Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > newbie question: polarizer + uv filter?

Reply
Thread Tools

newbie question: polarizer + uv filter?

 
 
Charles
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-17-2004
On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 21:04:50 GMT, "Joseph Meehan"
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>Jim wrote:
>> "Joseph Meehan" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>> news:X8Mmd.12823$(E-Mail Removed)...
>>>
>>> Most people have little idea of what the function of a UV filter is.
>>> They just put one on every lens they have to "protect" the lens. Most
>>> are
>>> not sure what they are protecting it from, but someone, likely the camera
>>> salesman who sold it to them, told them they needed it.
>>>

>> Once upon a time, I dropped my F3 which had the 100-300 lens mounted
>> thereon. All that happened was that the UV filter cracked, but the rest
>> of
>> the lens and of course the camera were unhurt.
>>
>> So, which would you rather replace after such an incident? Would it be
>> the
>> $50 filter or the $300 lens?
>>
>> Besides, I was in Yellowstone Park where access to camera repair
>> facilities
>> requires (at least) a trip to Jackson Hole, Wy.
>>
>> Jim

>
> Let's see. At a ratio of 50 - 300 one out of 60 lenses would need to be
>totalled to make the math work out even.
>
> I doubt if one out of 60 is damaged.
>
> I did have one of my cameras thrown at me once (long story very nice
>girl) and it happened to have a filter on it at the time. As it turned out
>the filter was jamed onto the filter threads and cracked so I had to have
>the lens repaired. With out the filter, it would have likey damaged the
>filter ring, but I would not have bothered to repair that. With a lens
>hood there would likely have been no damage to the lens, but that is just my
>judgment.
>
> While working as a professional, many years ago, I had a number of
>lenses damaged and used equipment that had lenses damaged by other
>photographers. Never once did I ever need to have any repairs made. Just a
>few scratches and chips on the lenses, none of which reduced the image
>capabilities of the lens.
>
> Sounds like expensive insurance to me and that is not accounting for the
>extra flare that the filter may cause.



I agree, mostly, but try your math again.


--

- Charles
-
-does not play well with others
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Jeremy
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-18-2004

"Joseph Meehan" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:S1Pmd.12841$(E-Mail Removed)...
>
> Let's see. At a ratio of 50 - 300 one out of 60 lenses would need to

be
> totalled to make the math work out even.
>


The effectiveness of a simple filter in preventing damage to a dropped lens
is probably negligible, but the use of a filter to keep the lens front
element clean is clearly advantageous. Even if one does not subject his
lenses to wind, surf, sand, etc., lens elements still get dirty from having
dust settle on their surfaces, and many klutzes like me have a nasty
tendency to smudge the lenses with our fingers.

I would prefer that the filter take the hit, rather than the lens itself.
Especially if the lens is one that is not easily replaced (the line that I
use has not been in production for 25 years--it is not like I can just walk
into any camera shop and pick up new ones). Filters I can replace. Lenses
I can't--at least not easily.

Many people mention increased flare as a reason to avoid filters, but I
wonder if the degree of increased flare has been measured? I suspect that
most people who complain about flare do not routinely use lens shades--and
I'd bet that they get more flare by not using lens shades than they would
get from the addition of a protective filter.

My point being that the image degradation resulting from the addition of a
quality filter is probably too small to have any visible impact. Dirty,
smudged or dusty lens surfaces affect image quality more than an additional
(clean) filter.

I could never understand why so many people have characterized use of a
filter for protection as merely a tactic used by camera dealers to make more
money. The logic behind using filters as protective surfaces makes a lot of
sense to me.


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Joseph Meehan
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-18-2004

"Jeremy" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:MqTmd.2474$(E-Mail Removed) nk.net...
>
> "Joseph Meehan" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:S1Pmd.12841$(E-Mail Removed)...
>>
>> Let's see. At a ratio of 50 - 300 one out of 60 lenses would need to

> be
>> totalled to make the math work out even.
>>

>
> The effectiveness of a simple filter in preventing damage to a dropped
> lens
> is probably negligible, but the use of a filter to keep the lens front
> element clean is clearly advantageous. Even if one does not subject his
> lenses to wind, surf, sand, etc., lens elements still get dirty from
> having
> dust settle on their surfaces, and many klutzes like me have a nasty
> tendency to smudge the lenses with our fingers.
>
> I would prefer that the filter take the hit, rather than the lens itself.
> Especially if the lens is one that is not easily replaced (the line that I
> use has not been in production for 25 years--it is not like I can just
> walk
> into any camera shop and pick up new ones). Filters I can replace.
> Lenses
> I can't--at least not easily.
>
> Many people mention increased flare as a reason to avoid filters, but I
> wonder if the degree of increased flare has been measured?


Yes, of course conditions make any measurement only applicable to the
specific test. However in general, I would expect a good filter ($60 should
get you a good filter) or better should not be noticeable by most people
including most professionals most of the time. A cheap filter is likely to
be spotted in most flare situations by most professions and the more
critical non-professionals.

> I suspect that
> most people who complain about flare do not routinely use lens shades--and
> I'd bet that they get more flare by not using lens shades than they would
> get from the addition of a protective filter.


Very true.

>
> My point being that the image degradation resulting from the addition of a
> quality filter is probably too small to have any visible impact. Dirty,
> smudged or dusty lens surfaces affect image quality more than an
> additional
> (clean) filter.


I suspect that depends on the person and the environment in which they
work. I seldom have any need to clean a lens. Others may have far more
need to clean lenses, still more over clean their lenses which can result in
more damage and problems than under cleaning. In the old days (Yea I'm that
old) the early coatings on lenses were very soft and just a simple
reasonable careful cleaning could damage it. Today's coatings are far
better and the need is IMO just not there for a filter for most users. BTW
often the smudge that many people fee is gong to impact their image and must
be cleaned off is often not a smudge at all and does not need any attention.

If you or anyone else is happy with what they are doing, and they get
the images they like, then that is what this is all about and they should
feel good about what ever way they want to treat their camera equipment.

>
> I could never understand why so many people have characterized use of a
> filter for protection as merely a tactic used by camera dealers to make
> more
> money. The logic behind using filters as protective surfaces makes a lot
> of
> sense to me.
>


Since I was once a photo salesman I know the pressure that was put on
them to sell those filters. I was lucky that I never worked for one that
expected the hard sell or the Infomercial type tactics and I never allowed
my employees to do it when I was the manager. But I sure saw a lot of fear
tactics used to sell those filters just like they use today to sell grossly
overpriced insurance policies they like to call extended warrantees. I
sometimes get a little carried away.



--
Joseph E. Meehan

26 + 6 = 1 It's Irish Math


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Use polarizer to reduce flash glare ? Wdflannery Digital Photography 11 11-17-2003 07:53 PM
Polarizer for a Fuji FinePix 101? Or faking it George Digital Photography 1 09-04-2003 03:11 PM
polarizer Tomash Bednarz Digital Photography 1 09-01-2003 01:12 PM
Olympus C-740 with Polarizer Perry Babin Digital Photography 3 08-23-2003 02:52 AM
Coolpix 4500 and polarizer use? Cliff Digital Photography 5 07-11-2003 03:36 PM



Advertisments