FA 43mm filter & hood

rpark71 · 03-30-2011, 05:32 AM

Hi all,

First post (apart from a Pentax greeting!) and I'm after some advice. Did a search but couldn't find any exact answer. Just purchased K7 and FA 43mm Limited. General sensible advice says use a filter to at least protect lovely expensive lens! I'm looking at B+W 486 49mm UV/IR cut filter. Two questions: Is that filter a good choice or will the various coatings (I understand the lens has a UV coating) clash with each other affecting image quality. And can I fit a filter and the lens hood to the lens, or is it a choice between one and the other?

Any thoughts welcome...

Thanks, Rich

**Ash** · 03-30-2011, 05:40 AM

Generally, any piece of glass you fit in front of a lens will degrade its image quality. However I understand your interest in preserving your great lens and would suggest the best filter you can afford for it. Stick to the standard UV filters as anything else will alter what passes through to the lens. B+W have the 010 F-PRO series which are great, and what I use for all my ltd lenses. The lend hood should fit right on top of the filter, as I have with my own.

rpark71 · 03-30-2011, 05:57 AM

Excellent, thanks for the speedy advice!

Frogfish · 03-30-2011, 06:01 AM

I also started with both the K7 & 43 Ltd ... and have never put a filter on my lense. The 43 has a relatively deep hood for such a little lense and if you take care of it (using the two caps, carefully putting it on and taking it off and storing it properly) there is very little risk IMHO.

You have a fantastic lense ... it would be a shame to degrade the quality by putting a filter on it ... unless of course you are just using it for extra protection until you are ready to shoot. In which case just by the cheapest.

rpark71 · 03-30-2011, 07:12 AM

Thanks frogfish. Do you know if the effect of a filter is clearly noticeable to image clarity/sharpness? I'd assumed that a cheap as chips UV filter would have a greater negative effect than, say the B+W one. On fitting at all, I guess its simply weighing up personal priority of protection against 100% lens quality.

foong · 03-30-2011, 07:34 AM

There are many reviews on the various brands and generally B&W and Hoya are recommended. If you can find it, Rodenstock filters are also very good. They are top quality filters.

robgo2 · 03-30-2011, 09:58 AM

I am a believer in using a lens hoods to protect the front element of a lens. I also try to keep a cap on the hood whenever I am not actively shooting. Consequently, I have never experienced any damage to my lenses that might have been prevented by a filter. I would only use a protective filter in extremely windy conditions when blowing sand or dust might scratch the glass or when there is salt water spray.

Rob

Last edited by robgo2; 04-02-2011 at 08:58 AM.

Spotmatic · 03-30-2011, 02:44 PM

I just bought a B&W 49mm...to use to reduce haze when necessary. It will not be on a lens full time.

Hound Tooth · 03-30-2011, 03:33 PM

Shoot enough dogs, children and spraying water, and you'll wish you had a filter on the lens. My favorite is dog drool from exploratory licks.

I've found that the Hoya HD filters generate NO degradation in quality whatsoever, even when doing deep pixel-peeping. However, they're not available in 49mm size (?!?!?!?!?seriously?!?!?!?!? Pentax's parent company doesn't have their best filter in Pentax's most popular thread size?!?!?!?!? WTF?!?!?!?!?).

As a close second, the B+W MRC 101 UV filters (aka 101M) are fantastic too. For the 43mm Limited, the F-Pro mount is fine. No need to spend extra for the XS Pro or Slim mount.

Immediately behind that, the Hoya S-HMC lineup is almost as good, and might even be slightly cheaper. And at least those are available in 49mm size.

rpark71 · 03-30-2011, 04:11 PM

Sounds like if worth having one for some peace of mind...and see how I go with it - maybe just use it if I'm on a beach with dogs and children..!

**rparmar** · 03-30-2011, 04:16 PM

The FA43 has a sturdy hood and needs no filter. If a dog somehow drools inside, just clean the lens. I've taken lenses into salt-water spray etc. No big deal.

Raybo · 03-30-2011, 04:34 PM

Originally posted by rparmar

The FA43 has a sturdy hood and needs no filter. If a dog somehow drools inside, just clean the lens. I've taken lenses into salt-water spray etc. No big deal.

I agree.

Just buy a cheap lens if you are afraid of mucking it up.

SOldBear · 03-30-2011, 06:44 PM

If you use this kind of "hood," you may not need any protecting filter at all:

Hound Tooth · 04-01-2011, 03:03 PM

Originally posted by Raybo

Just buy a cheap lens if you are afraid of mucking it up.

Yes, by all means, please only use expensive glass for quaint tea parties with old ladies in wheelchairs and lots of safety padding around. Dirty environments are no place to be taking pictures.

(do I hear a "duh"?)

Hound Tooth · 04-01-2011, 03:10 PM

Originally posted by rparmar

The FA43 has a sturdy hood and needs no filter. If a dog somehow drools inside, just clean the lens. I've taken lenses into salt-water spray etc. No big deal.

hmm... $37.50 for an ultra-high quality UV filter with no noticeable degradation in image quality... or walk into sea-water spray with a bare front lens element worth $700+.

"Nothing bad ever happened to me! Therefore everyone should do it too!"

Yeah, great advice. Way to go.

03-30-2011, 05:32 AM	#1
rpark71 New Member Join Date: Mar 2011 Location: Henley-on-Thames Posts: 12	FA 43mm filter & hood Hi all, First post (apart from a Pentax greeting!) and I'm after some advice. Did a search but couldn't find any exact answer. Just purchased K7 and FA 43mm Limited. General sensible advice says use a filter to at least protect lovely expensive lens! I'm looking at B+W 486 49mm UV/IR cut filter. Two questions: Is that filter a good choice or will the various coatings (I understand the lens has a UV coating) clash with each other affecting image quality. And can I fit a filter and the lens hood to the lens, or is it a choice between one and the other? Any thoughts welcome... Thanks, Rich

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Filter & hood size - 77mm, 72mm, or less?	Kitty	Troubleshooting and Beginner Help	24	01-22-2011 08:15 AM
For Sale - Sold: Pentax smc A 20mm f2.8 + original case box filter & Hood (Worldwide)	Fleafly	Sold Items	5	07-05-2010 01:53 PM
Hood for Pentax-FA 43mm	neildo	Troubleshooting and Beginner Help	15	06-26-2010 03:38 AM
For Sale - Sold: DA 21mm F3.2 Limited(+ Hoya mcuv 43mm filter) (US)	Lariya	Sold Items	4	03-17-2010 12:09 PM
43mm filter	mecrox	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	3	05-07-2009 09:59 AM

03-30-2011, 05:40 AM	#2
Ash Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Toowoomba, Queensland Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 23,920	Generally, any piece of glass you fit in front of a lens will degrade its image quality. However I understand your interest in preserving your great lens and would suggest the best filter you can afford for it. Stick to the standard UV filters as anything else will alter what passes through to the lens. B+W have the 010 F-PRO series which are great, and what I use for all my ltd lenses. The lend hood should fit right on top of the filter, as I have with my own.

03-30-2011, 05:57 AM	#3
rpark71 New Member Join Date: Mar 2011 Location: Henley-on-Thames Posts: 12 Original Poster	Excellent, thanks for the speedy advice!

03-30-2011, 06:01 AM	#4
Frogfish Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Shanghai Posts: 4,490	I also started with both the K7 & 43 Ltd ... and have never put a filter on my lense. The 43 has a relatively deep hood for such a little lense and if you take care of it (using the two caps, carefully putting it on and taking it off and storing it properly) there is very little risk IMHO. You have a fantastic lense ... it would be a shame to degrade the quality by putting a filter on it ... unless of course you are just using it for extra protection until you are ready to shoot. In which case just by the cheapest.

03-30-2011, 07:12 AM	#5
rpark71 New Member Join Date: Mar 2011 Location: Henley-on-Thames Posts: 12 Original Poster	Thanks frogfish. Do you know if the effect of a filter is clearly noticeable to image clarity/sharpness? I'd assumed that a cheap as chips UV filter would have a greater negative effect than, say the B+W one. On fitting at all, I guess its simply weighing up personal priority of protection against 100% lens quality.

03-30-2011, 07:34 AM	#6
foong New Member Join Date: Mar 2011 Location: New York Posts: 10	There are many reviews on the various brands and generally B&W and Hoya are recommended. If you can find it, Rodenstock filters are also very good. They are top quality filters.

03-30-2011, 09:58 AM	#7
robgo2 Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: New Mexico Photos: Albums Posts: 1,125	I am a believer in using a lens hoods to protect the front element of a lens. I also try to keep a cap on the hood whenever I am not actively shooting. Consequently, I have never experienced any damage to my lenses that might have been prevented by a filter. I would only use a protective filter in extremely windy conditions when blowing sand or dust might scratch the glass or when there is salt water spray. Rob Last edited by robgo2; 04-02-2011 at 08:58 AM.

03-30-2011, 02:44 PM	#8
Spotmatic Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Ft. Myers Florida Posts: 169	I just bought a B&W 49mm...to use to reduce haze when necessary. It will not be on a lens full time.

03-30-2011, 03:33 PM	#9
Hound Tooth Banned Join Date: Nov 2010 Location: Williston, VT Posts: 268	Shoot enough dogs, children and spraying water, and you'll wish you had a filter on the lens. My favorite is dog drool from exploratory licks. I've found that the Hoya HD filters generate NO degradation in quality whatsoever, even when doing deep pixel-peeping. However, they're not available in 49mm size (?!?!?!?!?seriously?!?!?!?!? Pentax's parent company doesn't have their best filter in Pentax's most popular thread size?!?!?!?!? WTF?!?!?!?!?). As a close second, the B+W MRC 101 UV filters (aka 101M) are fantastic too. For the 43mm Limited, the F-Pro mount is fine. No need to spend extra for the XS Pro or Slim mount. Immediately behind that, the Hoya S-HMC lineup is almost as good, and might even be slightly cheaper. And at least those are available in 49mm size.

03-30-2011, 04:11 PM	#10
rpark71 New Member Join Date: Mar 2011 Location: Henley-on-Thames Posts: 12 Original Poster	Sounds like if worth having one for some peace of mind...and see how I go with it - maybe just use it if I'm on a beach with dogs and children..!

03-30-2011, 04:16 PM	#11
rparmar Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2008 Photos: Gallery Posts: 8,819	The FA43 has a sturdy hood and needs no filter. If a dog somehow drools inside, just clean the lens. I've taken lenses into salt-water spray etc. No big deal.

03-30-2011, 04:34 PM	#12
Raybo Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 872	Originally posted by rparmar The FA43 has a sturdy hood and needs no filter. If a dog somehow drools inside, just clean the lens. I've taken lenses into salt-water spray etc. No big deal. I agree. Just buy a cheap lens if you are afraid of mucking it up.

03-30-2011, 06:44 PM	#13
SOldBear Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Alameda, CA Posts: 3,206	If you use this kind of "hood," you may not need any protecting filter at all:

04-01-2011, 03:03 PM	#14
Hound Tooth Banned Join Date: Nov 2010 Location: Williston, VT Posts: 268	Originally posted by Raybo Just buy a cheap lens if you are afraid of mucking it up. Yes, by all means, please only use expensive glass for quaint tea parties with old ladies in wheelchairs and lots of safety padding around. Dirty environments are no place to be taking pictures. (do I hear a "duh"?)

04-01-2011, 03:10 PM	#15
Hound Tooth Banned Join Date: Nov 2010 Location: Williston, VT Posts: 268	Originally posted by rparmar The FA43 has a sturdy hood and needs no filter. If a dog somehow drools inside, just clean the lens. I've taken lenses into salt-water spray etc. No big deal. hmm... $37.50 for an ultra-high quality UV filter with no noticeable degradation in image quality... or walk into sea-water spray with a bare front lens element worth $700+. "Nothing bad ever happened to me! Therefore everyone should do it too!" Yeah, great advice. Way to go.