 |
 | 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 / Digital Photography / DSLR Cameras / June 2006Do I need to use lens hood for indoor theater shots?
I have a Canon 20D with an EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM lens and was asked to shoot some actors during a theatrical show. This will be my first time shooting in this kind of situation. I understand the challenges with indoor stage lighting but I don't know how much glare to expect. I was wondering if I need to use my lens hood? I have seen photographers at concerts with and without lens hoods on their telephoto lenses. Thank you for any and all help on this, Dave Why would you even consider shooting without it? >I have a Canon 20D with an EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM lens and was asked to >shoot some actors during a theatrical show. This will be my first time [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Dave >I have a Canon 20D with an EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM lens and was asked to >shoot some actors during a theatrical show. This will be my first time [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >Dave It all depends on spectral light sources, that might reach your lens. If ALL of the lighting instruments are shielded from your lens, then you'll probably be OK. If even one points toward your lens, then the shade will help, and possibly save the shot. Can you check out the lighting array before hand? Also, why NOT use a lens shade? Hunt > I have a Canon 20D with an EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM lens and was asked to > shoot some actors during a theatrical show. This will be my first time [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Dave Hi Dave. I almost always have a hood on my lenses - even when glare is not a problem the hood will protect the lens if I get too close to a wall, support pillar, chair, shelf or suchlike. Hoods also make (a sort of) bumper if the lens gets dropped! Happened once with a 24mm FD lens. Lens survived. Regards, Ian. > I need to use my lens hood? Under what situation would you not want to use one?  SignatureStacey According to Stacey <fotocord@yahoo.com>: > > I need to use my lens hood? > > Under what situation would you not want to use one? I don't know about the original poster, but I would not want to use one for close focus with the Nikon's 18-70mm "kit" lens for the D70 when used with the built-in flash. The same applies to the 28-105mm and the 35-135mm in Macro mode. The reason is that the hood casts a noticeable shadow on the subject. (Of course, there are other reasons to use something other than the built-in flash when shooting that close anyway. But -- sometimes, you don't have any other light source available. Also -- the hood for the 28-105mm can sometimes block the autofocus assist light as well. The others don't seem to be wide enough to risk that. But at all other times, I keep the hood mounted -- though I may reverse it when the camera goes into the bag, just to minimize the amount of space taken up And the hood, reversed, on the 28-105mm makes it look like a strange new style of lens. :-) Enjoy, DoN. SignatureEmail: <dnichols@d-and-d.com> | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564 (too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html --- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero --- >I don't know about the original poster, but I would not want to >use one for close focus with the Nikon's 18-70mm "kit" lens for the D70 >when used with the built-in flash. You don't know about the original poster? Then why not read his posting? It would have prevented you from wasting your time posting an unhelpful and irrelevant reply. > According to Stacey <fotocord@yahoo.com>: >> [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > Enjoy, > DoN. I cannot for the life of me think of any reason that he would want use the built in flash. >> I need to use my lens hood? > > Under what situation would you not want to use one? I witnessed a DSLR dumped on its 'nose' after the owner (not me) snagged the tripod with his foot, The hood, not the lens, took the impact and that $50 hood saved (at the least) a $300 lens. Having said that - the only time a hood may be in the way is an extreme closeup (single digit inches). Ken. SignatureVolunteer your idle computer time for cancer research http//www.grid.org/download/gold/download.htm Return address courtesy of Spammotel http://www.spammotel.com/ >>I need to use my lens hood? > > Under what situation would you not want to use one? When the light is mainly behind you there is little use for one. The whole "it helps protect the lens" thing is overblown, IMO. In the studio I prefer gobos to control stray light and often shoot without a hood. For my mid zoom (28-70) the lens hood is hardly very useful in any case... must manage the light at the source. But in a theatre there are often bits of backlighting that spill out, so a good idea to use one to help manage that in any case. Always nice to have a pillar or other large object as a blind and shoot from the edges of that. (eg: like shooting into the sun in the woods ... use a tree as a gobo to keep the light off of the lens). Cheers, Alan Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. >I have a Canon 20D with an EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM lens and was asked to >shoot some actors during a theatrical show. This will be my first time >shooting in this kind of situation. I understand the challenges with indoor >stage lighting but I don't know how much glare to expect. I was wondering if >I need to use my lens hood? You should always use a dedicated lens hood unless there is a very strong reason not to. It will help to reduce or eliminate flare and it also helps protect the lens from damage. >I have seen photographers at concerts with and >without lens hoods on their telephoto lenses. There are good drivers and bad drivers. What others appear to do, or not, is not necessarily a good guide to best practice. >>I have a Canon 20D with an EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM lens and was asked to >>shoot some actors during a theatrical show. This will be my first time [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > strong reason not to. It will help to reduce or eliminate flare and > it also helps protect the lens from damage. Exactly. I feel the same way about filters, DON'T use one unless there is a strong reason to. SignatureStacey >>>I have a Canon 20D with an EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM lens and was asked to >>>shoot some actors during a theatrical show. This will be my first time [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >Exactly. I feel the same way about filters, DON'T use one unless there is a >strong reason to. There is a strong reason, and that is the need to preserve the condition of the front element of your lenses by avoiding the need to clean it. But it is your funeral, so what do I care what you do to your lenses? >>>> I have a Canon 20D with an EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM lens and was asked to >>>> shoot some actors during a theatrical show. This will be my first time [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > condition of the front element of your lenses by avoiding the need to > clean it. I wouldn't consider that to be a strong reason and perhaps, neither does lens designers-manufactures otherwise there would be a sheet of glass built into the lens to protect the front lens element. Just my opinion on the matter. > But it is your funeral, so what do I care what you do to your lenses? <Grinning> Of course you care otherwise you wouldn't have posted your opinion. > >>>> I have a Canon 20D with an EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM lens and was asked > >>>> to [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > <Grinning> Of course you care otherwise you wouldn't have posted your > opinion. There are two points of view on this eternal topic. a) Why would I put a $20 piece of glass in front of my expensive lens to degrade the image? a) Why wouldn't I put a $20 piece of glass in front of my expensive lens to protect it? >>>>>> I have a Canon 20D with an EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM lens and was asked >>>>>> to [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > a) Why would I put a $20 piece of glass in front of my expensive lens to > degrade the image? Although I don't buy $20 glass, I still don't use filters for front end lens protection, unless I'm shooting in inclement weather conditions that may effect lens performance or endanger the lens. > a) Why wouldn't I put a $20 piece of glass in front of my expensive lens > to protect it? IMO, in normal operating conditions, a much better way to protect the front end lens element is to use a lens hood. If your really concerned, buy a cheap lens, preferably used, and be spared the trauma of trying to decide what type/brand UV or Haze filters to buy to protect the front end element. BTW, Who makes a plain glass filter that is called "Lens Protector?" However, if one thinks a $20 piece of glass will provide some sort of lens protection insurance, then use it. Of course one might consider if one piece of glass provides lens protection then just think how much more protection one can have if two or more such filters are used for lens protection. <g> > BTW, Who makes a plain glass filter that is called "Lens > Protector?" a lot of companies do, including hoya, tiffen and nikon. >> BTW, Who makes a plain glass filter that is called "Lens >> Protector?" > > a lot of companies do, including hoya, tiffen and nikon. Actually there is nice article on Luminous Landscape about filters, a filter may degrade your shot by 10% but not using MLU or a tripod may degrade your shot by as much as 40%. > Actually there is nice article on Luminous Landscape about filters, a filter > may degrade your shot by 10% but not using MLU or a tripod may degrade your > shot by as much as 40%. 10% of what? 40% of what? What is being quantified, and how? >> Actually there is nice article on Luminous Landscape about filters, a filter >> may degrade your shot by 10% but not using MLU or a tripod may degrade your >> shot by as much as 40%. > >10% of what? 40% of what? What is being quantified, and how? Ludicrous Landscape is 100% full of meaningless crap like that. ;-) >>> Actually there is nice article on Luminous Landscape about filters, a >>> filter [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > ;-) LOL. Mainly means, don't get too anal about stuff like that. >>>>Actually there is nice article on Luminous Landscape about filters, a >>>>filter [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > LOL. Mainly means, don't get too anal about stuff like that. Sure, that was my point too, but I really get irritated when people use numbers as if they have some context-independent meaning of their own (now who's a geek?). Although there are some nice articles and photographs in LL, I must admit. > Ludicrous Landscape is 100% full of meaningless crap like that. But 100% better than any photograph you have ever shown. Where's that Paris Match cover Tony? >> Ludicrous Landscape is 100% full of meaningless crap like that. > > But 100% better than any photograph you have ever shown. > > Where's that Paris Match cover Tony? Alan, Alan. Can you never give it up?? I do hope your jaunt in the great SW of the US of A will be great and that you'll come back refreshed and renewed in vigor and resolve to not bait, nor respond to baiting from just a handful of guys. Remember not to ask, "how many km to .....' Bon voyage, john > Can you never give it up? When Tony begins replying to posts in a polite and construtive manner for all of his posts and/or when he "puts up" any proof of any capability. Cheers, Alan. Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. >> >>>> I have a Canon 20D with an EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM lens and was >> >>>> asked to [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > a) Why wouldn't I put a $20 piece of glass in front of my expensive lens > to protect it? Really depends on what you do. If you're recording a building renovation for whatever purpose, for example, it's a good idea--tearing out plaster makes an incredible amount of very fine abrasive dust (that may take hours to settle) that I for one would _much_ rather clean off of a cheap filter than off of an expensive lens. Shooting machine tools in operation the same way--I'd rather clean cutting oil and metal chips off of a throwaway filter than off of the front element of a good lens. While "smoke filled rooms" are less common than they once were, that's another situation where a filter can be goodness--it's surprising how fast that initially clear filter can turn brown under those circumstances. The filter isn't usually much good for drop protection though, at least not on a DSLR, on some point and shoots the mount design is such that it can transfer the shock directly into the camera frame instead of into the more fragile lens mechanism. Signature--John to email, dial "usenet" and validate (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net) >There are two points of view on this eternal topic. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >a) Why wouldn't I put a $20 piece of glass in front of my expensive lens >to protect it? Despite all the years this "eternal topic" has been discussed, no-one has ever managed to demonstrate that using a good quality UV filter in any way degrades the resulting image. On the other hand, the large number of used lenses advertised/sold on eBay with coating marks on the front element (whether declared by the vendor or not) is indicative of the physical damage that can be caused to a lens when a filter is not used. >> There are two points of view on this eternal topic. >> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > vendor or not) is indicative of the physical damage that can be caused > to a lens when a filter is not used. Read: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/columns/sm-feb-05.shtml >Read: >http://www.luminous-landscape.com/columns/sm-feb-05.shtml This reminds me why I rejoiced when I heard that the "Sunday Morning Photographer" column on that awful website had been killed off. ;-) >> Read: >> http://www.luminous-landscape.com/columns/sm-feb-05.shtml [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > ;-) It was Killed off? That, I didn't know. Thanks. <Grinning> But I still won't use a filter just for lens protection when there is no need for such a device. I still think if it were a damage control asset it would be part of the lens and not an accessory. However, I have the habit of always using an appropriate lens hood which has saved me from more (clumsy) lens damages than just using a filter ever did. But I guess with me, at times it's a belt & suspenders type thing. I do use neutral density and polarized filters a great deal when shooting daylight outdoors; in addition to several types of other filters but always shaded by a lens hood. Indoors or outdoor night scenes, nope don't use them for lens protection. For that type duty, all I use is the appropriate lens hood. [Shrug ... ;)] that's my opinion as it pertains to my shooting habits. Again, Tony, thanks for the info. ><Grinning> But I still won't use a filter just for lens protection when >there is no need for such a device. I still think if it were a damage >control asset it would be part of the lens and not an accessory. It is on some lenses. Some of the Canon big teles, for example, have a plain glass front element, often to protect a soft fluorite element, the first "real" one. > However, I have the habit of always using an appropriate lens hood >which has saved me from more (clumsy) lens damages than just using a [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >scenes, nope don't use them for lens protection. For that type duty, >all I use is the appropriate lens hood. I'm mostly with you on this one; I'm careful with my lenses, always use a hood, only use a filter when its required or condition are dirty, never damaged a front element (yet!). David SignatureDavid Littlewood According to David Littlewood <david@nospam.demon.co.uk>: > ><Grinning> But I still won't use a filter just for lens protection when > >there is no need for such a device. I still think if it were a damage [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > plain glass front element, often to protect a soft fluorite element, the > first "real" one. Yes -- but bear in mind that the fluorite elements are vulnerable to degradation with exposure to humidity, so I think *that* is the reason for the plain glass element, rather than just preventing contact with fingers and lens cleaning tissues and such. > > However, I have the habit of always using an appropriate lens hood > >which has saved me from more (clumsy) lens damages than just using a [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > a hood, only use a filter when its required or condition are dirty, > never damaged a front element (yet!). Well ... I got in the habit of keeping "Hot Mirror" filters on my lenses when using the Kodak NC2000e/c (Digitally converted Nikon film N90s), simply because when that was made, they had not gotten in the habit of putting an IR block over the sensors, and hot things could come up with interesting color renditions. :-) Since the lenses may get switched to that camera under certain conditions, I keep the filters mounted, and just try to keep them clean. Under certain circumstances, yes, I will remove the filters, but normally they stay mounted. The camera stays with me wherever I go. If I were shooting mostly in a studio, I would probably behave differently. Enjoy, DoN. SignatureEmail: <dnichols@d-and-d.com> | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564 (too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html --- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero --- >>Read: >>http://www.luminous-landscape.com/columns/sm-feb-05.shtml > > This reminds me why I rejoiced when I heard that the "Sunday Morning > Photographer" column on that awful website had been killed off. Why don't you respond to the narrative at the link? Oh, yeah, it's contrary to your dearly held views which are balderdash. Show us some photography of your own Polson. Walk the walk. Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. > Despite all the years this "eternal topic" has been discussed, no-one > has ever managed to demonstrate that using a good quality UV filter in > any way degrades the resulting image. Sure they have. There have been pictures posted right here where people were asking "what happened?" and the answer was "you had a filter on the lens causing those reflections". SignatureJeremy | jeremy@exit109.com >>Despite all the years this "eternal topic" has been discussed, no-one >>has ever managed to demonstrate that using a good quality UV filter in [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > were asking "what happened?" and the answer was "you had a filter on the > lens causing those reflections". Any lens will produce flare whether it has a filter added or not so such diagnostics are wrongly attributed. The right answer is "You let direct light fall on your lens... find a way to block it next time." I use my grey card as a blocker though an umbrella, hat, companion or an awkwardly placed hand does just as well. A filter will simply add flare "elements" and further decrease contrast. A very good quality filter less so. Polarizers are even worse as they have 4 surfaces for the light to react with... Cheers, Alan Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. > Any lens will produce flare whether it has a filter added or not so such > diagnostics are wrongly attributed. The right answer is "You let direct > light fall on your lens... find a way to block it next time." The reflections caused by the filter are of a different character than the ones from the lens itself -- less diffuse, owing to the flat surface -- and are often of a different color. They're more distinct and annoying, but typically only manifest when shooting a dark scene with point light sources, or similar. The usual reflections people ask about are not flare from non-image-forming light falling on the lens, they are reflections of lights that are present in the image itself. In a "normal" day scene it will be reduced to just adding to the veiling flare, and will hardly be noticeable. In those circumstances I take no position on the "filter or not" debate; do what you prefer. I don't use them. If you're shooting night scenes, though, you really need to remove the filter. SignatureJeremy | jeremy@exit109.com >>There are two points of view on this eternal topic. >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > has ever managed to demonstrate that using a good quality UV filter in > any way degrades the resulting image. Flare. > On the other hand, the large number of used lenses advertised/sold on > eBay with coating marks on the front element (whether declared by the > vendor or not) is indicative of the physical damage that can be caused > to a lens when a filter is not used. That's from morons who wipe the lens on their shirt.. SignatureStacey >>>There are two points of view on this eternal topic. >>> [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > That's from morons who wipe the lens on their shirt.. I witnessed one of those doing that at a balloon fest. I mentioned that the shirt would damage the lens surface unless spit was liberally applied beforehand. Go ahead, guess what happened next... Signaturejer email reply - I am not a 'ten' >I witnessed one of those doing that at a balloon fest. I mentioned that >the shirt would damage the lens surface unless spit was liberally >applied beforehand. Go ahead, guess what happened next... If the shirt has grit particles on it, no amount of spit will save the lens surface. It just makes it easier to scratch it. I very rarely need to clean my lenses. I clean my filters by rinsing off any grit then washing in running water with a drop of detergent. >> I witnessed one of those doing that at a balloon fest. I mentioned that >> the shirt would damage the lens surface unless spit was liberally [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > I very rarely need to clean my lenses. I clean my filters by rinsing > off any grit then washing in running water with a drop of detergent. What do you use to dry your filters? >>> I witnessed one of those doing that at a balloon fest. I mentioned that >>> the shirt would damage the lens surface unless spit was liberally [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >What do you use to dry your filters? Lens tissue. >>>> I witnessed one of those doing that at a balloon fest. I mentioned that >>>> the shirt would damage the lens surface unless spit was liberally [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Lens tissue. After you use lens tissue, use a can of pressurized air and you might find much moisture was still between the glass and the ring. I stopped using that method a long time ago. But, as you have said, it is a personal choice. >>I witnessed one of those doing that at a balloon fest. I mentioned that >>the shirt would damage the lens surface unless spit was liberally [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > I very rarely need to clean my lenses. I clean my filters by rinsing > off any grit then washing in running water with a drop of detergent. Which lenses are they Tony? The ones you take those Paris Match cover shots with or the ones you take all those photos with that you are too ashamed to show us? Did you wash the filter on the lens you used to take that that horror shot of the train with? That still won't answer why it was so bad, does it? >> On the other hand, the large number of used lenses advertised/sold on >> eBay with coating marks on the front element (whether declared by the >> vendor or not) is indicative of the physical damage that can be caused >> to a lens when a filter is not used. > >That's from morons who wipe the lens on their shirt.. On the contrary, it is extremely easy to scratch the front element of a lens even when using great care. All it takes is one piece of unseen grit or a tiny quantity of an abrasive substance. I do a lot of construction progress and publicity photography, and the opportunities for scratching front elements of lenses are ever present. Cement dust and sharp sand are both very common on construction sites, as is residue from abrasive wheels. I try to avoid cleaning my filters on site unless absolutely necessary, knowing that any rubbing action is likely to abrade the filter coating. And it does; this is evidenced by the scratches on my filters. Given that the coating on some of my filters is identical to that used on lens elements, it is easy to see how lenses get damaged through careful cleaning in a dirty environment, let alone careless cleaning. You can continue to disbelieve this if you wish, Stacey. The condition of your lenses is not my problem. But others with a more open mind may wish to take note. >>> On the other hand, the large number of used lenses advertised/sold on >>> eBay with coating marks on the front element (whether declared by the [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > present. Cement dust and sharp sand are both very common on > construction sites, as is residue from abrasive wheels. Of course, Tony, under such adverse environmental conditions it would be appropriate to protect the front element of your lens. That would be an exception, not the rule. You have been posting as though using a filter for lens protection should be the rule. I would definitely disagree with that. > I try to avoid cleaning my filters on site unless absolutely > necessary, knowing that any rubbing action is likely to abrade the [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > >Of course, Tony, under such adverse environmental conditions it would be >appropriate to protect the front element of your lens. That would be an >exception, not the rule. You have been posting as though using a filter >for lens protection should be the rule. I would definitely disagree with >that. You are free to agree or disagree with whatever you want. It is a personal choice. >> Of course, Tony, under such adverse environmental conditions it would be >> appropriate to protect the front element of your lens. That would be an [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > You are free to agree or disagree with whatever you want. It is a > personal choice. Thank you. <g> > On the contrary, it is extremely easy to scratch the front element of > a lens even when using great care. All it takes is one piece of [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > on lens elements, it is easy to see how lenses get damaged through > careful cleaning in a dirty environment, let alone careless cleaning. Others with real experience know that you're full of sh*t. I clean lenses on site with a microfibre cloth and I've never scratched a lens or filter. I also keep a small bottle of kodak lens cleaner and tissues on the off chance of something sticking to the lens but that's never happened whether at clubs, parties, in the woods or on the hills or other places where the environment threatens the glass. In real life, real photographers make sure they can shoot in all conditions. No special care for lenses or cameras, but no abuse either. My oldest lenses are optically clean and scratch free. Some have barrel rash, scratches and nicks, but that has no effect on the image. Really Polson, how could anyone have a "50 rolls per average *week*" shooting pace and not take care of lenses while on assignment. You're just spouting and have never shown anything to mark your implied prowess. Paris Match Cover? 50 rolls per average *week*? Weddings? Commercial property shoots? Portraits? etc. etc. etc. claimed by Polson but nary a bit of proof other than what you can see here: http://abpr.railfan.net/abpr.cgi?/september98/09-24-98 just scroll down to the Polson shots and after you recover from your shock, take stock of all the abuse Polson has heaped on people over the years. Cheers, Alan Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. >>>>I have a Canon 20D with an EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM lens and was asked to >>>>shoot some actors during a theatrical show. This will be my first time [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > But it is your funeral, so what do I care what you do to your lenses? More bullshit from the accomplished and highly revered Photographer with no photos... If a $2500 lens needed a filter, it would come with one. >>Exactly. I feel the same way about filters, DON'T use one unless there is a >>strong reason to. > > There is a strong reason, and that is the need to preserve the > condition of the front element of your lenses by avoiding the need to > clean it. Nonesense. My 100 f/2.8 has never had a filter on it except as needed for filtering effect. Front element is spotless and pristine. Becasue that lens is very deeply recessed (1:1 macro) it is rarely exposed to damaging objects, plus its lens hood is quite deep in any case. get cleaned (properly) as needed. My CZ 150 f/4 does not have a filter either. Spotless and pristine. > But it is your funeral, so what do I care what you do to your lenses? Typical crap from Polson and we do know that you don't care about anyone. It is really the root of your problems. You only care to spout what you read in magazines as if you're an authoritative source. Walk the walk, Polson: Show your capability the only way that counts. I am new to this NG and not familiar with the history of some of its members. I would agree however with Tony on this filter issue. ALL my lenses (photographic and astronomical) have high quality Nikon or B&M filters. I have never noticed ANY degradation of image quality using filters and they certainly offer some protection against the elements, not the least of all are fingerprints. Filters are essentially 2 parallel surfaces of glass, which are much easier to make well than any lens. You are more likely to get distortion from the varying densities of air blowing between the lens and your subject than distortion from a good quality filter. I don't know what the fuss is about. It is safer to clean the UV filter than risk scratching the coating of the front lens elements. Worse case scenario with the filter, you throw away the UV filter and continue your shoot. Worse case scenario without the filter, you change to another lens. Which would I prefer? If glare is a concern for a particular shot, it is going to be a problem whether you have the filter on or not and that is when the lens shade or my other hand comes in handy. :)) The Nikkor 600 mm f4 AF-ID (and I think the 300 mm AF f2.8 but I have not used this lens for years) has a built-in protective front element, (which, for the life of me, I have never tried to remove) so some manufacturers do believe in protecting atleast some of their lenses this way. Now I realize that I am an amateur and I certainly baby my equipment, but I figure a pro would not take unnecessary risks when the protection is real and the downside is minimal. Tien > >>Exactly. I feel the same way about filters, DON'T use one unless there is a > >>strong reason to. [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > what you read in magazines as if you're an authoritative source. Walk > the walk, Polson: Show your capability the only way that counts. > I am new to this NG and not familiar with the history of some of its > members. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > ALL my lenses (photographic and astronomical) have high quality Nikon > or B&M filters. You've missed the point entirely, and you can be sure that regardless of the quality of the filter that you add, flare will increase when in the presence of direct lighting on the lens. I too have a 114mm front "clear" filter on the front of my 300 f/2.8. For such large lenses, it is justifiable. For smaller lenses where damage is unlikely, filters are not needed except for effect or in the presence of blowing dust, sand and mist. I've been using "filterless" lenses most of the time for the last couple years and have yet to encounter anything on the lens that can't be cleaned and I have no scratches at all. Rather than polarised approaches to things, it is best to think what works for the given situation. Since I use warming filters on occasion and polarizers more often (and other filters less often) having to remove one filter to put on another is more tedium and results in more cleaning. Less is more. Cheers, Alan Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. > I have a Canon 20D with an EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM lens and was asked to > shoot some actors during a theatrical show. This will be my first time > shooting in this kind of situation. I understand the challenges with indoor > stage lighting but I don't know how much glare to expect. I was wondering if > I need to use my lens hood? I have seen photographers at concerts with and > without lens hoods on their telephoto lenses. Use the lens hood. I agree with some of the others that the protection alone makes it worthwhile. I have dropped several expensive lenses and all of them were saved by the hood. The only negative with lens hoods is that even those that are well designed will give you some vignetting at the widest angles. I do not use protective filters unless I am among children or at the beach. No need to allow blowing sand to scratch up the front element.... |
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.