Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
07-24-2009, 11:36 AM   #31
Loyal Site Supporter
dcmsox2004's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: rhode island
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 7,331
.... now, don't anyone out there jump on me... just asking..
if one would simply like to protect the front element of his/her lens....
just because of high anxiety or the propensity to be a klutz......
nikon has a 'clear' piece o' glass............
take a peek... Nikon 77mm Neutral Color Filter NC Reviews | 73 reviews
and nikon has, at least to my limited non pentax knowledge... put
crap on the market............. okay, i'm ready for the barrage...


Last edited by dcmsox2004; 07-24-2009 at 11:37 AM. Reason: misspell
07-24-2009, 11:38 AM   #32
Loyal Site Supporter
dcmsox2004's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: rhode island
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 7,331
meant to say that nikon has NOT put crap on the market for public consumption...
07-24-2009, 11:50 AM   #33
Veteran Member
Gooshin's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Toronto, the one in Canada.
Posts: 5,611
QuoteOriginally posted by dcmsox2004 Quote
meant to say that nikon has NOT put crap on the market for public consumption...
o'rly?


the point is, its a personal choice. I think its silly to be so over protective over a tool that is meant to be used.

Lens manufactuers would build them with filters from factory if it was really such a problem

a century of lens making and hey... still no stock filters

filters for the sake of physical protection only is silly, the paranoia of such a decision just bugs the hell out of me, tin foil hats and all.

i mean if you have liquid nytrogen spill on you, i'm sure you are going to have bigger problems

and if you have tree branches poking at your front element so hard that they scratch it, again, you are probably in a situation where the camera condition is the least of your worries.

plus, most lens damage that actually affects IQ significantly will be from shock impact, ie, lens seperation, or failure of mechanical components, such as AF or Aperture Control.

as MANY threads have shown, a scuffed up front element, dust, and fungus, are not that scary.

wear and tear!

i guess i'm not much of a collector.
07-24-2009, 12:02 PM   #34
Banned




Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Savannah, U.S./Baguio City, P.H.
Posts: 5,979
QuoteQuote:
a century of lens making and hey... still no stock filters
not true. many early zooms and long telephotos came from the factory with a UV filter. my Super-Takumar zoom came with a UV filter. (and it has multi-coating, being a late super-takumar) they are especially good for telephoto, to cut some of the haze seen in long distance photographs.

07-24-2009, 12:06 PM   #35
Veteran Member
Gooshin's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Toronto, the one in Canada.
Posts: 5,611
QuoteOriginally posted by séamuis Quote
not true. many early zooms and long telephotos came from the factory with a UV filter. my Super-Takumar zoom came with a UV filter. (and it has multi-coating, being a late super-takumar) they are especially good for telephoto, to cut some of the haze seen in long distance photographs.
okay i stand corrected.

but my brand new FA43, Sigma 10-20 and DA21 came with no filters.. so, i guess something improved?
07-24-2009, 12:12 PM   #36
Banned




Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Savannah, U.S./Baguio City, P.H.
Posts: 5,979
QuoteOriginally posted by Gooshin Quote
okay i stand corrected.

but my brand new FA43, Sigma 10-20 and DA21 came with no filters.. so, i guess something improved?

not the same kind of lenses. with a long telephoto the haze and fogginess of ultraviolet light is magnified. look at a shot taken from a 300+mm lens from a city building as an example. but yes I imagine quite a large number of things have improved. but until one can show that modern multi-coating is designed for both cutting flare and light scattering as well as cutting ultraviolet radiation, there could very well be a need for a UV filter.
07-24-2009, 12:54 PM   #37
Senior Member




Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 115
QuoteOriginally posted by dcmsox2004 Quote
.... now, don't anyone out there jump on me... just asking..
if one would simply like to protect the front element of his/her lens....
just because of high anxiety or the propensity to be a klutz......
nikon has a 'clear' piece o' glass............
take a peek... Nikon 77mm Neutral Color Filter NC Reviews | 73 reviews
and nikon has, at least to my limited non pentax knowledge... put
crap on the market............. okay, i'm ready for the barrage...
Just get the Hoya HMC Super multi-coated UV filter (you don't need the expensive thin one) and be done with it. Instant peace of mind and that's what matters.
07-24-2009, 05:23 PM   #38
Site Supporter
Marc Langille's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: NW Arkansas, USA
Posts: 4,702
QuoteOriginally posted by mischivo Quote
Pro-UV filter arguments get on my nerves. And just because of that, I'm recanting my advice. Do me a favour, waste your money and purchase a UV filter... or twenty, make sure to get the most expensive B+W ones too.
QuoteOriginally posted by Gooshin Quote
his comment is fine
As an aside, I would encourage those folks that are both newcomers (and vets) who are answering in the beginners corner be a tad more tolerant of one another and their opinions while helping out - you are helping out, right?

Regards,
Marc

07-24-2009, 05:36 PM   #39
Site Supporter
Marc Langille's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: NW Arkansas, USA
Posts: 4,702
QuoteOriginally posted by séamuis Quote
not true. many early zooms and long telephotos came from the factory with a UV filter. my Super-Takumar zoom came with a UV filter. (and it has multi-coating, being a late super-takumar) they are especially good for telephoto, to cut some of the haze seen in long distance photographs.
QuoteOriginally posted by Gooshin Quote
okay i stand corrected.

but my brand new FA43, Sigma 10-20 and DA21 came with no filters.. so, i guess something improved?
FWIW, it still applies to some lenses newer than the Takumar line. Most of the longer FA* lenses come with a PF (protective front) filter, with a rubber edge. This is to protect the coatings on the front element when the hood is either not extended (FA* 600/4 or FA* 250-600/5.6) or it's been reversed (FA* 300/2.8). That PF filter is installed on the FA* 300/2.8 as part of the lens product, despite it having a 5 inch long hood. The hood bonnet will eventually break down so you cannot rely on them to protect the front element during travel when the hood is reversed, etc.

I am not sure if Pentax would install these PF filters if there was a real issue with image quality.The images I've shot with the FA* 250-600/5.6 and the FA* 300/2.8 lenses show that if you capture a less than sharp image, it's a problem with the photographer, not the filter.

I am not making a blanket statement about using or not using filters = to each their own. Working in the field means I often encounter less than ideal conditions. I prefer quick cleaning options with a cloth, then proper lens cleaning if needed when I have downtime. I have yet to see any filters I use, be it PF, CPL , ND, 812 and very occasionally a UV to be a problem with the sharpness of the image quality of the photos I have taken. Of course, YMMV...

Regards,
Marc
07-25-2009, 10:16 AM   #40
Veteran Member
mischivo's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Toronto
Posts: 397
Marc, being a newcomer has nothing to do with the legitimacy of my advice. Direct your attention to the first page of the conversation and you'll see my advice on the issue. What you quote is my surrender to others unwillingness to heed it. This is their option, and my frustrated suggestion in such a circumstance is to waste money (the opposite of what I argued) and buy the most expensive filter, which also happens to be among, if not, the best.

My help is only as good as the student's willingness to benefit from it.

As an aside, that seamuis person, who called my comment asinine, should prove his comments about the efficacy of UV filters to affect image quality towards the better. You've claimed you have a UV filter, so give us a demonstration, please. Take a photo with and without a UV filter of a subject in which its effect would be evident, and let us be the judges of its non-protective merits. Thanks,

Last edited by mischivo; 07-25-2009 at 10:21 AM.
07-25-2009, 10:57 AM   #41
Banned




Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Savannah, U.S./Baguio City, P.H.
Posts: 5,979
QuoteOriginally posted by mischivo Quote
Marc, being a newcomer has nothing to do with the legitimacy of my advice. Direct your attention to the first page of the conversation and you'll see my advice on the issue. What you quote is my surrender to others unwillingness to heed it. This is their option, and my frustrated suggestion in such a circumstance is to waste money (the opposite of what I argued) and buy the most expensive filter, which also happens to be among, if not, the best.

My help is only as good as the student's willingness to benefit from it.

As an aside, that seamuis person, who called my comment asinine, should prove his comments about the efficacy of UV filters to affect image quality towards the better. You've claimed you have a UV filter, so give us a demonstration, please. Take a photo with and without a UV filter of a subject in which its effect would be evident, and let us be the judges of its non-protective merits. Thanks,
I have to prove nothing. I never said they absolutely positively effect the image, I merely stated that there is no evidence that I am aware of that shows they degrade image quality. then I stated what there intended use is, as I felt Gooshin and some others were confusing what multi-coating is used for and what a UV filter is supposed to be used for. why don't you prove that they do 'degrade' image quality? and why should I prove to you something simply because I called your statement asinine? it was, plain and simple. you want me to prove something because I called you out on your unneeded comment? bollocks. you have an obvious attitude problem, that I have seen in other threads already. I stand by my statements, you are the one who has something to prove. not me.
07-25-2009, 11:18 AM   #42
Pentaxian
Marc Sabatella's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Denver, CO
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 10,686
QuoteOriginally posted by séamuis Quote
I have to prove nothing. I never said they absolutely positively effect the image, I merely stated that there is no evidence that I am aware of that shows they degrade image quality.
There is plenty of evidence that *some* filters degrade IQ on *some* lenses. Whether it's always necessarily so is another matter.

QuoteQuote:
as I felt Gooshin and some others were confusing what multi-coating is used for and what a UV filter is supposed to be used for.
And that was an interesting point, although the bit about UV filters helping with flare is a pretty common marketing claim, and I admit to being confused as to what the actual purpose is supposed to be and when it supposedly would help.

In any case, the null/default assumption would be that a given filter has no effect whatsoever on a given lens - positive or negative - until proven otherwise. In all these years of filters being designed and used, I'm sure the experiment has been performed thousands of times, but the fact that there is not universal agreement on the matter suggests to me that the reality is some filters might help a little with some lenses, others might hurt with with others lenses, and sometimes it just doesn't matter one way or the other.
07-25-2009, 11:27 AM   #43
Banned




Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Savannah, U.S./Baguio City, P.H.
Posts: 5,979
QuoteOriginally posted by Marc Sabatella Quote
There is plenty of evidence that *some* filters degrade IQ on *some* lenses. Whether it's always necessarily so is another matter.



And that was an interesting point, although the bit about UV filters helping with flare is a pretty common marketing claim, and I admit to being confused as to what the actual purpose is supposed to be and when it supposedly would help.

In any case, the null/default assumption would be that a given filter has no effect whatsoever on a given lens - positive or negative - until proven otherwise. In all these years of filters being designed and used, I'm sure the experiment has been performed thousands of times, but the fact that there is not universal agreement on the matter suggests to me that the reality is some filters might help a little with some lenses, others might hurt with with others lenses, and sometimes it just doesn't matter one way or the other.
this is probably true. for which I am more than willing to admit, but there is no definitive evidence that I am aware of that shows that simply using a UV filter on a lens (regardless of type) will cause degradation of image quality. nor is there any studies that I am aware of that show the effects of a UV radiation blocking filter when used in front of a multi-coated lens. or a non multi-coated or even single coated lens. so its foolish to say that its foolish to 'waste' money on a UV filter.
07-25-2009, 11:30 AM   #44
Site Supporter
Marc Langille's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: NW Arkansas, USA
Posts: 4,702
QuoteOriginally posted by mischivo Quote
Marc, being a newcomer has nothing to do with the legitimacy of my advice. Direct your attention to the first page of the conversation and you'll see my advice on the issue. What you quote is my surrender to others unwillingness to heed it. This is their option, and my frustrated suggestion in such a circumstance is to waste money (the opposite of what I argued) and buy the most expensive filter, which also happens to be among, if not, the best.
I never said being a newcomer has anything to do with the legitimacy of your posts - you did. You are putting your statement out of the context of mine. Going back and forth like it's a jousting tournament is not necessary - the OP is the person who clearly states this. Simply feeding one another (Serge/Gooshin backing your statement that I originally quoted) is neither necessary nor helping the OP.

QuoteQuote:
My help is only as good as the student's willingness to benefit from it.

As an aside, that seamuis person, who called my comment asinine, should prove his comments about the efficacy of UV filters to affect image quality towards the better. You've claimed you have a UV filter, so give us a demonstration, please. Take a photo with and without a UV filter of a subject in which its effect would be evident, and let us be the judges of its non-protective merits. Thanks,
Pavel, putting aside the contentions you had with others, let's go to the crux of your upset and remember that I stated I sometimes use them. That is a shame that you feel it must be up to you to decide, not take my statement at face value and accept it. It doesn't mean you have to agree with anyone. What is so wrong with acceptance of another's opinion, so long as it's not pushed on you? (I know, it's rhetorical, but I think you understand my intent.) You can agree to disagree with someone else... and it doesn't have to become anything more than a disagreement.

Per your request, I submit to you a hand held 200/4 macro with UV filter installed - no sharpening with the "soft" K10D JPEGS that DPR made an issue of of... You be the judge:



I am not afraid to post crops, so there is no contention that "they are resized for web use" arguments. Here is the crop, not yet at 100%:


Do you need images without the UV filter installed or will this suffice as evidence? I am not interested in spending a lot of time doing this for the sake of an argument (not between us). Whether or not a UV filter being installed seems to be very important to your claim that it degrades image quality. You wish to make clear to everyone that it has no value - I stated that I sometimes use them for work in the field and they have value to me. I will refer to my original post, which clearly states that it's your choice:
QuoteOriginally posted by Marc Langille Quote
....The images I've shot with the FA* 250-600/5.6 and the FA* 300/2.8 lenses show that if you capture a less than sharp image, it's a problem with the photographer, not the filter.

I am not making a blanket statement about using or not using filters = to each their own. Working in the field means I often encounter less than ideal conditions. I prefer quick cleaning options with a cloth, then proper lens cleaning if needed when I have downtime. I have yet to see any filters I use, be it PF, CPL , ND, 812 and very occasionally a UV to be a problem with the sharpness of the image quality of the photos I have taken. Of course, YMMV...
Regards,
Marc
07-25-2009, 11:55 AM   #45
Veteran Member
mischivo's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Toronto
Posts: 397
QuoteOriginally posted by Marc Langille Quote
As an aside, I would encourage those folks that are both newcomers (and vets) who are answering in the beginners corner be a tad more tolerant of one another and their opinions while helping out - you are helping out, right?

Regards,
Marc
QuoteOriginally posted by séamuis Quote
I have to prove nothing. I never said they absolutely positively effect the image, I merely stated that there is no evidence that I am aware of that shows they degrade image quality. then I stated what there intended use is, as I felt Gooshin and some others were confusing what multi-coating is used for and what a UV filter is supposed to be used for. why don't you prove that they do 'degrade' image quality? and why should I prove to you something simply because I called your statement asinine? it was, plain and simple. you want me to prove something because I called you out on your unneeded comment? bollocks. you have an obvious attitude problem, that I have seen in other threads already. I stand by my statements, you are the one who has something to prove. not me.
I appeal that you reread what you quote me on above. I did not request you to prove something because you attempted to insult me; that comment was made to provide a background or your general tone towards me. It has nothing to do with the UV filter's efficacy.

Now on to the quote above. Unfortunately, you're in a better position to prove your case empirically than I to prove mine, as you own a UV filter and I do not. I'm not about to purchase one to win a debate on these forums. You would not have to purchase a thing. However, my argument against UV filters isn't even made from an image quality perspective, it's made from a budgetary and functional angle. If I were to argue from image quality, my argument is based on a maxim that I'm certain everyone will agree with: adding any additional glass between a lens and the subject will always affect the way light is transmitted. Filters may introduce further loss of contrast, hallows, ghosting, and so forth, especially when shooting towards the Sun. More expensive filters, like the B+W I suggested the OP purchase, if they choose to waste their money on filters, will obviously have less impact on the image and suffer to a lesser degree the symptoms I've described above. Cheaper filters will exhibit more of those symptoms and with greater severity. My argument is mainly against the protective aspect of UV/Haze filters. Search the beginner's corner for my specific points against this if you'd like to see what I say. I firmly believe that if a photographer is aiming for a filter-specific image effect, than the trade-offs are worth it. I recently purchased a number of Hoya/Kenko polarizers. However, I'm yet to see any demonstrable effect of blocking UV light at the filter level of the optical system (which consists of the filter, lens, and sensor/film). This is why I asked you to prove the effects you've said are achieved. I've certainly seen many "examples" of a UV/Haze filter effect on the packaging, more more often than not, it's two identical photos, of one which has been manipulated in Photoshop to look more contrasty.

Otherwise, you and a number of others seem to be overly hostile towards me and my opinions. I sincerely apologize for not sugar-coating them and making them more palatable, but life isn't always like that.

Additionally, to the administrators who are "closely" monitoring what I write: I'm more receptive of warnings sent directly to me. Thank you.
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, filter, pentax help, photography
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
For Sale - Sold: Pentax and Albinar 2x TCs, 2 Cokin A filter sets, 49mm Filter and Macro tubes pxpaulx Sold Items 15 02-11-2010 09:09 PM
UV filter and polarized filter mba1971 Troubleshooting and Beginner Help 7 11-09-2009 04:23 PM
Infrared Filter help? Bad filter and technique Peter Zack Photographic Technique 13 10-16-2007 06:52 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:38 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