Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
09-21-2011, 12:00 PM   #46
Veteran Member
Anvh's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 4,616
QuoteOriginally posted by Aristophanes Quote
Because you definitively lost it elsewhere I suspect.
Funny enough on the English and Dutch forum most actual agree that uv filter for protection is not needed and so only a minority use them.

If a lens really should need a filter for protection i'm sure i would have heard reports of broken/scratched lenses but since that isn't the case, doesn't that not prove filters aren't needed?

09-22-2011, 07:24 AM   #47
Site Supporter
Aristophanes's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Dartmouth, Nova Scotia
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,791
QuoteOriginally posted by Anvh Quote
Funny enough on the English and Dutch forum most actual agree that uv filter for protection is not needed and so only a minority use them.

If a lens really should need a filter for protection i'm sure i would have heard reports of broken/scratched lenses but since that isn't the case, doesn't that not prove filters aren't needed?
Metrics please?

"Doesn't that not prove...."

Do you even read what you write?
09-22-2011, 07:59 AM   #48
Veteran Member
Anvh's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 4,616
QuoteOriginally posted by Aristophanes Quote
Metrics please?

"Doesn't that not prove...."

Do you even read what you write?
Yes of course, sounds more complicated this way

Maar in het Nederlands gaat het me een stuk beter af, maar laten we dat maar niet proberen.

But since you're back to personal insults does that mean you're out of arguments?
09-22-2011, 08:50 AM   #49
Site Supporter
Aristophanes's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Dartmouth, Nova Scotia
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,791
QuoteOriginally posted by Anvh Quote
Yes of course, sounds more complicated this way

Maar in het Nederlands gaat het me een stuk beter af, maar laten we dat maar niet proberen.

But since you're back to personal insults does that mean you're out of arguments?
It's not personal insults. It's proof with numbers and contradictory grammar.

You are so eager to prove to everyone you are right, you are forgetting you might be wrong.

09-22-2011, 09:17 AM   #50
Loyal Site Supporter
baro-nite's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: North Carolina, USA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 4,298
Poor little thread. OP simply wanted a recommendation for a high-quality UV filter. Maybe he was concerned about sunburn. Reminds me of the joke about why intradepartmental battles in academe are so fierce -- because the stakes are so low. There will never be a last word on the tradeoffs between UV filter as lens protection vs. IQ loss, in large part because we are talking about small effects either way.
09-22-2011, 11:36 AM   #51
Veteran Member
Anvh's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 4,616
QuoteOriginally posted by Aristophanes Quote
It's not personal insults. It's proof with numbers and contradictory grammar.

You are so eager to prove to everyone you are right, you are forgetting you might be wrong.
If naming one number is problematic for you then i'm very sorry, you can exchange 1mm for the word very thin.
As for the grammar, well English isn't my first language and i'm heavy dyslectic so if you've a problem with the grammar, then please correct me if you want but don't make it into a problem.

I don't mind being wrong, just prove it. Do a test if you want, get a cheap lens and filter and let them drop on the pavement or something.
So far you haven't bring anything to show you're right, you're only talking me down.

QuoteOriginally posted by baro-nite Quote
Poor little thread. OP simply wanted a recommendation for a high-quality UV filter. Maybe he was concerned about sunburn. Reminds me of the joke about why intradepartmental battles in academe are so fierce -- because the stakes are so low. There will never be a last word on the tradeoffs between UV filter as lens protection vs. IQ loss, in large part because we are talking about small effects either way.
Indeed, very poor my sincere apology for that.

UV light already gets filtered out mostly by the coating and the filter in front of the sensor, if you really want to cut off more of the UV light you need to look at Haze filters.

If you want a filter for protection then the Hoya HD is the one to get, they look to be the strongest one there are.
09-22-2011, 12:29 PM   #52
Pentaxian
Marc Sabatella's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Denver, CO
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 10,686
QuoteOriginally posted by Aristophanes Quote
I dropped it on the ground.

$1,200 lens. $60 filter. You do the math.
Math or no math, unless you dropped ttwo identical lens on the group in the same way, one with filter and one without, you have no way whatsoever of knowing whether the filter makes a bit of difference. A single broken lens without filter doesn't prove the filter would have prevented the damage, nor does a single intact lens with broken filter prove the presence of the filter is what saved the lens. This seems so obvious to me I can't believe anyone would seriously try to claim they have any evidence whatsoever unless theyve actually dropped two identical lenses, one with and one without filter, and found the filter saved the lens. And repeated this over enough trials to have statistical significance.

Based on simply an understanding of physics, I find it almost inconcievable that a filter would actually have any significant value with regards to protecting a lens against shattering. Scratch or scuff makrs, sure. But shattering? That seems incredibly dubious.
09-22-2011, 12:56 PM   #53
Site Supporter
Aristophanes's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Dartmouth, Nova Scotia
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,791
QuoteOriginally posted by Marc Sabatella Quote
Math or no math, unless you dropped ttwo identical lens on the group in the same way, one with filter and one without, you have no way whatsoever of knowing whether the filter makes a bit of difference. A single broken lens without filter doesn't prove the filter would have prevented the damage, nor does a single intact lens with broken filter prove the presence of the filter is what saved the lens. This seems so obvious to me I can't believe anyone would seriously try to claim they have any evidence whatsoever unless theyve actually dropped two identical lenses, one with and one without filter, and found the filter saved the lens. And repeated this over enough trials to have statistical significance.

Based on simply an understanding of physics, I find it almost inconcievable that a filter would actually have any significant value with regards to protecting a lens against shattering. Scratch or scuff makrs, sure. But shattering? That seems incredibly dubious.
I dropped it on gravel. Nice big chunks that easily would have penetrated the recess of the front element had the filter not been there.

I also once laid a lens down and then spilled coffee which ran across the table to the lens and swelled up against it. No damage to the element but a very messy filter.

09-22-2011, 12:58 PM   #54
Site Supporter
SpecialK's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: So California
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 14,631
QuoteQuote:

$1,200 lens. $60 filter. You do the math.
$1280? Do I win a camera?
09-22-2011, 01:12 PM   #55
Senior Moderator
Loyal Site Supporter
Parallax's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: South Dakota
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 15,307
QuoteOriginally posted by SpecialK Quote
$1280? Do I win a camera?
Considering the correct answer is $1,260.00, my guess is no.
09-22-2011, 02:02 PM   #56
Veteran Member
Anvh's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 4,616
QuoteOriginally posted by Aristophanes Quote
I dropped it on gravel. Nice big chunks that easily would have penetrated the recess of the front element had the filter not been there.
That wasn't what was said, just read it again what Marc Sabatella wrote.

Even though the gravel might come in contact with the glass, who says that it will actually cause any damage.
Well you're saying it but according to you cleaning and spilling coffee on the lens will damage it as well.
The video with the canon lens shows you really need to make some offered just to have some results.

QuoteOriginally posted by Aristophanes Quote
I also once laid a lens down and then spilled coffee which ran across the table to the lens and swelled up against it. No damage to the element but a very messy filter.
Yeah, coffee will damage your lens, you should see what espresso does
09-22-2011, 05:52 PM   #57
Site Supporter
SpecialK's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: So California
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 14,631
QuoteOriginally posted by Parallax Quote
Considering the correct answer is $1,260.00, my guess is no.
It's that damned "new math".
09-22-2011, 06:54 PM   #58
Veteran Member
Spock's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Photos: Albums
Posts: 419
What's all this about uv filters protecting lenses from being smashed front first into gravel?!
I doubt any filter manufacturer has ever claimed that their products were bulletproof!

And I certainly haven't! When I say I use filters to prevent damage I don't mean against broken glass. The worst that happened to me was a curious (or perhaps just hungry) ostrich pecking my front element and putting a permanent scuff on my hoya pro-1 filter. I was quite annoyed as it wasn't a cheap filter but at the same time pleased that my lens was undamaged.

In my opinion a filter is useful to prevent dust, salt spray, fingermarks, etc. getting on a lens and then, by extension, hopefully preventing cleaning marks, scuffs & scratches - but that's all.

If people want to hit their lenses with hammers or hurl them to the ground then no filter is going to prevent damage occurring.
09-22-2011, 07:06 PM   #59
Pentaxian
Wheatfield's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The wheatfields of Canada
Posts: 10,058
I dropped a Noct Nikkor 58/f1.2 one day. No filter. Didn't damage the glass, but it buggered the focus helicoid.
While we get all bent about keeping our front element intact, there are other things that can be damaged through impact.
AF lenses are much more lightly built than my old Nikkors, I suspect that they are also much more easily damaged in ways that no filter can protect.
But, when I was selling cameras, 10% of the price of every protective filter went straight into my wallet as a spiff.
I don't know how much protection they offered the photographer, but they certainly protected my wallet.
09-26-2011, 10:11 PM   #60
Veteran Member




Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Gabriola Island
Posts: 585
QuoteOriginally posted by baro-nite Quote
Poor little thread. OP simply wanted a recommendation for a high-quality UV filter. Maybe he was concerned about sunburn. Reminds me of the joke about why intradepartmental battles in academe are so fierce -- because the stakes are so low. There will never be a last word on the tradeoffs between UV filter as lens protection vs. IQ loss, in large part because we are talking about small effects either way.
I think you're probably right about the small effects, provided you test to make sure that the effects of a given filter on a given lens are in fact minor. Ultimately, that is what the OP ought to do.

Personally, I tend to lean on hoods rather than filters for protection. I know that there is no risk of image quality degradation with hoods. With filters, I would find it necessary to test lens/filter combinations to ensure that there is no degradation. Not such a big deal with digital, but I'm lazy.

The only time I've left a UV filter on a lens in the last 30 years was on an M 400 that came with an extremely expensive filter. I had already stopped using UV filters but thought I'd be safe with this particular one, given the rep of the maker. I was very disappointed in the lens until, after being reminded by a magazine article about effects of filters on long lenses, I pulled the filter off Problem solved. That was in the mid-nineties so I can't reference the article.

The reason I stopped using UV filters in the first place was testing I conducted in about 1981 that showed issues with reflections, flare and loss of sharpness. I decided to become more disciplined about my lens cleaning methods and obtained hoods for as may lenses as possible. Parked the filters. I still have several lenses from that period. The glass remains pristine despite use in some pretty nasty conditions. (I do keep some UV filters around and have used them the odd time in blowing sand/salt spray situations.)

I've had a couple of lenses saved by hoods absorbing impact when dropped. Hood destroyed, lens fine.

(I find it entertaining to step into a filter debate every ten years or so. They haven't changed much!)

John
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!
camera, pentax help
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:07 PM. | 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