Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
07-14-2008, 11:49 AM   #16
Veteran Member
Jewelltrail's Avatar

Join Date: May 2008
Location: Rhode Island
Photos: Albums
Posts: 4,180
QuoteQuote:
“Opus9, thanks for the tips! I don't have hoods for either of my lenses, but I did order a couple figuring a pair of hoods would be much cheaper than the wife option.” arthur pappas

QuoteQuote:
“A hood is a must have item to try and eliminate this. It is much cheaper than the wife option without question.” Peter Zack.”
You can sometimes get a great deal on wives over at Ebay. I understand there are some Chinese vendors with great deals as well, who actually cook and do laundry.

QuoteQuote:
arthur pappas: “What is this hexagon anomaly in my pics?”

As pointed out already, the hexagon shape itself is due to the aperture baldes being stopped down. If this picture were shot wide open, the shape of the flare would have been circular.



Regards,

Ernest

07-14-2008, 04:16 PM   #17
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Ste-Anne des Plaines, Qc., Canada
Posts: 2,014
QuoteOriginally posted by Jewelltrail Quote
You can sometimes get a great deal on wives over at Ebay. I understand there are some Chinese vendors with great deals as well, who actually cook and do laundry.
Regards,

Ernest
To me, the way I read this means the vendor is cooking and doing the laundry. Is this a bonus for the time the "wife" can't do the cooking or laundry due to "serious horizontal sport"?
07-14-2008, 05:29 PM   #18
Inactive Account




Join Date: May 2008
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 302
QuoteQuote:
I would eliminate filters from your lenses entirely. Pentax is famous for great resistance against flare, but a filter in front of the lens renders that control null and void. Throw the cheap glass away.
I am sure they'll thank you when the front element of their lens gets destroyed one day by flying debris or when they drop their camera and have nothing to protect it. A good quality UV filter is always a good investment. The best UV filters can cost as much as AU$300+ and are made from the same grade of optical glass as the finest lenses.

If you pay top dollars for your lenses then go the extra mile and pay top dollar for your filter.
07-14-2008, 05:51 PM   #19
Inactive Account




Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Boise, Idaho
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,414
QuoteOriginally posted by NicholasN Quote
I am sure they'll thank you when the front element of their lens gets destroyed one day by flying debris or when they drop their camera and have nothing to protect it. A good quality UV filter is always a good investment. The best UV filters can cost as much as AU$300+ and are made from the same grade of optical glass as the finest lenses.

If you pay top dollars for your lenses then go the extra mile and pay top dollar for your filter.
I haven't broken or scratched a lens in over 12 years. Most people put <$50 filters on their lens, which is worse than having to replace a broken lens in my opinion. I used to use filters, but decided I would rather replace a dropped lens than have my photos suck or pay as much for a filter as I did for the lens it would go on.

I have also seen lenses that were dropped with a filter on it to "protect" it. The broken filter caved in and scratched the front lens element to the point that the lens needed to be replaced anyway. A rigid lens hood is far better protection than a filter.

Don't get me wrong, I have been known to put a filter on from time to time when conditions are harsh and the threat of damage is high. I just don't use them on a daily basis. There really isn't a need.

07-14-2008, 05:53 PM   #20
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Bronx NY
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 5,610
QuoteOriginally posted by NicholasN Quote
I am sure they'll thank you when the front element of their lens gets destroyed one day by flying debris or when they drop their camera and have nothing to protect it. A good quality UV filter is always a good investment. The best UV filters can cost as much as AU$300+ and are made from the same grade of optical glass as the finest lenses.

If you pay top dollars for your lenses then go the extra mile and pay top dollar for your filter.
I very rarely use filters. My hood protects the front element from any drops. In all the years I've been shooting I have never had my camera out when there has been flying debris around. In fact I'm not out in flying debris either...they don't make filters big enough to protect me. As far as I'm concerned the "You must have a filter to protect your front element" is not necessarily true.

NaCl(don't use them and have not regretted not having them)H2O
07-14-2008, 06:07 PM   #21
Senior Member
troywhite's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Canberra, Australia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 171
Well.... each to their own I suppose.

I often come back from a days shooting where the filter on the camera lens (with hood attached) is extremelly messy (streaks, smudges, dust, dirt).

I'd much rather clean off a filter than clean off the coating on the front element of the lens any day.

As I said though, each to their own.
07-14-2008, 09:50 PM   #22
Forum Member




Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: BC, Canada
Posts: 80
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by davemdsn Quote
I would eliminate filters from your lenses entirely. Pentax is famous for great resistance against flare, but a filter in front of the lens renders that control null and void. Throw the cheap glass away. If you insist on using one, get a Pentax brand. I don't use them at all.
I bought the circular polarizers to help with reflection when taking shots of cars at my workplace (car dealership).
07-14-2008, 10:16 PM   #23
Site Supporter
stevebrot's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Vancouver (USA)
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 27,281
QuoteOriginally posted by davemdsn Quote
I haven't broken or scratched a lens in over 12 years. Most people put <$50 filters on their lens, which is worse than having to replace a broken lens in my opinion. I used to use filters, but decided I would rather replace a dropped lens than have my photos suck or pay as much for a filter as I did for the lens it would go on.

I have also seen lenses that were dropped with a filter on it to "protect" it. The broken filter caved in and scratched the front lens element to the point that the lens needed to be replaced anyway. A rigid lens hood is far better protection than a filter.

Don't get me wrong, I have been known to put a filter on from time to time when conditions are harsh and the threat of damage is high. I just don't use them on a daily basis. There really isn't a need.
Dave definitely has a point. In general, I have belonged to the "filter club". But since the purchase of my K10D, I have found myself taking my filters off with certain lenses and certain conditions. My cheap (yes they were less than $50) filters seem to cause a certain decrease in sharpness and contrast. This is particularly true with my Jupiter-9 and Tamron 28/2. I keep a fairly deep hood on the J-9 (it needs it in general) and very seldom mount a UV filter. As for the Tammy...it is hard to protect many wide angle lenses from stray light and physical damage with a hood. I may try the option of mounting a deeper hood on the Tammy when used with the APS-C K10D and see if if there is any problem with vignette.

Steve

07-14-2008, 10:18 PM   #24
Site Supporter
SpecialK's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: So California
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 14,849
QuoteQuote:
Pronounce it any way you want, but for the love of God it is spelled "A-P-E-R-T-U-R-E"
Amen, brother.
07-15-2008, 06:30 AM   #25
Veteran Member
Gooshin's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Toronto, the one in Canada.
Posts: 5,611
QuoteOriginally posted by NicholasN Quote
I am sure they'll thank you when the front element of their lens gets destroyed one day by flying debris or when they drop their camera and have nothing to protect it. A good quality UV filter is always a good investment. The best UV filters can cost as much as AU$300+ and are made from the same grade of optical glass as the finest lenses.

If you pay top dollars for your lenses then go the extra mile and pay top dollar for your filter.
do you wear a full SA rated helmet when you drive to work everday?

i would imagine you're head is worth much more than your camera...



there is a certain level of understanding when it comes to photography, you have a tool that may end up broken or damaged in due time.

if you cant afford to lose something, dont buy it.
07-15-2008, 08:42 AM   #26
Pentaxian
Cambo's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Vancouver, BC
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 862
You're lucky it's a Pentax....

QuoteOriginally posted by arthur pappas Quote
Ah, I have read the term 'lens flare' a lot on these forums but didn't know this is what is How do I stop this from happening?
the most flare resistant lenses on the planet. You should try that same shot with a Canon or Nikon - you'd be horrified.

And yes, your UV filter is contributing to the problem. I always go through the used filter drawer at camera shops, and was lucky enough one time to get six - 67mm Pentax SMC (Super-Multi-Coated - the stuff that resists flaring) 'Cloudy' filters for 5 bucks each (brand new and in the box!), which are a very slight warming filter. I use them because they are excellent. Take them off for indoor/studio shots.

Get a coated filter, and the best one you can afford. Check the used bins; sometime you get lucky (I got a used B+W circular slim-line polarizer for a song, as well).

Cheeers,
Cameron
07-15-2008, 01:54 PM   #27
Veteran Member
OniFactor's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Binghamton, NY, USA
Posts: 646
QuoteOriginally posted by Gooshin Quote

if you cant afford to lose something, dont buy it.
if everyone followed that rule for everything, a good 80 percent or so of north america shouldn't own cars..
07-15-2008, 01:57 PM   #28
Veteran Member
Gooshin's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Toronto, the one in Canada.
Posts: 5,611
QuoteOriginally posted by OniFactor Quote
if everyone followed that rule for everything, a good 80 percent or so of north america shouldn't own cars..
yes, you are correct.

read what you just wrote again to yourself and think for a moment in what sort of economical state north America is currently in, and how do you think it got there.

people buy more than they can afford, their lives are built on credit, and all it takes is one accident and their fragile little pyramid of a life comes crashing down.
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, dslr, photography, pic, shots
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Lens help: What's the anomaly here? stillshunter Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 10 05-29-2010 10:48 PM
Weird K-7 White Balance Anomaly elemeno Pentax DSLR Discussion 4 02-05-2010 11:41 AM
Central Anomaly jays0n Monthly Photo Contests 1 01-06-2010 01:47 PM
K20D battery/power anomaly TaiChiTom Pentax DSLR Discussion 5 05-07-2008 09:15 AM
Anomaly? Mallee Boy Pentax DSLR Discussion 3 10-31-2007 05:44 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:38 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