Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
04-04-2012, 08:57 AM   #1
Inactive Account




Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Elkridge, Maryland
Posts: 6
Uv filter on 40mm pentax DA lens

I tried out my new Pentax DA 40 mm 2.8 pancake lens with a UV filter. I took a shot of my dining room table with a strong back light coming thru my venetian blinds and noticed that I picked up some thin blue bars that appeared to come from a reflection from the blinds. A second shot showed the same. I removed the 49mm UV Tiffin filter and snapped the picture again with no filter. The bars were no longer there. Anyone else had this experience?

04-04-2012, 09:10 AM   #2
Site Supporter
SpecialK's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: So California
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 14,627
QuoteQuote:
Anyone else had this experience?
Yes, which is why people don't use filters without some needed effect. UV protection is not one of them.
04-04-2012, 10:01 AM   #3
Veteran Member
Anvh's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 4,616
Also any other form of protection is questionable with the DA40 because the lens hood offers a lot of protection for this lens.
04-04-2012, 11:14 AM   #4
Inactive Account




Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Elkridge, Maryland
Posts: 6
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Anvh Quote
Also any other form of protection is questionable with the DA40 because the lens hood offers a lot of protection for this lens.
WOW! My thanks to both of you. That raises the question: Have filter companies been selling us a bill of goods as to the necessity of filters? I can see perhaps needing a polaroid or neutral density at times, but others? I see where you can by a UV filter from one company that charges $350!

04-04-2012, 11:35 AM   #5
Veteran Member




Join Date: May 2011
Location: Southern California
Photos: Albums
Posts: 4,082
A UV filter, of good quality, is great for protecting a huge exposed element of an expensive lens, especially in dusty/sandy conditions. That is about it.
04-04-2012, 11:36 AM   #6
Veteran Member
Anvh's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 4,616
No those filters have an effect.
With digital UV, Haze and whitebalance filters become so good as useless. The coating on the lens already cut down UV and also the protective filter in front of the sensor cut UV and IR light and white balance can now be done in camera.
As for protection around the time of WW2 most lenses where quite soft or their coatings so a protective filter was a smart way to protect the lens, for several decades now most lenses are treated with an extra hard protective coating so scratches and such are much less likely and so the extra protection of filters is questionable some swear by it while others don't use them any more.
04-04-2012, 03:20 PM   #7
Site Supporter
SpecialK's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: So California
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 14,627
I sometimes wonder if the people who use a "protective" filter on their lens also wear a helmet when outside :-) There is the same, or worse, risk involved.
04-04-2012, 03:22 PM   #8
Veteran Member




Join Date: May 2011
Location: Southern California
Photos: Albums
Posts: 4,082
I use one in the dust, rain and sand. The filter, not the helmet.

04-04-2012, 04:08 PM   #9
Pentaxian
Marc Sabatella's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Denver, CO
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 10,686
QuoteOriginally posted by OTTSY Quote
WOW! My thanks to both of you. That raises the question: Have filter companies been selling us a bill of goods as to the necessity of filters? I can see perhaps needing a polaroid or neutral density at times, but others? I see where you can by a UV filter from one company that charges $350!
UV filters served a useful purpose with film, and presumably still do. But the filter companies really aren't to blame for selling them to DSLR customers - after all, they are not even present when you are buying your DSLR. It is the camera salesmen who are to blame, since they are usually the ones pushing the filters. UV filters are the DSLR equivalent of he deluxe floor mat package for your new car, the extended service agreement on your new TV, the extra stain-guard treatment on your new sofa, etc. They provide a way of padding the profit margin.
04-04-2012, 04:51 PM   #10
Inactive Account




Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Elkridge, Maryland
Posts: 6
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Marc Sabatella Quote
UV filters served a useful purpose with film, and presumably still do. But the filter companies really aren't to blame for selling them to DSLR customers - after all, they are not even present when you are buying your DSLR. It is the camera salesmen who are to blame, since they are usually the ones pushing the filters. UV filters are the DSLR equivalent of he deluxe floor mat package for your new car, the extended service agreement on your new TV, the extra stain-guard treatment on your new sofa, etc. They provide a way of padding the profit margin.
Makes a lot of sense, Mark. It's only logical to think, buy an expensive lens, better get an expensive filter, right? I'm sure if someone came out with a UV filter ensconced in a platinum or 24 karat gold ring- profile or "slim" of course- there would be a market.
04-04-2012, 09:22 PM   #11
Veteran Member
Anvh's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 4,616
Filters will only hurt the quality so if you've a high quality lens the better it is to leave it off.
Look at insurances, maybe you can find a good one for a nice price.
04-05-2012, 04:58 AM   #12
Banned




Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Charleston & Pittsburgh
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,683
I've seen lens' of various types (from only three hundred to about 10K - a Leica with a f0.9) that have received significant damage to their front element - or worse.

Then again - after the results... Some photographers still try to adapt to any damage on the front of the element; or just plain disgard the lens all together. Yet in the case of the one Leica lens observed damage - guess what - it was basically turned back into Leica and repaired for a fee, but still well worth it.

Sure I also very much admire the optical quality of my lens', and am also aware of how most any filter can take away from that. Also out of some almost thirty years of professional photography I've only run into a few instances where the filter has actually really effected the final copy results.

I guess it would depend on the cost of the lens, also if the lens might be a rare one. But for me I would rather protect a majority of my lens collection
04-05-2012, 06:03 AM   #13
Site Supporter




Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Melbourne
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,885
QuoteOriginally posted by Marc Sabatella Quote
UV filters served a useful purpose with film, and presumably still do. But the filter companies really aren't to blame for selling them to DSLR customers - after all, they are not even present when you are buying your DSLR. It is the camera salesmen who are to blame, since they are usually the ones pushing the filters. UV filters are the DSLR equivalent of he deluxe floor mat package for your new car, the extended service agreement on your new TV, the extra stain-guard treatment on your new sofa, etc. They provide a way of padding the profit margin.
Hi

You hit the nail on the head.

Camera sales staff know instinctively when they deal with a person sans photographic knowledge. Just hang around a busy camera store, put yourself within ear shot of the counter and listen to the sales staff delivering their sales spiel. You will cringe with disbelieve.

UV filters are always being sold at inflated prices to make up for discounts on cameras . It is easy, just mention sand and salt on the beach and explain that even just a brief encounter with these two nasties will turn a lens into a piece of useless junk. It sounds sooo plausible and in the end the prospective customer will literally beg to be sold one.

I am wearing glasses and my many visits to the beach have, up to this day, not yet sandblasted my spectacle lenses "translucent". In fact my two year old spectacles on my face are exposed to the elements day in day out and nights as well. They show very very little signs of wear. And they are not anywhere as hard as camera lens glass is. (They are made from plastic) And I have not heard anybody suggesting I should put some sort of protective filter in front of these. So why should camera lenses be any different, particularly the modern ones with some having extra hard protective coatings. (See PENTAX SP Coating).

Today in the digital world there are more UV filter sold then during the days of film when UV filters actually made sense. Somebody had a clever marketing idea.

My PENTAX 60-250 has this SP coating. I am using it constantly, including pretty trying condition like shooting kitesurfers at the Gold Coast all day long. I have stopped putting the lens cap on this lens for more than 2 years ! Never use it anymore. All my other lenses ? Well I put the cap on if I remember. There is not a hint of a scratch on the front glass of any of my lenses ! I swear !

Occasionally I put filters on my lens, but only if photographic conditions requires this. Like CP or ND grad filters.

Greetings
04-05-2012, 03:12 PM   #14
Pentaxian
Na Horuk's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Slovenia, probably
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 10,507
QuoteOriginally posted by Schraubstock Quote
Occasionally I put filters on my lens, but only if photographic conditions requires this. Like CP or ND grad filters.
Yep, this is it. Oh, and I hear some lenses need a filter to be weather resistant.
04-05-2012, 06:14 PM   #15
Veteran Member
Anvh's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 4,616
Weather resistance? first time hearing that one.
I know that some coatings on filters like MRC on B+W repel water so in the rain the drops will not "stick" to the lens, same as the SP coating on some of the modern DA lenses.
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!
bars, da, filter, lens, pentax, pentax help, shot, uv, uv filter
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
For Sale - Sold: Sigma 28mm f/1.8 EX DG Macro lens and Pentax DA 40mm f/2.8 Limited lens Nick Siebers Sold Items 5 02-10-2012 01:22 PM
Cokin Filter Holder P + 40mm Pancake? Kirei Pentax Camera and Field Accessories 6 11-07-2011 12:29 PM
For Sale - Sold: Pentax FA, DA lenses 100mm, 50mm, 40mm, 14mm, 50-200mm; 77mm UV filter (CONUS) metungnasi Sold Items 12 03-16-2011 08:56 PM
UV Filter for the 40mm Ltd. soppy Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 18 12-12-2010 05:50 PM
Filter, New Cap for DA 40mm prime lens Earlybird Troubleshooting and Beginner Help 4 08-01-2009 12:35 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:23 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