Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Protecting the lens

Reply
Thread Tools

Protecting the lens

 
 
Freedom55
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-07-2006
Anyone use an UV filter to protect the lens? And does using such a
filter effect the F stop on a DSLR and fool the electronics? May sound
like a pretty basic question, sorry!

Ron
--
And it really doesn't matter if
I'm wrong I'm right
Where I belong I'm right
Where I belong.

Lennon & McCartney
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
newsgroupsKILLSPAM@rudicheow.com
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-07-2006
A large proportion of SLR users lace the front of their lenses with a
permanently-fixed cover. Most people use UV, Skylights or simply blank
plates of glass.

UVs filter out UV radiation from entering the lens, which is supposed
to make some kind of difference, but I've never noticed it. Skylights
are like UVs but have a very slight red tint to them, which is only
visible if you put it against a white sheet of paper. Alters the colour
ever so slightly. A blank plate of glass is just a blank plate of
glass.

All are factor 0, which means that they do not alter the amount of
light entering the lens by any perceptible amount (typically they let
through 98%-100% of available light as compared to a naked lens).

Technically speaking, extra layers of glass alter the optical quality
of the final image. A filter is an extra layer of glass. But
personally, I think you'd need to have the most discerning of eyes to
see the difference in raw image quality between a filtered and
unfiltered image if the filter is half decent.

The benefits of having a filter were very real to me when I made the
mistake of getting accidently inebriated while shooting in Barcelona,
and the resultant clumsiness ended up in one of my expensive lenses
hitting a table. The filter shattered and got destroyed. The lens?
Fine. I don't know how much actual impact the filter took, but it was
assurance enough to make me promise myself to always have a filter on.

Also, every three years I get new filters for all my glass. Why? They
get pretty scratched up - scratches that would have been elsewhere had
the filter not been on as a photographer's ozone layer.

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Freedom55
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-07-2006
http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed) wrote:
> A large proportion of SLR users lace the front of their lenses with a
> permanently-fixed cover. Most people use UV, Skylights or simply blank
> plates of glass.
>
> UVs filter out UV radiation from entering the lens, which is supposed
> to make some kind of difference, but I've never noticed it. Skylights
> are like UVs but have a very slight red tint to them, which is only
> visible if you put it against a white sheet of paper. Alters the colour
> ever so slightly. A blank plate of glass is just a blank plate of
> glass.
>
> All are factor 0, which means that they do not alter the amount of
> light entering the lens by any perceptible amount (typically they let
> through 98%-100% of available light as compared to a naked lens).
>
> Technically speaking, extra layers of glass alter the optical quality
> of the final image. A filter is an extra layer of glass. But
> personally, I think you'd need to have the most discerning of eyes to
> see the difference in raw image quality between a filtered and
> unfiltered image if the filter is half decent.
>
> The benefits of having a filter were very real to me when I made the
> mistake of getting accidently inebriated while shooting in Barcelona,
> and the resultant clumsiness ended up in one of my expensive lenses
> hitting a table. The filter shattered and got destroyed. The lens?
> Fine. I don't know how much actual impact the filter took, but it was
> assurance enough to make me promise myself to always have a filter on.
>
> Also, every three years I get new filters for all my glass. Why? They
> get pretty scratched up - scratches that would have been elsewhere had
> the filter not been on as a photographer's ozone layer.
>

Very comforting response. This is my first venture with a DSLR (the
E-500 BTW) and I want to protect my investment for as long as possible.
Thanks.

Ron

--
And it really doesn't matter if
I'm wrong I'm right
Where I belong I'm right
Where I belong.

Lennon & McCartney
 
Reply With Quote
 
Rutger
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-07-2006
"Freedom55" <"joinertake this out"@ns.sympatico.ca> schreef in bericht
news:nXk7g.4296$(E-Mail Removed)...
> Anyone use an UV filter to protect the lens? And does using such a filter
> effect the F stop on a DSLR and fool the electronics? May sound like a
> pretty basic question, sorry!
>


Basics are ok.
I use it on all of my lenses. Better to change a scratched filter than the
front lens.

Rutger

--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/zwaarddrager/


 
Reply With Quote
 
Don Stauffer
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-07-2006
Freedom55 wrote:
> Anyone use an UV filter to protect the lens? And does using such a
> filter effect the F stop on a DSLR and fool the electronics? May sound
> like a pretty basic question, sorry!
>
> Ron


Yes and no. Most DSLRs use through the lens metering, so they already
account for the loss.

Even for P & S, the amount of light lost in a good filter of this type
is such a small fraction of a stop that the metering is still okay. Keep
in mind that silicon detectors, as used in a digicam, are not very
sensitive to UV anyway, but they are cheap, so might as well use the,
especially for scenery pics where you are shooting a lot of sky.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Pat
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-07-2006
For everyday use, filters are a must. If they get scratched or dirty,
then it's better that they do than the lens, itself. And, as
mentioned, they are disposable.

OTOH, when I pull out the good glass for more serious shooting, the
filter comes off. But I know that and act accordingly.

 
Reply With Quote
 
Bill Funk
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-07-2006
On Sun, 07 May 2006 10:15:26 -0500, Don Stauffer
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>Freedom55 wrote:
>> Anyone use an UV filter to protect the lens? And does using such a
>> filter effect the F stop on a DSLR and fool the electronics? May sound
>> like a pretty basic question, sorry!
>>
>> Ron

>
>Yes and no. Most DSLRs use through the lens metering, so they already
>account for the loss.
>
>Even for P & S, the amount of light lost in a good filter of this type
>is such a small fraction of a stop that the metering is still okay. Keep
>in mind that silicon detectors, as used in a digicam, are not very
>sensitive to UV anyway, but they are cheap, so might as well use the,
>especially for scenery pics where you are shooting a lot of sky.


So far, I've not seen any evidence that a UV filter affects a digital
camera's images at all.
Maybe I'be missed it? Can anyone poijt ot a link that shows an example
of a UV filter affecting digital cameras' images?
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
 
Reply With Quote
 
Mike Fields
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-07-2006

"Bill Funk" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> On Sun, 07 May 2006 10:15:26 -0500, Don Stauffer
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>>Freedom55 wrote:
>>> Anyone use an UV filter to protect the lens? And does using such a
>>> filter effect the F stop on a DSLR and fool the electronics? May
>>> sound
>>> like a pretty basic question, sorry!
>>>
>>> Ron

>>
>>Yes and no. Most DSLRs use through the lens metering, so they already
>>account for the loss.
>>
>>Even for P & S, the amount of light lost in a good filter of this type
>>is such a small fraction of a stop that the metering is still okay.
>>Keep
>>in mind that silicon detectors, as used in a digicam, are not very
>>sensitive to UV anyway, but they are cheap, so might as well use the,
>>especially for scenery pics where you are shooting a lot of sky.

>
> So far, I've not seen any evidence that a UV filter affects a digital
> camera's images at all.
> Maybe I'be missed it? Can anyone poijt ot a link that shows an example
> of a UV filter affecting digital cameras' images?
> --
> Bill Funk
> replace "g" with "a"


I have not experimented much with it, but where it showed up with
film was at higher elevations. Normal elevations, the pictures looked
about the same, but when you got up to 5,000 feet or above, there
was a noticeable difference with film anyway (sort of a haze that you
would see). Maybe the uv "haze" is lost in the "purple fringing" ??

mikey

 
Reply With Quote
 
Pat
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-07-2006
Sure there's proof. Check the earlier post from @rudicheow. The next
picture after the drunken accident would look very different if not for
the filter. It may not be the proof that you're looking for, but it's
proof that the filter had an "impact" !

 
Reply With Quote
 
Andreas Thaler
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-07-2006
"Pat" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> For everyday use, filters are a must.


It depends on the usage of the camera. A decent
lens hood does a good job too to protect the
lens.

Andreas

--
http://www.subworld.at


 
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
DIGITAL LENS VS REGULAR LENS silvio Digital Photography 1 06-16-2004 04:25 AM
Canon 10D lens Nikon Lens SteveJ Digital Photography 29 06-14-2004 12:52 AM
Anyone use the Kodak DX6340 Lens Adapter and Telephoto Lens? Amyotte Digital Photography 3 02-11-2004 10:25 PM
Good everyday lens for Digital Rebel -- kit lens, 17-40mm f/4L, or...? Mike Kozlowski Digital Photography 5 12-30-2003 08:04 AM
Tamron lens *is* crap --> interesting lens comparison! Beowulf Digital Photography 12 08-24-2003 05:21 PM



Advertisments