps to protect my lenses when I am not taking pictures with > them..... I have learned remove the filter whenever there is a light source in the frame including when using flash with rain drops. Coated or uncoated, the ghosts still appear for me if there is a filter on the lens. Good advice about step-up rings. They are quite inexpensive compared to filters. > In general, you should buy filters to fit the largest > lens you have, and then get step-up rings so they will fit your smaller > lenses. This way, you will save money over buying filters to fit all your > lenses. :-) Fortunately, I clued in on this relatively early in the game. I had a couple 50mm lenses, one w/ 50mm thread, one w/ 55mm thread, and a wide-angle lens w/ something like 48mm thread. And I had a zoom with a 67mm thread. Enter step-up rings. The only filters I use beyond the "protection" filter are: (a) a polarizing filter (b) a graduated ND filter I don't do B&W, so I haven't felt the need for filters of various colors, and I'm not really into special effects much, except I might like a starburst. Probably 99% of all my pictures are of things just they way they are (or were). On rare occasions, I feel the need to stitch 2 or more images together, or do dodge'n'burn type things, etc, all of which I do on the computer. I do keep the lens cap on at all times except when actually taking the shot, but it's just the pinch/lever kind that works *inside* the lens hood, because I generally leave *that* on all the time, as well. Belt *and* suspenders, that's me. > If this is the wrong group, please direct me to the correct one. > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > ~ Scenic Man ~ WELL! You've all been very helpful! Thank you very much. Nobody even got snide about my temporary solution using plastic wrap! :-) So, now I am much better informed about (1) the differences between: a. clear b. UV c. Sky-1A d. Sky-1B e. one other that I forget at the moment (2) the differences between: a. filters w/ dyes in material sandwiched between glass b. filters w/ dyes in the glass itself (3) optical differences between different brands of filter (4) physical differences between different brands of filter (5) different approaches to lens protection, including: a. permanent protective filter b. protective filter removed when taking photographs c. various kinds of lens caps (6) a couple of other issues that I forget at the moment. Based on this and on my own priorities, I can make an informed decision of my own. When I get a chance, I will condense or "digest" this all into a summary, and either post it here or put it out on the web and post a link to it here. This is a *PERFECT* example of how Usenet newsgroups can work, should work, and have worked since I first encountered them in the early 1980's (by which time they were already old hat for a lot of people). Thank you all again. ~ Scenic Man ~ > If this is the wrong group, please direct me to the correct one. > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > ~ Scenic Man ~ Sky filters warm the image just slightly. Usually it is not annoying and the auto white balance compensates much of it away on digital. UV filters are pretty much clear. I have filters from Canon, Hoya, Tiffen, Tamron, Blacks, "General brand", Kitstar, and Optex and various types within the same brand. I have found that in the same situation, they all produce the same ghostings. The only difference seems to be the colour of the ghost image depending on the type of coating it has. I still have to remove the filter if there are light sources within the frame to avoid the ghost image as the coatings don't seem to eliminate the reflections enough. The ghost image disappears with the removal of the filter every time. I would say go ahead and get a cheap UV filter since you are going to have to remove it when it causes problems anyway. In the cases where it doesn't cause ghosting and flare, you probably won't notice the difference between brands, and in the cases where it does cause problems, it seems that they will all do it so you have to remove the filter anyway when you see the ghost image appearing and it doesn't matter what type of filter it was if it isn't installed. The more important difference is in the quality of the threads, the ring thickness and the build quality. The Canon branded filters, for example, have nice thin profiles, but the threads tend to get stuck and don't turn so nice and smooth like the Tiffen and Tamron filters. The Canon filters are quite clean when new, but I always had to clean the Tiffen filters before use the first time. > Sky filters warm the image just slightly. Usually it is not annoying and > the auto white balance compensates much of it away on digital. UV filters > are pretty much clear. [snip] Sky filters do not "warm" images... warming filters such as 81A do that. Sky filters counter act atmospheric blue hues my friend... the coloration is inverted, or opposite from "blues". The colors used are in the pinks and browns. Here is a set you can use in your photo filters color palette in Photoshop: Sky filters, anti-blue hue for daylight shots. Menu: Image/Adjustments/Photo Filter HTML (easiest to paste) / RGB red-brown*: FFC1A2 / r255 g193 b162 (20-30%) red-magenta*: FFA2CE / r255 g162 b206 (15%) red-orange*: FFB6A2 / r255 g182 b162 (30%) tan, strong: B87E39 / r184 g126 b57 (20%) which is close to the sepia standard filter in PS CS: AC7A33 / r172 g122 b51 (20%) Signature}<)))*> Giant_Alex cravdraa_at-yahoo_dot-com not my site: http://www.e-sword.net/ > Sky filters do not "warm" images... warming filters such as 81A do that. > Sky filters counter act atmospheric blue hues my friend... the coloration > is inverted, or opposite from "blues". The colors used are in the pinks > and > browns. Thank you for pointing that out. When I have looked close enough to see the result of the sky filter, the reduction in blue seemed to cause a slight warming, but really it is not the same. The effect of a sky-1a is very small in any case. It really is slight tint change, not so much colour temperature. > Thank you for pointing that out. When I have looked close enough to see the > result of the sky filter, the reduction in blue seemed to cause a slight > warming, but really it is not the same. The effect of a sky-1a is very > small in any case. It really is slight tint change, not so much colour > temperature. Actually I think it is more than slight especially at great distances, "the_more_the_bluer", but a sky1b will save you a lot of color work in PS. All that blue can wreck it because of only shades of blue. But you can get into greater detail in "bloo-countering" using lasso selecting in PS as well. Real fun stuff, so a Wacom tablet can be a great help. I have seen images of distant mountains in cheap printed advertising that were so blue it was rediculous, no filter was used. Signature}<)))*> Giant_Alex cravdraa_at-yahoo_dot-com not my site: http://www.e-sword.net/ > (. . .) > I have filters from Canon, Hoya, Tiffen, Tamron, Blacks, "General brand", [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > ghost image appearing and it doesn't matter what type of filter it was if it > isn't installed. Interesting alternate view. > The more important difference is in the quality of the threads, the ring > thickness and the build quality. The Canon branded filters, for example, > have nice thin profiles, but the threads tend to get stuck and don't turn so > nice and smooth like the Tiffen and Tamron filters. The Canon filters are > quite clean when new, but I always had to clean the Tiffen filters before > use the first time. Interesting additional observations, not covered elsewhere. > If this is the wrong group, please direct me to the correct one. > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > B+W > others? Tiffen is built like crap and I'll never buy another (I've had more than one Tiffen glass fall out due to poor mounting) B+W is fantastic (my personal favorite, along with Heliopan), with brass hardware (which is amazing in preventing seizing compared with aluminum) Hoya is very very good...especially their top-teir line, though they still use aluminum. -Also expensive. If you don't like the huge price of B+W, then I'd recommend Hoya. -Mark² SignatureImages (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at: www.pbase.com/markuson > If this is the wrong group, please direct me to the correct one. > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > B+W > others? A 200-400mm isn't a cheap piece of glass. Fork over a few $'s for a good quality filter. You'll be happy you did. Don Mapplethorpe, Ansel Adams, Photoshop manuals: http://www.1world-design.com/book/ > Also, would anyone care to discuss the relative (dis)advantages > of using UV, Sky1A, Sky1B, etc for this purpose? > > ~ Scenic Man ~ > If this is the wrong group, please direct me to the correct one. > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > Also, would anyone care to discuss the relative (dis)advantages > of using UV, Sky1A, Sky1B, etc for this purpose? I use B+W. I used to use those brand X filters, because that is what my local dealer sells. Noticed a real difference when I went to the B+W. Regardless of brand, get multicoated filters. Sky filters will have a slight warming effect. SEE -- http://www.schneideroptics.com/info/handbook/pdf/B+WHandbook8_9.pdf - -OR- http://www.schneideroptics.com/info/handbook/pdf/B+WHandbook_Full.pdf |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.