FA 43mm filter & hood

rpark71 · 04-02-2011, 05:53 AM

Crikey...didn't mean to start an argument! I've ordered Heliopan UV filter, which was considerably cheaper than was mentioned here - £30. So, I'll try it out and if i get results I'm not happy with, it's not the end of the world and i'll have it in my bag, if I'm in more challenging conditions. Thanks for the advice!

maciek_w · 04-02-2011, 12:59 PM

Originally posted by rparmar

1. ... "Hmmm, I am adding a new layer of glass the lens designer never counted on, two new surfaces for reflections and a new air gap the lens designer never anticipated. I bet that does nothing at all!"

Just a silly question: would the designers REALLY NOT THINK that people WILL PUT filters on their lenses? Why is there a filter thread on EVERY Ltd lens out there? Surely the optical design must accomodate - at least partially - for this, doesn't it.

dgaies · 04-02-2011, 01:12 PM

Originally posted by maciek_w

Just a silly question: would the designers REALLY NOT THINK that people WILL PUT filters on their lenses? Why is there a filter thread on EVERY Ltd lens out there? Surely the optical design must accomodate - at least partially - for this, doesn't it.

It's not really a matter of the optical design accommodating a UV filter or not, nor are the presence of filter threads an indication whether a UV filter would or would not degrade IQ.

Ideally, a UV filter (when used as a protective filter for the front element) would be 100% optically transparent and not introduce any flare or other unwanted side-effects from it's presence. High end filters come pretty damn close to that description, cheaper ones not so much. In other words, if you're using a high quality filter, chance are pretty slim that you'd be able to notice a difference unless you are very carefully trying to find one. If you're using a cheap filter, the difference will be more apparent and chances are good that the IQ will be at least slightly degraded.

I personally don't use a UV filter, but that's my personal preference and I certainly don't begrudge those who choose to.

**rparmar** · 04-02-2011, 02:30 PM

Hound Tooth, your posts exude such a "character" that it takes no detective work at all to determine what that might be. Perhaps lighten up and at least try to understand the other dude's point of view. Especially if the character you are dealing in spades is not how you would like yourself to be perceived.

As to refuting on a point by point basis every misinterpretation you made of my last post.. sorry you are just not worth it. Got images to process instead.

**rparmar** · 04-02-2011, 02:38 PM

Originally posted by maciek_w

Surely the optical design must accomodate - at least partially - for this, doesn't it.

No, the design does not take filters into account. Consider how impossible it would be for the optical design to accommodate filters that range all across the board in material, thickness and reflective coatings... and at the same time to accommodate no filter at all.

If you a) never shoot at night, in high contrast situations or into the light, b) choose to buy a very good filter as opposed to the many poor ones out there, c) restrain from using a filter in place of a lens hood (but rather in addition to), d) are often (as opposed to occasionally) in inclement situations then yes, I can see the value in a filter.

Hound Tooth · 04-02-2011, 05:29 PM

Originally posted by rparmar

Hound Tooth, your posts exude such a "character" that it takes no detective work at all to determine what that might be. Perhaps lighten up and at least try to understand the other dude's point of view. Especially if the character you are dealing in spades is not how you would like yourself to be perceived.

How you perceive my attitude is the least of my concern. You outright dismiss the possible use of UV filters for completely arbitrary and invalid reasons rather than keeping an open mind. As someone who knows better, I simply refuted your arguments with clear facts. It's unfortunate that you perceive this as some kind of irreverence.

Originally posted by rparmar

As to refuting on a point by point basis every misinterpretation you made of my last post.. sorry you are just not worth it. Got images to process instead.

Yeah, that's the most typical response from someone whose arguments have been thoroughly debunked. "Forget it, you're not worth it, I have better things to do." Some people just hate being wrong I guess.

**rparmar** · 04-02-2011, 06:31 PM

Originally posted by Hound Tooth

Some people just hate being wrong I guess.

No doubt.

Hound Tooth · 04-02-2011, 06:51 PM

Originally posted by rpark71

Crikey...didn't mean to start an argument!

I don't think you started an argument, I think you just brought up an interesting discussion between the pros and the cons of UV filters. I've already heard all these arguments against them in the past, and simply have never been swayed by them because of my own experience.

As for the filter you ordered, Heliopan has a few different grades. The most important aspect for any filter is whether it's single-coated or multi-coated. The actual number of coats in a multi-coated lens isn't terribly relevant. ie. 7 vs 8 layers makes no real difference in real life.

This is a very interesting article I read a long time ago regarding UV filters. It's a little out of date now (it pre-dates the Hoya HD line), but it's still very relevant because most manufacturers have not updated their coatings at all in over a decade:
UV filters test - Introduction - Lenstip.com

Most surprising in there were the results of the Heliopan filters. My own experience with those filters hasn't been quite so negative, though.

Raybo · 04-02-2011, 07:35 PM

Originally posted by rparmar

Hound Tooth, your posts exude such a "character" that it takes no detective work at all to determine what that might be. Perhaps lighten up and at least try to understand the other dude's point of view. Especially if the character you are dealing in spades is not how you would like yourself to be perceived.

As to refuting on a point by point basis every misinterpretation you made of my last post.. sorry you are just not worth it. Got images to process instead.

A filter is just that, it filters light no matter the bandwidth.

I'm sorry if I was out of line last night (and I was

).
It's simple physics, the more glass (elements) the more...........................GLASS!

Raybo · 04-02-2011, 07:44 PM

Originally posted by Hound Tooth

Oh yeah, that makes perfect sense. I like to have a UV filter on the front of my expensive lenses, so therefore I'm anal about my gear and don't let it blablablabla so on so forth and all manner of other inanities that make no sense whatsoever.

Yep, brilliant deduction. You've got me pegged to a T. And all because I disagree with you on this one point. You, sir, are an excellent judge of character.

I didn't read this responce last night!
Nice comeback!

Raybo · 04-02-2011, 07:53 PM

Originally posted by rparmar

No doubt.

Sorry Robin, I'm goin' to have to agree with you again!

**Digitalis** · 04-02-2011, 08:16 PM

All this debate over a 49mm filters.

The bottom line is do whatever you think is best really, it is your lens. I personally do not use protective glass filters in everyday shooting situations because of the increased potential for flare, besides if you really want to protect a lens against accidental knocks and scrapes the hood is far more effective and it comes with your FA43 for a reason so use it. However, In wet,sandy,dusty environments I do use expensive HMC clear glass protective filters (not UV filters though*) to guard against water or dust getting where I don't want it.

yes, the cheap'n'nasty filters can trash the image quality from lenses, in some respect all filters can cause some degradation in images. But as the quality of the filter goes up, the potential for such degradation is reduced.

*the glass used in lenses these days is absolutely terrible at transmitting UV light, so using UV cut filters is pointless for every day shooting conditions.

Hound Tooth · 04-02-2011, 10:22 PM

Originally posted by Digitalis

*the glass used in lenses these days is absolutely terrible at transmitting UV light, so using UV cut filters is pointless for every day shooting conditions.

Actually the UV light in modern cameras is removed by the filter on the sensor, not by the lens. There are camera conversions out there that can replace the IR/UV filter on the sensor with a completely clear one. Doing this allows cameras to capture more astronomical features in astro photography, features that would normally be eliminated by the original sensor filter. And I'm not referring to just IR conversion here, I'm referring to a full IR/UV conversion. This is true with the use of any lens, although some lenses do cut out more UV light than others.

Having said that, the filter on the sensor does in fact eliminate UV rays very reliably, probably enough to make UV filters fairly useless as far as removing UV light. But as the article I linked to points out, most good quality UV filters have no noticeable effect on light transmission at all above the UV spectrum. Typically, the high quality UV and clear filters from the same lineup have the exact same performance and cost about the same. The only difference is that a good UV filter cuts out the UV light before it enters the lens rather than letting the filter on the sensor do it.

Is that beneficial? Probably not. But it doesn't hurt either.

Hound Tooth · 04-02-2011, 10:30 PM

Another interesting point to note: for a weather-resistant Canon lens to be considered "weather-sealed", it must be fitted with a filter. Otherwise Canon does not consider it "weather-sealed". All weather-resistant Canon lenses are in the high-end line, the ones expected to deliver the highest image quality. Apparently Canon sees nothing wrong with using filters on those lenses, and even requires it for warranty purposes.

Raybo · 04-03-2011, 12:54 AM

Originally posted by Hound Tooth

Actually the UV light in modern cameras is removed by the filter on the sensor, not by the lens. There are camera conversions out there that can replace the IR/UV filter on the sensor with a completely clear one. Doing this allows cameras to capture more astronomical features in astro photography, features that would normally be eliminated by the original sensor filter. And I'm not referring to just IR conversion here, I'm referring to a full IR/UV conversion. This is true with the use of any lens, although some lenses do cut out more UV light than others.

Having said that, the filter on the sensor does in fact eliminate UV rays very reliably, probably enough to make UV filters fairly useless as far as removing UV light. But as the article I linked to points out, most good quality UV filters have no noticeable effect on light transmission at all above the UV spectrum. Typically, the high quality UV and clear filters from the same lineup have the exact same performance and cost about the same. The only difference is that a good UV filter cuts out the UV light before it enters the lens rather than letting the filter on the sensor do it.

Is that beneficial? Probably not. But it doesn't hurt either.

So is this about lenses or cameras?
All your reference seems to be double talk?

Use your filters HT, I choose not to use them at all.

04-02-2011, 08:16 PM	#42
Digitalis Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Melbourne, Victoria Photos: Gallery Posts: 11,694	All this debate over a 49mm filters. The bottom line is do whatever you think is best really, it is your lens. I personally do not use protective glass filters in everyday shooting situations because of the increased potential for flare, besides if you really want to protect a lens against accidental knocks and scrapes the hood is far more effective and it comes with your FA43 for a reason so use it. However, In wet,sandy,dusty environments I do use expensive HMC clear glass protective filters (not UV filters though) to guard against water or dust getting where I don't want it. yes, the cheap'n'nasty filters can trash the image quality from lenses, in some respect all filters can cause some degradation in images. But as the quality of the filter goes up, the potential for such degradation is reduced. the glass used in lenses these days is absolutely terrible at transmitting UV light, so using UV cut filters is pointless for every day shooting conditions. Last edited by Digitalis; 04-02-2011 at 08:21 PM.

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

04-02-2011, 05:53 AM	#31
rpark71 New Member Join Date: Mar 2011 Location: Henley-on-Thames Posts: 12 Original Poster	Crikey...didn't mean to start an argument! I've ordered Heliopan UV filter, which was considerably cheaper than was mentioned here - £30. So, I'll try it out and if i get results I'm not happy with, it's not the end of the world and i'll have it in my bag, if I'm in more challenging conditions. Thanks for the advice!

04-02-2011, 12:59 PM	#32
maciek_w Forum Member Join Date: Feb 2011 Location: Warsaw Photos: Albums Posts: 93	Originally posted by rparmar 1. ... "Hmmm, I am adding a new layer of glass the lens designer never counted on, two new surfaces for reflections and a new air gap the lens designer never anticipated. I bet that does nothing at all!" Just a silly question: would the designers REALLY NOT THINK that people WILL PUT filters on their lenses? Why is there a filter thread on EVERY Ltd lens out there? Surely the optical design must accomodate - at least partially - for this, doesn't it.

04-02-2011, 01:12 PM	#33
dgaies Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Maryland / Washington DC Posts: 3,917	Originally posted by maciek_w Just a silly question: would the designers REALLY NOT THINK that people WILL PUT filters on their lenses? Why is there a filter thread on EVERY Ltd lens out there? Surely the optical design must accomodate - at least partially - for this, doesn't it. It's not really a matter of the optical design accommodating a UV filter or not, nor are the presence of filter threads an indication whether a UV filter would or would not degrade IQ. Ideally, a UV filter (when used as a protective filter for the front element) would be 100% optically transparent and not introduce any flare or other unwanted side-effects from it's presence. High end filters come pretty damn close to that description, cheaper ones not so much. In other words, if you're using a high quality filter, chance are pretty slim that you'd be able to notice a difference unless you are very carefully trying to find one. If you're using a cheap filter, the difference will be more apparent and chances are good that the IQ will be at least slightly degraded. I personally don't use a UV filter, but that's my personal preference and I certainly don't begrudge those who choose to.

04-02-2011, 02:30 PM	#34
rparmar Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2008 Photos: Gallery Posts: 8,819	Hound Tooth, your posts exude such a "character" that it takes no detective work at all to determine what that might be. Perhaps lighten up and at least try to understand the other dude's point of view. Especially if the character you are dealing in spades is not how you would like yourself to be perceived. As to refuting on a point by point basis every misinterpretation you made of my last post.. sorry you are just not worth it. Got images to process instead.

04-02-2011, 02:38 PM	#35
rparmar Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2008 Photos: Gallery Posts: 8,819	Originally posted by maciek_w Surely the optical design must accomodate - at least partially - for this, doesn't it. No, the design does not take filters into account. Consider how impossible it would be for the optical design to accommodate filters that range all across the board in material, thickness and reflective coatings... and at the same time to accommodate no filter at all. If you a) never shoot at night, in high contrast situations or into the light, b) choose to buy a very good filter as opposed to the many poor ones out there, c) restrain from using a filter in place of a lens hood (but rather in addition to), d) are often (as opposed to occasionally) in inclement situations then yes, I can see the value in a filter.

04-02-2011, 05:29 PM	#36
Hound Tooth Banned Join Date: Nov 2010 Location: Williston, VT Posts: 268	Originally posted by rparmar Hound Tooth, your posts exude such a "character" that it takes no detective work at all to determine what that might be. Perhaps lighten up and at least try to understand the other dude's point of view. Especially if the character you are dealing in spades is not how you would like yourself to be perceived. How you perceive my attitude is the least of my concern. You outright dismiss the possible use of UV filters for completely arbitrary and invalid reasons rather than keeping an open mind. As someone who knows better, I simply refuted your arguments with clear facts. It's unfortunate that you perceive this as some kind of irreverence. Originally posted by rparmar As to refuting on a point by point basis every misinterpretation you made of my last post.. sorry you are just not worth it. Got images to process instead. Yeah, that's the most typical response from someone whose arguments have been thoroughly debunked. "Forget it, you're not worth it, I have better things to do." Some people just hate being wrong I guess.

04-02-2011, 06:31 PM	#37
rparmar Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2008 Photos: Gallery Posts: 8,819	Originally posted by Hound Tooth Some people just hate being wrong I guess. No doubt.

04-02-2011, 06:51 PM	#38
Hound Tooth Banned Join Date: Nov 2010 Location: Williston, VT Posts: 268	Originally posted by rpark71 Crikey...didn't mean to start an argument! I don't think you started an argument, I think you just brought up an interesting discussion between the pros and the cons of UV filters. I've already heard all these arguments against them in the past, and simply have never been swayed by them because of my own experience. As for the filter you ordered, Heliopan has a few different grades. The most important aspect for any filter is whether it's single-coated or multi-coated. The actual number of coats in a multi-coated lens isn't terribly relevant. ie. 7 vs 8 layers makes no real difference in real life. This is a very interesting article I read a long time ago regarding UV filters. It's a little out of date now (it pre-dates the Hoya HD line), but it's still very relevant because most manufacturers have not updated their coatings at all in over a decade: UV filters test - Introduction - Lenstip.com Most surprising in there were the results of the Heliopan filters. My own experience with those filters hasn't been quite so negative, though.

04-02-2011, 07:35 PM	#39
Raybo Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 872	Originally posted by rparmar Hound Tooth, your posts exude such a "character" that it takes no detective work at all to determine what that might be. Perhaps lighten up and at least try to understand the other dude's point of view. Especially if the character you are dealing in spades is not how you would like yourself to be perceived. As to refuting on a point by point basis every misinterpretation you made of my last post.. sorry you are just not worth it. Got images to process instead. A filter is just that, it filters light no matter the bandwidth. I'm sorry if I was out of line last night (and I was ). It's simple physics, the more glass (elements) the more...........................GLASS!

04-02-2011, 07:44 PM	#40
Raybo Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 872	Originally posted by Hound Tooth Oh yeah, that makes perfect sense. I like to have a UV filter on the front of my expensive lenses, so therefore I'm anal about my gear and don't let it blablablabla so on so forth and all manner of other inanities that make no sense whatsoever. Yep, brilliant deduction. You've got me pegged to a T. And all because I disagree with you on this one point. You, sir, are an excellent judge of character. I didn't read this responce last night! Nice comeback!

04-02-2011, 07:53 PM	#41
Raybo Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 872	Originally posted by rparmar No doubt. Sorry Robin, I'm goin' to have to agree with you again!

04-02-2011, 10:22 PM	#43
Hound Tooth Banned Join Date: Nov 2010 Location: Williston, VT Posts: 268	Originally posted by Digitalis *the glass used in lenses these days is absolutely terrible at transmitting UV light, so using UV cut filters is pointless for every day shooting conditions. Actually the UV light in modern cameras is removed by the filter on the sensor, not by the lens. There are camera conversions out there that can replace the IR/UV filter on the sensor with a completely clear one. Doing this allows cameras to capture more astronomical features in astro photography, features that would normally be eliminated by the original sensor filter. And I'm not referring to just IR conversion here, I'm referring to a full IR/UV conversion. This is true with the use of any lens, although some lenses do cut out more UV light than others. Having said that, the filter on the sensor does in fact eliminate UV rays very reliably, probably enough to make UV filters fairly useless as far as removing UV light. But as the article I linked to points out, most good quality UV filters have no noticeable effect on light transmission at all above the UV spectrum. Typically, the high quality UV and clear filters from the same lineup have the exact same performance and cost about the same. The only difference is that a good UV filter cuts out the UV light before it enters the lens rather than letting the filter on the sensor do it. Is that beneficial? Probably not. But it doesn't hurt either.

04-02-2011, 10:30 PM	#44
Hound Tooth Banned Join Date: Nov 2010 Location: Williston, VT Posts: 268	Another interesting point to note: for a weather-resistant Canon lens to be considered "weather-sealed", it must be fitted with a filter. Otherwise Canon does not consider it "weather-sealed". All weather-resistant Canon lenses are in the high-end line, the ones expected to deliver the highest image quality. Apparently Canon sees nothing wrong with using filters on those lenses, and even requires it for warranty purposes.

04-03-2011, 12:54 AM	#45
Raybo Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 872	Originally posted by Hound Tooth Actually the UV light in modern cameras is removed by the filter on the sensor, not by the lens. There are camera conversions out there that can replace the IR/UV filter on the sensor with a completely clear one. Doing this allows cameras to capture more astronomical features in astro photography, features that would normally be eliminated by the original sensor filter. And I'm not referring to just IR conversion here, I'm referring to a full IR/UV conversion. This is true with the use of any lens, although some lenses do cut out more UV light than others. Having said that, the filter on the sensor does in fact eliminate UV rays very reliably, probably enough to make UV filters fairly useless as far as removing UV light. But as the article I linked to points out, most good quality UV filters have no noticeable effect on light transmission at all above the UV spectrum. Typically, the high quality UV and clear filters from the same lineup have the exact same performance and cost about the same. The only difference is that a good UV filter cuts out the UV light before it enters the lens rather than letting the filter on the sensor do it. Is that beneficial? Probably not. But it doesn't hurt either. So is this about lenses or cameras? All your reference seems to be double talk? Use your filters HT, I choose not to use them at all.