Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
07-16-2012, 11:42 PM   #31
Veteran Member
Frogfish's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 4,490
QuoteOriginally posted by magkelly Quote
Obviously sun exposure can bleach lenses.
............... UV filter can probably save the MC on a lens from fading too much.
I'd like to bet the sun doesn't get to my front elements through my lens hoods and I don't think I know anyone who uses neither a hood nor a filter

07-17-2012, 12:38 AM   #32
Veteran Member




Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Manila
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,190
I only put the UV filter on when storing lenses in the drybox, because I put my lenses front element-down.

The best protection I can afford for my lenses from bumps (none which are WR) is by putting my hand right across the front and hope my bones don't break into the front element...
07-17-2012, 01:53 AM   #33
Site Supporter
altopiet's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: The Great Karoo, South Africa
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,927
I keep a few UV filters just for threads like these, some people are really convincing. When I start reading threads like these, I quickly put on the filters, but after seeing a few shots where the quality is obviously degraded by the filter, and remembering that I’m covered by insurance, I regain control of myself, and put them away again. I don't get to the sea often, but I can see that it might be useful in such an environment. I do keep a few Pola filters on some of my lenses however, but not to protect them.

Last edited by altopiet; 07-17-2012 at 02:27 AM.
07-17-2012, 09:40 AM   #34
Veteran Member
magkelly's Avatar

Join Date: May 2010
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 5,905
QuoteOriginally posted by Frogfish Quote
I'd like to bet the sun doesn't get to my front elements through my lens hoods and I don't think I know anyone who uses neither a hood nor a filter
There are quite a few here. We had a major talk about that the other day at my photo group. We actually see way too many people here just walking outside with a totally bare lens. No hood, no filter, nada.

07-17-2012, 09:45 AM   #35
Pentaxian
Designosophy's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Northeast Philadelphia
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,098
QuoteOriginally posted by magkelly Quote
There are quite a few here. We had a major talk about that the other day at my photo group. We actually see way too many people here just walking outside with a totally bare lens. No hood, no filter, nada.
I'm guilty of that, on occasion, with lenses that require screw-on hoods. My FA 50 f/1.4 often goes around unprotected, though I try harder to use a hood in bright conditions.
07-17-2012, 09:52 AM   #36
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2011
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,735
QuoteOriginally posted by magkelly Quote
We actually see way too many people here just walking outside with a totally bare lens. No hood, no filter, nada.
I freely admit to practicing unprotected photography ---
with macro lenses where the front glass sits way back in the body.
07-17-2012, 09:58 AM   #37
Veteran Member
Docrwm's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Somewhere in the Southern US
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 11,275
QuoteOriginally posted by magkelly Quote
There are quite a few here. We had a major talk about that the other day at my photo group. We actually see way too many people here just walking outside with a totally bare lens. No hood, no filter, nada.
I see the same at many of my children's sporting events. On occasion I see a filter but it is almost always either an incredibly cheap one (e.g., Opteka) or a super-duper-mega-deluxe model.
07-17-2012, 10:00 AM   #38
Veteran Member
Docrwm's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Somewhere in the Southern US
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 11,275
QuoteOriginally posted by Designosophy Quote
I'm guilty of that, on occasion, with lenses that require screw-on hoods. My FA 50 f/1.4 often goes around unprotected, though I try harder to use a hood in bright conditions.
Might I suggest you try an inexpensive rubber 3-stage hood? They are very convenient, can stay on the lens, and will at least provide some protection as they will rebound. I have one on my FA50/1.4 myself.

07-17-2012, 10:00 AM   #39
Banned




Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: NY/Germany
Posts: 1,183
Sometimes a filter works, sometimes not. Depends on the situation. The front element of my FA35 gets insanely dirty, especially near the shore, so I use a filter, as it's my primary lens. I don't like cleaning crusty coastline contamination off the front elements. I bought a Hoya HMC, which is said to test sometimes better than more expensive ones. If there's a difference, I can't tell. Had an image or two with ghosting, but nothing major, otherwise. I always use a hood, but that won't help in what I mentioned above. With my F50 1.7, I deliberately bought it over the 1.4, partially because of the recessed front element. I've used a hood on it, saw absolutely no difference. I use a hood on my M85 F2. Works quite well.
07-17-2012, 10:15 AM   #40
Site Supporter
tabl10s's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Sacramento(formerly from B'Ham, England).
Posts: 1,401
QuoteOriginally posted by lytrytyr Quote
I freely admit to practicing unprotected photography ---
with macro lenses where the front glass sits way back in the body.
One day, your lens is going to be PIV positive.

Last edited by tabl10s; 07-17-2012 at 01:29 PM.
07-17-2012, 10:38 AM   #41
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2011
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,735
QuoteOriginally posted by tabl10s Quote
You guy's are going to catch a lens STD...or worse.
After the LBA kicks in, it's all downhill from there!
07-17-2012, 11:02 AM   #42
Loyal Site Supporter
pacerr's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Henry, TN
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,910
UV filters are called FILTERS because they filter out unwanted energy that affects the film and digital sensors we use to produce the effect we call "photo images". UV filters were "invented" to prevent UV energy from adversely affecting film. The fact that they seem to provide a colorless, protective window for lenses is both fortunate and beside the point when considering their nature.

I'm always puzzled by the 'tunnel vision' we humans have concerning the radiated energy we call COLOR. Remember the physics class with the sunlight through the prism and resulting 'rainbow? That rainbow is just a small, visible part of the energy spectrum. Any medium a "light ray" passes through refracts (bends) it in a manner unique to its frequency. Expensive lenses use different types of glass to attempt to re-align the color spectrum so all color rays focus at the same sensor plane after they get "bent" to produce the focal length effect. To the extent that's not accomplished perfectly, we have CA/PF. Humpty-dumpty all over again.

Don't think of color as some unique thing you see; consider that it's the radiated energy that exists between the invisible spectra called IR and UV energy -- which actually are "colors" for some non-humans. Many people, and most animals and insects, see "color" in a different way than the "normal" human eye. Their "sensors" are sensitive to different energy spectra. (The lead bib the dentist uses when making an xray is a filter too.)

Likewise, film and digital sensors are sensitive to radiated energy that we don't see as "color" but which can produce unwanted effects such as haze and noise in our film negatives and digital files.

The addition of ANY additional glass surfaces in front of a lens offers many possibilities for optical mischief and reflections not planned for in the designer's formula. OTOH, ray dispersion from scratches, water spots and dust were not planned for either.

Use a UV filter for protection if you believe it's prudent and accept that it WILL have some affect on the optical results even if it's not generally noticeable.

H2

Last edited by pacerr; 07-17-2012 at 12:06 PM.
07-17-2012, 11:09 AM   #43
Pentaxian
Designosophy's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Northeast Philadelphia
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,098
QuoteOriginally posted by Docrwm Quote
Might I suggest you try an inexpensive rubber 3-stage hood? They are very convenient, can stay on the lens, and will at least provide some protection as they will rebound. I have one on my FA50/1.4 myself.
A good idea.
07-17-2012, 11:18 AM   #44
Veteran Member
Frogfish's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 4,490
QuoteOriginally posted by magkelly Quote
There are quite a few here. We had a major talk about that the other day at my photo group. We actually see way too many people here just walking outside with a totally bare lens. No hood, no filter, nada.
I'm amazed ! I can hardly believe that a) people don't realise how it affects the IQ and mostly b) it's just plain common sense that an exposed and vulnerable front element could get damaged. That's truly shocking !
07-17-2012, 11:20 AM   #45
Veteran Member
Docrwm's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Somewhere in the Southern US
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 11,275
QuoteOriginally posted by Frogfish Quote
I'm amazed ! I can hardly believe that a) people don't realise how it affects the IQ and mostly b) it's just plain common sense that an exposed and vulnerable front element could get damaged. That's truly shocking !
But you don't put anything like that on your Casio so why would the more expensive camera not work as well?
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
argument, cost, element, filter, filters, front, hood, k-mount, lens, pentax lens, slr lens, uv, uv filters
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Remember Europe? It used to be important jeffkrol General Talk 9 11-12-2011 07:18 AM
Important ebay warning!!! US ripit General Talk 6 10-13-2011 02:26 PM
How important is AA battery feature? lammie200 Pentax K-r 26 09-06-2011 11:32 AM
What's more important when choosing a lens future_retro Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 19 08-02-2010 03:01 PM
Is EXIF important to you? NecroticSoldier Pentax DSLR Discussion 8 07-23-2010 09:08 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:23 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top