Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
01-29-2013, 11:25 AM   #16
Veteran Member
stormtech's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: In the boonies (NW Penna)
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 5,670
I'm in the camp of no filters at all unless in extreme environment. I do always use a hood on all my lenses however.

01-29-2013, 01:46 PM - 2 Likes   #17
Senior Member




Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Salt Lake City UT
Photos: Albums
Posts: 116
Im a bit of both. Ive found that when using a Hoya MC UV filter, the image quality loss is negligible under 99% of all shooting conditions when using my K-5 and modern lenses. If a shot in a controlled environment requires absolute maximum detail and sharpness (such as an intent to do heavy cropping in PP, etc) I can simply remove the filter and no harm is done.

With my Q Ive found that while the small sensor works IQ miracles for its size, it does have significant limitations which need to be respected and I try my hardest to avoid any loss in image quality. Because of this, I choose not to use UV filters on my Q lenses. Additionally, since the Q lenses are so tiny and the diameter of the front elements are substantially smaller than full size K-mount lenses, I would imagine a significantly smaller chance to damage the front element of the lens, thus eliminating a large portion of the need for a UV filter.

Hoods however are a different story. If a lens comes with a hood, I use it. If it doesnt, I look to purchase a matching generic for it.
01-30-2013, 09:20 AM   #18
Veteran Member
Anvh's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 4,616
QuoteOriginally posted by PentaxScott Quote
since the Q lenses are so tiny and the diameter of the front elements are substantially smaller than full size K-mount lenses, I would imagine a significantly smaller chance to damage the front element of the lens, thus eliminating a large portion of the need for a UV filter.
I'm a bit curious where the filter whould protect it from.
I can understand corrosive elements but physical damage i don't see the thin piece of filter glass would do anything for that.
Beside maybe shatter and let the sharp piece scratch the front element.
01-30-2013, 05:30 PM   #19
Veteran Member
Laurentiu Cristofor's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: WA
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,044
I use UV filters with expensive lenses (wrote more on this topic here), but on the Q I would not recommend their use for a very simple reason - the Q is a compact camera - a filter will just add to the length of the lenses. A second argument is that the Q's lenses are rather inexpensive and a good filter will end up costing a significant percentage of the lens cost (over the 10% that is my rule of thumb).

01-30-2013, 05:36 PM   #20
Veteran Member
Laurentiu Cristofor's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: WA
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,044
QuoteOriginally posted by Anvh Quote
I'm a bit curious where the filter whould protect it from.
I
The filter can help with close up work, if you bump inadvertently into the subject. Think of a flower being pushed by the breeze into your camera - it is much nicer to know that you just have to wipe the pollen off the filter than off the front element's surface. A hood does not necessarily help in this situation if the flower can fit through it.
01-30-2013, 06:57 PM   #21
Pentaxian
MegaPower's Avatar

Join Date: May 2010
Location: Hong Kong / Irvine, CA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 564
searching around on ebay.
it usually cost about $10 only.
The production cost + shipping for such hood is less than a few bucks.
01-30-2013, 07:22 PM   #22
Veteran Member
stormtech's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: In the boonies (NW Penna)
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 5,670
QuoteOriginally posted by MegaPower Quote
searching around on ebay.
it usually cost about $10 only.
The production cost + shipping for such hood is less than a few bucks.
Yeah - I paid $11.99 shipped for my JJC clone - fits and works perfectly.
01-31-2013, 05:52 AM   #23
Veteran Member
Anvh's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 4,616
QuoteOriginally posted by Laurentiu Cristofor Quote
The filter can help with close up work, if you bump inadvertently into the subject. Think of a flower being pushed by the breeze into your camera - it is much nicer to know that you just have to wipe the pollen off the filter than off the front element's surface. A hood does not necessarily help in this situation if the flower can fit through it.
Lenses these days have 100 dollars worth of coating on them to make them easy to clean and prevent scratches, so that is not a reason for using a filter. It's only to give you a peace of mind.

And intersting the better the lens is the less you want a filter on it.
It degrades the image quality which is most likely why you bought that lens and the coatings can be better on the more expensive models.





02-02-2013, 01:16 PM - 1 Like   #24
Veteran Member
Laurentiu Cristofor's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: WA
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,044
QuoteOriginally posted by Anvh Quote
Lenses these days have 100 dollars worth of coating on them to make them easy to clean and prevent scratches, so that is not a reason for using a filter.
Well, some lens coatings are very good - I trust the Pentax ones, but all coatings are not equal. I scratched the Tamron 17-50 during a routine cleaning of the front element. So rather than taking risks, I can just go with a filter make that I tried and tested.

QuoteOriginally posted by Anvh Quote
It's only to give you a peace of mind.
The peace of mind comes from knowing that you are minimizing a risk. Perhaps you don't run any risks in your photography. Try photographing kids playing with toys that they could bump into your camera - it's an eye opening experience

QuoteOriginally posted by Anvh Quote
And intersting the better the lens is the less you want a filter on it.
It degrades the image quality which is most likely why you bought that lens and the coatings can be better on the more expensive models.
I have never noticed any degradation and I looked for it. Glass in front of the front element cannot easily impact image quality - see this collection of links for some interesting related experiments. Yes, if you stack 10 filters you will see the effect, but that is extreme.

The only serious problem I saw was with flare in quirky lighting conditions - and I never got that issue with B+W filters.

To put things in perspective, I was getting flare once with a Voigtlander lens. Of course, I first suspected the filter, so I removed it, but still got the flare. The lens was just flaring in that situation - the filter was not doing anything.

The glass and coatings on B+W filters are as good or better than those on the front element of any lens. B+W uses Schott glass (also used by Zeiss and Schneider) and I have not yet managed to scratch one - that MRC coating is excellent.
02-04-2013, 08:04 AM - 1 Like   #25
Veteran Member
Anvh's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 4,616
QuoteOriginally posted by Laurentiu Cristofor Quote
The peace of mind comes from knowing that you are minimizing a risk. Perhaps you don't run any risks in your photography. Try photographing kids playing with toys that they could bump into your camera - it's an eye opening experience
Like if a toy will damage your lens, any proof of that?
I already showed you a clip with someone using a hammer...

There need to be a serious impact if you want to damage a lens, and i almost certain a filter will brake with such an impact. And those shards will certainly damage the front element....
02-04-2013, 11:31 AM   #26
Veteran Member
bullitt_60's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 322
I only use polarizing or ND filters when necessary but never UV. I have been shooting for 10 years and have never been able to scratch a lens.
02-04-2013, 02:27 PM   #27
Veteran Member
Laurentiu Cristofor's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: WA
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,044
QuoteOriginally posted by Anvh Quote
Like if a toy will damage your lens, any proof of that?
I already showed you a clip with someone using a hammer...
And I already told you that I scratched the coating of my Tamron lens using a microfiber cloth and a speck of dust caught in it - no hammer was needed for that.

I know front elements are pretty sturdy - I hit a lens with a hammer too and I broke it once I got serious about it Before it broke, I got clear marks of damage on the glass - I am pretty sure they were there on the Canon too, but they didn't get the camera close enough to be visible in the video.

And it's not only scratching/breaking that are the risks - kids paint, brandish spoons with food. I'd rather have to deal with cleaning a filter than with cleaning the front element of a lens.

QuoteOriginally posted by Anvh Quote
There need to be a serious impact if you want to damage a lens, and i almost certain a filter will brake with such an impact. And those shards will certainly damage the front element....
So a hammer will do no damage, but the shards will? Either the front element can take any punishment, or the hammer example is irrelevant. Looks like some things can damage the front lens after all.
02-05-2013, 09:42 AM   #28
Site Supporter




Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: midwest, United States
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,325
I have seen filters protect many lenses. you bang the edge of a lens just right and it will screw up the fine filter threads. With a filter on, the threads are usually saved. The filter will crack and glass must be removed. Then collapse the filter ring to remove. Lens is still fine.

Have also seen a lens with finger print etched into glass. Filter would have stopped it. There are over 400 optical glasses. They aren't all the same hardness. My plastic lens eyeglasses have special non scratch coatings. They still scratch easier than glass.

Have seen good filters affect picture quality. friend's 300mm OM prime lens would not focus to infinity with high quality uv filter on it. It was amazing.

There are pros and cons each way.
thanks
barondla
02-05-2013, 05:33 PM   #29
Veteran Member
ChrisJ's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Eckington, Derbyshire UK
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 316
QuoteOriginally posted by barondla Quote
I have seen filters protect many lenses. you bang the edge of a lens just right and it will screw up the fine filter threads. With a filter on, the threads are usually saved. The filter will crack and glass must be removed. Then collapse the filter ring to remove. Lens is still fine.
thanks
barondla
The only time I have ever had a lens physically damaged was with just this scenario except my shattered filter scratched the lens coating and ruined my new lens, never fitted a 'protection' filter since then.

My cameras have had white hot spelter bouncing off them when I had a contract with British Steel in the '70's, played havoc with the leatherette, just bounced of the lens with no damage, down mines in the '80's recording the aftermath, and all the dust, following explosions, recorded restored steam engines for decades all without a 'protection' filter, I have never damaged a lens in 50 years, I still have (and use) all of them, except, of course, the first one early in my career (1960's).

I have come across many occasions of flare caused by filters, just take your camera out in any town centre after dark and take a scene with street lights in shot.

When shooting with the Sun in shot if you see images with multiple 'ghost' images of the aperture you can bet your bottom dollar they had a filter on the lens. Flare is caused by light reflecting around inside the lens, usually off the aperture, it normally this finds it's way strait out of the front element never to be seen again, with a filter fitted it reflects off the flat rear surface of the filter and back into the lens again and again and results in the multiple 'ghost apertures' in the image.

I bought a Sigma 70 - 200mm f2.8 lens from a work colleague because it was rear focusing, removing the filter also removed the rear focusing issues and I got a bargain.

The best physical protection for a lens is the lens cap, after that a rubber lens hood which tends to put itself in the way of any sideways blows and cushions them.

Sorry to say it, but if you damaged a lens coating when cleaning then you must have had some grit under your finger and applied pressure and motion. Something you just don't do. Most lens cleaning is unnecessary, lenses don't need polishing, their surface should be matt, they are designed to absorb light not reflect it.

Controversial I know. I apologise in advance.

Chris
02-05-2013, 09:55 PM   #30
Site Supporter
SpecialK's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: So California
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 14,901
I believe if you need to use a filter you must also wear a helmet.
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, mirrorless, pentax q, pentax q10, pentax q7, q10, q7, uv
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
UV / Skylight filters...use em or not? slackercruster Pentax Camera and Field Accessories 4 07-18-2012 05:41 PM
UV or not to UV that is the?? lguckert79 Troubleshooting and Beginner Help 21 05-15-2012 11:41 AM
UV+CPL or CPL+UV stacking and flare? Ryan Trevisol Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 7 05-28-2011 09:11 AM
To use UV filters or Not to use UV filters?HELP NEEDED Softsoap Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 6 02-20-2010 04:50 PM
To UV or not to UV? insulinguy Pentax DSLR Discussion 32 09-27-2009 10:15 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:45 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