Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
02-03-2020, 06:09 PM - 1 Like   #46
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
Digitalis's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Adelaide.
Posts: 10,369
I will also point out my use of protective filters is purely situational, for the majority of situations I find a lens hood is a far more reliable way of protecting lenses [and the fragile filter threads].

QuoteOriginally posted by stevebrot Quote
Death by digitalis...I have heard of such a thing.
Some of my colleagues I work with are familiar with my nom de guerre, always look suspiciously at me when I bring a bag of Tea to the Studio.


Last edited by Digitalis; 02-04-2020 at 07:08 AM.
02-03-2020, 10:09 PM   #47
PDL
Pentaxian




Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: PNW USA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,084
For those of you who:
Shot a lot of film (B&W, color and especially slide film)
Did not live at 7K+ feet (2133 m)
If you shot anything, especially landscapes, there was UV haze. The use of UV and Skylight filters was SOP. I did notice that when I got down to below 5K feet it was not all that bad, but shooting in the mountains West of town around 12K feet (‪3,657 m) if you did not have a UV or Skylight filters it got pretty bad. Heck I even had to give up using Photochromic Lenses in my glasses as they would turn nearly opaque even under full cloud cover. Just try to ski with very dark glasses and see what I mean.

My use of Skylight (1A) and UV filters has carried over to my use in digital for mostly protective reasons. Now that I live at about 200 ft (60 m) I do not need them for UV filtration but I use them for protection. I also use lens hoods almost to a religious fervor but lens hoods will not stop sand and salt spray from getting on your lens. And as I learned from my pain in the rear older brother, it is easier to clean a filter than a lens after he would stick his finger in his mouth and rub it all over my lenses leaving the spit to dry.

Do what you gotta do.
02-04-2020, 03:54 AM - 2 Likes   #48
Unregistered User
Guest




I use the Chiaro 99-UVBTS Brass UV filters. They advertise 99% light transmission, and the brass ring is milled on the front and the side (easy to grip to get it on and off). I don't know what it is they're measuring or how they get it to 99% throughput, though. Maybe they're more restrictive as to which frequencies are blocked. I figure it's the best compromise between blocking UV and protection. Somewhat expensive, but they seem to work really well.

I don't switch lenses that frequently, but I'm paranoid about accidental damage. My daddy told me, "Take good care of your stuff; you may not be able to replace it, so you better make sure it lasts." That's how the po'folks talk, you know, and poverty makes one aware of the transitory nature of "stuff", and the potential inability to replicate damaged items. I think it's a good lesson.

Last edited by BigMackCam; 02-04-2020 at 04:10 AM. Reason: Edited vulgarity per forum rules
02-04-2020, 03:55 AM   #49
Unregistered User
Guest




QuoteOriginally posted by PDL Quote
... And as I learned from my pain in the rear older brother, it is easier to clean a filter than a lens after he would stick his finger in his mouth and rub it all over my lenses leaving the spit to dry. ...
That's what I refer to as "the application of universal solvent."

02-04-2020, 10:51 AM   #50
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Rochester, NY
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 4,860
I rarely use filters anymore. But if I am in a hostile environment I will put them on. Thermal features at Yellowstone being one example. If the water from a geyser splashes on your lens it can wreak havoc on your lens coatings because it is acidic and full of minerals. Other than situations like that I take my chances.


I always use UV or haze filters. Whatever I have on hand. Any minor color shift or contrast loss is easily dealt with in post processing. Flare is a personal taste thing. I am not so certain that modern coatings that essentially eliminate all flare is a good thing. Sometimes flare can be used to accentuate a photograph. It is pretty easy to control on older lenses just by using your hand or a hat held off to the side to shade the front of the lens.
02-04-2020, 03:48 PM   #51
PDL
Pentaxian




Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: PNW USA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,084
QuoteOriginally posted by dlh Quote
That's what I refer to as "the application of universal solvent."
Well, he normally had dirty fingers as he worked in/owned a gas station and the filters did get scratched some times. Isopropyl alcohol would usually clean them up reasonably well. I did hear my Dad chewing him out out after he "had his little joke", after that conversation, he never did it again. My father got me into photography and we built up our camera collections and color darkroom kit together - so intentionally spitting on someone's lenses was a sore point with him. Anyway, the problem was resolved.

---------- Post added 02-04-20 at 02:58 PM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by gaweidert Quote
I rarely use filters anymore. But if I am in a hostile environment I will put them on. Thermal features at Yellowstone being one example. If the water from a geyser splashes on your lens it can wreak havoc on your lens coatings because it is acidic and full of minerals. Other than situations like that I take my chances.

I always use UV or haze filters. Whatever I have on hand. Any minor color shift or contrast loss is easily dealt with in post processing. Flare is a personal taste thing. I am not so certain that modern coatings that essentially eliminate all flare is a good thing. Sometimes flare can be used to accentuate a photograph. It is pretty easy to control on older lenses just by using your hand or a hat held off to the side to shade the front of the lens.
I can remember that when I was first going to Yellowstone, there were signs from Kodak spread around the geyser basins warning people about getting spray on their cameras. There were rangers talking about it too during the evening "Ranger Talks" in the campgrounds. You also have to remember that Yellowstone is at 7K feet above mean sea level. The concentration of UV will bring out the haze in the atmosphere to a large degree. (Last year was my tenth trip to Yellowstone - the first with only digital) I have a UV filter on my DA* 50-135 but not the DA* 16-50. I was well aware of the steam and other "fumes" when I was using the 16-50. I cleaned the front of the lenses nightly - something I always do while "out in the field" is check the cleanliness of the lens surface. Mostly brush off the dust and use my rocket blower and if there are fingerprints (no - not the brothers) I have a few microfiber cloths and a Lens Pen.
02-04-2020, 04:43 PM   #52
Pentaxian
BruceBanner's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 5,201
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Digitalis Quote
This is basically what I do to keep salt sea spray or dust and sand off my lenses. For the record I use fully multicoated filters to minimize any potential for flare. There are some manufacturers that use exotic hard materials for their filters like Sapphire glass, which can still be shattered if you hit them on the plane of cleavage: shards of sapphire glass hold a keener edge than any knife.

When I'm working in the studio and I need to work at a fast pace and the situation demands switching lenses quickly, I select the lens I need and I hand the previous lens on to my assistant whom I rely on to take care of them on pain of death.
My assistants are 9 and 13, I'd rather keep the lens in my pocket where my keys and loose change go, safer there than in my assistants hands!

02-04-2020, 05:07 PM   #53
Pentaxian
photoptimist's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2016
Photos: Albums
Posts: 4,728
QuoteOriginally posted by PDL Quote
I can remember that when I was first going to Yellowstone, there were signs from Kodak spread around the geyser basins warning people about getting spray on their cameras. There were rangers talking about it too during the evening "Ranger Talks" in the campgrounds. .
They are not kidding! The spray for Old Faithful is evil! I got some on my eyeglasses once and it left a fine pattern of faint tiny rings of mineralization. I tried various cleansers, including vinegar, but nothing ever removed them. No doubt, the volcanic hot spring waters of a geyser have some amount of silica which nicely fused to the glass.

(Perhaps next time I should screw a pair "protective filters" on my glasses. LOL!)
02-04-2020, 08:12 PM - 1 Like   #54
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
Digitalis's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Adelaide.
Posts: 10,369
QuoteOriginally posted by photoptimist Quote
I tried various cleansers, including vinegar,
A dilute 5% solution of acetic acid wouldn't have much effect [as you discovered], to break down the calcium/silicate mineral complexes and biofilm residues, ammonia or very dilute sodium hydroxide would have been a better choice.
02-05-2020, 03:25 AM   #55
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
newmikey's Avatar

Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,014
QuoteOriginally posted by dlh Quote
I use the Chiaro 99-UVBTS Brass UV filters. They advertise 99% light transmission, and the brass ring is milled on the front and the side (easy to grip to get it on and off). I don't know what it is they're measuring or how they get it to 99% throughput, though. Maybe they're more restrictive as to which frequencies are blocked. I figure it's the best compromise between blocking UV and protection. Somewhat expensive, but they seem to work really well.
Hopefully you are aware of the fact that 99% light transmission is not even near sufficient or industry-leading? Actually, it is absolutely nothing to boast about but the marketeers have made it into a selling point for easily-influenced people. Hoya Evo antistatic filters yield 99.8% light transmission rate and their HD3 filter get 99.7%.

That sounds just like a small difference but what it actually means is that your Chiaro results in up to five times more light-loss than the others I mentioned. Yes, marketing can actually make you believe a bad thing is actually fantastic! As to your "somewhat expensive", these Chiaro's are fairly cheap when compared to others - a mere $50 compared to between $80 and $130!

It is a wonderful example of the lucrative business of selling cheap planar glass at hugely inflated prices to people who don't need it by boasting about fairly average light transmission rates as if they are revolutionary and brass material as if it is something nobody else offers. And of course you'd say "they seem to work really well" as saying anything else would mean you have foolishly thrown away your money. It's what all people say when they are trying to defend purchases and it is generally called "buyer's bias".
02-05-2020, 03:33 AM   #56
Unregistered User
Guest




Kinda depends on exactly which light is being transmitted, don't it? A UV filter's main purpose is to prevent some light from getting through. I'd prefer that the mfgrs. would add graphs to their marketing showing exactly what frequencies are getting excluded and to what degree. Perhaps someone knows of a website showing where someone's tested various filters to be able to compare that particular feature. If I were going to go for something that allows 99.8% of the light to go through, I may as well have plain glass.
02-05-2020, 03:36 AM - 1 Like   #57
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
BigMackCam's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: North-East of England
Posts: 16,976
QuoteOriginally posted by dlh Quote
Kinda depends on exactly which light is being transmitted, don't it? A UV filter's main purpose is to prevent some light from getting through. I'd prefer that the mfgrs. would add graphs to their marketing showing exactly what frequencies are getting excluded and to what degree. Perhaps someone knows of a website showing where someone's tested various filters to be able to compare that particular feature. If I were going to go for something that allows 99.8% of the light to go through, I may as well have plain glass.
Although this article doesn't give the frequency attenuation info for each filter, it's a useful read in general (and from an excellent source):

Lens Rentals | My Not Quite Complete Protective Filter Article
02-05-2020, 04:04 AM   #58
Unregistered User
Guest




QuoteOriginally posted by BigMackCam Quote
Although this article doesn't give the frequency attenuation info for each filter, it's a useful read in general (and from an excellent source):

Lens Rentals | My Not Quite Complete Protective Filter Article
Good article, thanks. I'd seen another one that had a table showing how closely the light transmission numbers match the marketing, and the Chiaro UVBTS was among the best. This one show that filter producing the worst distortion. I'm going to have to do some experimentation of my own to see if I can detect such distortion myself. The flaring that was illustrated would suggest to me that the two sides of the filter were not parallel.
02-05-2020, 04:06 AM   #59
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
newmikey's Avatar

Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,014
QuoteOriginally posted by dlh Quote
Kinda depends on exactly which light is being transmitted, don't it? A UV filter's main purpose is to prevent some light from getting through. I'd prefer that the mfgrs. would add graphs to their marketing showing exactly what frequencies are getting excluded and to what degree. Perhaps someone knows of a website showing where someone's tested various filters to be able to compare that particular feature. If I were going to go for something that allows 99.8% of the light to go through, I may as well have plain glass.
And isn't that exactly what you want for digital knowing that UV has no effect outside of analog?
02-05-2020, 12:32 PM   #60
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: MT
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,302
Many Pentax supertelephotos came with PF filter installed--Protective Front. I've looked at several...the PF on the front of the F*600/4 and FA*600/4 was a slight pinkish skylight color. The PF filter for the FA*250-600/5.6 appeared to be completely clear...I never looked at the color cast on the PF for the A*300/2.8...that filter did not come with the lens. I purchased it used and never really assessed the color. PF for the M*400/4 for 67 was slightly pinkish skylight color too and it really hated stacking any other filters...completely lost focus...

All claimed to be multi-coated and some were mentioned in the respective manuals to be "Part of the optical formula" and not to be removed for shooting. I know this because when I purchased a used F*600 the used equipment seller also had the big 145mm PF filter for sale separately (that they had removed from the lens) I sent the verbiage in the manual describing the PF filter as part of the optical formula and I insisted they send it to me at no charge...which they did. That's when I noticed the skylight pink color.

So the question of whether to use or not use is already answered on some of the supertele's. If it came with the lens, Pentax says, "Use it."
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!
base, caps, coatings, cpl, da*, filter, filter vs uv, filters, flare, front, hand, lens, lenses, light, protector, protector filter vs, source, tiffen, tripod, uv, yellowstone
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
K-5 vs MZ-S vs LX vs PZ-1p vs ist*D vs K10D vs K20D vs K-7 vs....... Steelski Pentax K-5 & K-5 II 2 06-28-2017 04:59 PM
DA70 UV filter / lens protector + hood - thoughts? BigMackCam Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 10 05-09-2015 07:11 AM
For Sale - Sold: Panasonic LX-5 with Screen Protector, Filter Adapter Tube & UV Filter (Price Drop!!!) isb.deep Sold Items 6 09-19-2012 07:37 PM
UV filter or Clear Protector dazman Pentax Camera and Field Accessories 12 05-29-2008 05:15 PM
UV filter vs Protector Snowcat Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 7 12-12-2007 10:17 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:16 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