[Simen1]

Question: will Tamron offer the 16~300 in K-mount?? Probably not, which is a pity as it would be another fine choice for walk-around and tourist-travel.

The zoom factor of this class of lenses have been increasing from time to time. The last decade from 18-200 to 18-250 to 18-270 to 18-300 to 16-300. What is next? 15-300 or 16-320 (both 20x)? Maybe we get a Pentax 15-300 or thereabout in the near future, or a 28-300 for FF or both.

[normhead]

My experience with filters is that they keep me from getting the actual lens dirty, which even with careful cleaning etc. will eventually lead to a degradation of IQ. It's much cheaper to buy a new filter than to buy a new lens. That is the big thing for me. I have never had a finer print, or any other dirt on any of my filter protected lenses. The lens I have that can't use filters are a constant source of worry. Even things as simple as condensation on the lens during star trails is a worry. How do i clean that off without affecting the coatings?

That is why I use filters... but, if you ignore that benefit and pretend like it's irrelevant, then I guess you can make a case for not using them.

---------- Post added 03-16-16 at 10:41 AM ----------

The zoom factor of this class of lenses have been increasing from time to time. The last decade from 18-200 to 18-250 to 18-270 to 18-300 to 16-300. What is next? 15-300 or 16-320 (both 20x)? Maybe we get a Pentax 15-300 or thereabout in the near future, or a 28-300 for FF or both.

Only the Pentax 55-300 is optimized to be strong in the long end as far as I know.

While zoom factor has increased, other factors such as the characteristics of out of focus areas has remained pretty much dismal, especially in zooms that go from wide angle to telephoto. These zooms give you the 95% of what you need for a great image. If you want the last 5% of what's possible, you have to upgrade.

You just have to ask yourself, what am I going for here?

More zoom range could be the answer. More IQ could be the answer, but usually those two things are not answered by the same lens.

[rawr]

But you tell me, why didn't the authors of this article just come out and say.. "don't use filters"?

No thanks. Let's not get into another 'UV filters Holy War' here.

[normhead]

No thanks. Let's not get into another 'UV filters Holy War' here.

That's what it comes down to.... it's like anything else, there are positives and there are negatives... if you get caught up in either one. Working in a clean controlled environment, maybe you can get away without using filters. I think of them as seat belts. There may be situations where they have a negative affect, but you use them because the positive effects in your situation, out weighs the negative. Lets not get dogmatic and use terms like"never" or pretend they have no positive uses.

There have been times when I used a polarizing filter to clean up the type of flare you show in your examples, so all I have to say about that is, you used the wrong filter, or it was poorly adjusted. They come with a ring so they can be rotated for a reason.

One guy using the wrong tool for the job doesn't wipe out a whole category of tools.

---

Last edited by normhead; 03-16-2016 at 07:58 AM.

[Rondec]

I know it is a rabbit trail, but how easy is it really to clean the coatings off your lens, if you are using a normal lens cloth and lens cleaner? My understanding was that most Pentax coatings were tough enough to withstand normal lens cloth and cleaner.

[normhead]

I know it is a rabbit trail, but how easy is it really to clean the coatings of your lens, if you are using a normal lens cloth and lens cleaner? My understanding was that most Pentax coatings were tough enough to withstand normal lens cloth and cleaner.

Unless you are in the field and you have grit blow onto your lens cleaning cloth after you remove it from where ever you stored it, before it gets to the camera. Once again, experience vs theory.

A bit of dust in the wind can turn your cloth into a piece of sand paper. Pentax lenses were not designed to withstand being rubbed by sand paper.

[Rondec]

Unless you are in the field and you have grit blow onto your lens cleaning cloth after you remove it from where ever you stored it, before it gets to the camera. Once again, experience vs theory.

A bit of dust in the wind can turn your cloth into a piece of sand paper. Pentax lenses were not designed to withstand being rubbed by sand paper.

True.

But neither are expensive UV filters.

[normhead]

True.

But neither are expensive UV filters.

But replacing them is much cheaper than replacing lenses.

[FantasticMrFox]

I have never had to replace a filter, and I have never managed to scratch or otherwise damage a lens. Modern lens' front elements are extremely hard, and scratching them is difficult, even of one intentionally attacks them with pincers or something similar (there is a Youtube video of that, and the guy fails to scratch the lens). Any substantial impact that could break a front element is usually easily absorbed with a lens hood, which actually improves image quality too.

So while expensive, high quality protective filters will not have a visible effect on image quality, they are at least money wasted, unless one frequently shoots in sand storms, on motocross tracks or in a war zone.

[bobore]

Hoya HMC filters on every lens.

Would feel naked without 'em!

[normhead]

Folks can be opinionated about this. OK, lets go with some science here... you can't prove a negative. You absolutely can not say, no one ever benefits from filters. I know, a lot of you just did, but, you should know better.

All you can say, is "I haven't experienced a situation where they aren't a waste of money."
To which I replay, "once you've experienced one, the cost will be so great you'll wish you'll thought different."

Find out what photographers use these things for. Don't assume everyone who uses filters doesn't know as much as you do. Some of them might be a lot smarter than you, even if it's not me.

[slip]

Zooms are a lot better then they used to be 😜

[WPRESTO]

The zoom factor of this class of lenses have been increasing from time to time. The last decade from 18-200 to 18-250 to 18-270 to 18-300 to 16-300. What is next? 15-300 or 16-320 (both 20x)? Maybe we get a Pentax 15-300 or thereabout in the near future, or a 28-300 for FF or both.

Tamron does make a FF compatible 28~300mm that is very moderately priced (about $370 in k-mount). Owner ratings on B&H suggest the lens has decent performance (about 4.5 out of 5 by Canikon, Sony and Pentax users)

[FantasticMrFox]

Folks can be opinionated about this.

Have you considered photographic insurance? Insuring one's entire gear for years will not be that much more expensive than buying high quality protective filters for every lens, and it covers much more than just the front element.

[normhead]

Have you considered that the filters make hardly any difference at all, and that you might be totally over-reacting?