Is a 'Skylight 1B' still appropriate for a dSLR?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Alan F Cross, Jul 14, 2003.

  1. Alan F Cross

    Alan F Cross Guest

    Will want to protect the lens on my 10D when it arrives.

    Is a 'Skylight 1B' still appropriate for a dSLR, as with film, or is
    this going to fight with internal filtering on the sensor. I guess it
    could also theoretically screw up any accurate colour temperature
    assessments and adjustments, and leave the RAW file not quite so RAW in
    relation to the original scene.

    If not a 1B, then what? Just a piece of glass?

    TIA.

    --
    Alan F Cross
    Alan F Cross, Jul 14, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Alan F Cross

    Paul Cordes Guest

    "Alan F Cross" <> wrote in message
    news:n0pj9jB1amE$...
    > Will want to protect the lens on my 10D when it arrives.
    >
    > Is a 'Skylight 1B' still appropriate for a dSLR, as with film, or is
    > this going to fight with internal filtering on the sensor. I guess it
    > could also theoretically screw up any accurate colour temperature
    > assessments and adjustments, and leave the RAW file not quite so RAW in
    > relation to the original scene.
    >
    > If not a 1B, then what? Just a piece of glass?
    >
    > TIA.
    >
    > --
    > Alan F Cross


    While you *can* get well balanced pictures out of a camera with a 1B on the
    front.........
    I would not use it.......but then I wouldn't use any UV except for haze at
    high altitude.
    Protection is way over blown. You would get more protection from a good
    lens hood and you won't be introducing the problems of another piece of
    glass between your photos and the world.

    JMHO..........PC
    Paul Cordes, Jul 14, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. In article <mgwQa.265$>, late*
    says...
    >
    >While you *can* get well balanced pictures out of a camera with a 1B on the
    >front.........
    >I would not use it.......but then I wouldn't use any UV except for haze at
    >high altitude.
    >Protection is way over blown. You would get more protection from a good
    >lens hood and you won't be introducing the problems of another piece of
    >glass between your photos and the world.


    I'll second that. Why pay good money for a lens only to put a $15 piece of
    glas in front of it? What are you protecting anymore? Invest in a good lens
    hood. You should almost always have one on anyway.

    Glenn
    Glenn Woodell, Jul 14, 2003
    #3
  4. Alan F Cross

    Charlie D Guest

    > late* says...
    > >Protection is way over blown. You would get more protection from a good
    > >lens hood and you won't be introducing the problems of another piece of
    > >glass between your photos and the world.


    glenn.a.woodell@*****nasa.gov (Glenn Woodell) wrote:
    > I'll second that. Why pay good money for a lens only to put a $15 piece of
    > glas in front of it? What are you protecting anymore? Invest in a good lens
    > hood. You should almost always have one on anyway.


    I'll third that to help dispel the myth that photo supply salesmen
    perpetuate. I've been doing photography for 25 years with no "protective
    filter" and have yet to damage a lens.

    Of course, for especially terrible misty, dusty, sandy conditions I do
    use a protective filter and a plastic bag over the camera.
    Here's a reference:
    http://medfmt.8k.com/bronfilters.html#protect

    --
    Charlie Dilks
    Newark, DE USA
    Charlie D, Jul 14, 2003
    #4
  5. Alan F Cross

    Bob Salomon Guest

    In article <-berlin.de>,
    Charlie D <> wrote:

    > > late* says...
    > > >Protection is way over blown. You would get more protection from a good
    > > >lens hood and you won't be introducing the problems of another piece of
    > > >glass between your photos and the world.

    >
    > glenn.a.woodell@*****nasa.gov (Glenn Woodell) wrote:
    > > I'll second that. Why pay good money for a lens only to put a $15 piece of
    > > glas in front of it? What are you protecting anymore? Invest in a good lens
    > > hood. You should almost always have one on anyway.

    >
    > I'll third that to help dispel the myth that photo supply salesmen
    > perpetuate. I've been doing photography for 25 years with no "protective
    > filter" and have yet to damage a lens.
    >
    > Of course, for especially terrible misty, dusty, sandy conditions I do
    > use a protective filter and a plastic bag over the camera.
    > Here's a reference:
    > http://medfmt.8k.com/bronfilters.html#protect


    "for especially terrible misty, dusty, sandy conditions I do
    use a protective filter and a plastic bag over the camera"

    Perhaps that is why you have not damaged a lens.

    "You would get more protection from a good
    lens hood"

    What is your definition of a "good lens hood"?

    A good lens hood is a compendium. A compendium is an adjustable bellows.
    They let you cut off all light except that which makes the actual
    exposure. Thus eliminating practically all flare.

    If your definition of a "good" hood is a single length rubber hood then
    you are fooling yourself. The rubber hood that is "good" for a normal
    lens is too short to be truly effective with a longer lens and that hood
    is too long for a normal and too short for an even longer lens.

    And all of the hoods for a normal or longer lens are too long for a wide
    angle And then for an extreme wide angle you may find that a hood would
    vignette.

    Good filters do not intrude on the performance of your lens. Bad filters
    can.

    "Good lens hoods" may not exist at all.

    --
    HP Marketing Corp.
    Bob Salomon, Jul 14, 2003
    #5
  6. Alan F Cross

    Charlie D Guest

    In article <>,
    Bob Salomon <> wrote:

    > If your definition of a "good" hood is a single length rubber hood then
    > you are fooling yourself.


    A good lens hood for physical protection is metal. For the ubiquitous
    zooms that abound you can use your hat or hand to block specific light
    sources.

    > Good filters do not intrude on the performance of your lens. Bad filters
    > can.


    Read the article referenced.

    --
    Charlie Dilks
    Newark, DE USA
    Charlie D, Jul 14, 2003
    #6
  7. Alan F Cross

    Bob Salomon Guest

    In article <w3AQa.3832$>,
    "Paul Cordes" <late*> wrote:

    > Yeah, define the unobtainable ideal.


    Not unobtainable. Many companies make adjustabe compendiums for camera
    lenses. One is Lindahl. Another is Lee. A compendium is another way of
    saying a bellows lens hood as opposed to a rubber or rigid metal or
    plastic one. They are quite common and available from most camera stores.

    However you would probably never find one in stationary, electronic or
    computer stores.

    --
    HP Marketing Corp.
    Bob Salomon, Jul 14, 2003
    #7
  8. Alan F Cross

    Bob Salomon Guest

    In article <-berlin.de>,
    Charlie D <> wrote:

    > In article <>,
    > Bob Salomon <> wrote:
    >


    > Read the article referenced.


    No need to. Good filters do not intrude. Bad filters do.

    --
    HP Marketing Corp.
    Bob Salomon, Jul 14, 2003
    #8
  9. Alan F Cross

    Charlie D Guest

    In article <>,
    Bob Salomon <> wrote:
    > > Read the article referenced.

    >
    > No need to. Good filters do not intrude. Bad filters do.


    Sorry to intrude into your world but every air-glass interface scatters
    light and can reduce contrast.

    --
    Charlie Dilks
    Newark, DE USA
    Charlie D, Jul 14, 2003
    #9
  10. Alan wrote, in pertinent part:
    > Will want to protect the lens on my 10D when it arrives.


    Hi, Alan,

    I hate to break the pretty cascade of self-referencing posts falling across
    my screen, but I'll take a stab at responding to your post instead of all
    the others.

    My first question is, Protect it from what? If you want to protect the
    coating from scratches and fingerprints, my suggestion is you are better
    off being careful and cleaning your lens regularly. I don't use a
    prophylactic filter in front of my lens (with one exception noted later),
    and I've not had the misfortune of having the coating or the lens ruined by
    any scratches or other damage. If you put a filter in front of the lens,
    you'll need to look after it with the same care as you would the lens,
    right? I mean why have a smudgy, scratched filter in front of the pristine
    lens.

    Just take care of the lens, clean it either before every use or after (or
    both). Clean it during use if you're in a bad situation where there is lots
    of dust or other matter floating in the air or if you notice the lens has a
    smudge on it. You'd have to do that with a filter.

    The other thread started out with some helpful discussion of quality
    lenses, lens hoods, and the air/glass interface, but I'm sorry to say it's
    devolved into "yes I'm right" / "no I'm right" fixed positions with no real
    information to support the hardened opinions. There is something to be said
    for having less in front of the lens, but you won't get anything from the
    cascade. So take _my_ advice and go without. :->

    The one time I use a protective lens is at Burning Man. The ground there is
    a filled in lake bed, so the earth is a very fine silt. It floats up when
    people walk around, there are dust storms that blow through occasionally,
    and it's impossible to keep anything clean if it's not sealed in an
    airtight bag. I'd rather clean a filter than the lens because of all the
    silt in the air. Last year we had an hour long dust storm with visibility
    of four feet. I couldn't see the ground I was standing on. That's when I
    recommend a prophylactive filter. :->
    --
    Philip Stripling | email to the replyto address is presumed
    Legal Assistance on the Web | spam and read later. email to philip@
    http://www.PhilipStripling.com/ | my domain is read daily.
    Phil Stripling, Jul 14, 2003
    #10
  11. Michael Quack, Jul 18, 2003
    #11
  12. Alan F Cross

    weth Guest

    As is usual with most things in life, there is never a black and white yes
    or no answer.

    In general, I agree with Michael Quack that putting an extra layer of glass
    can cause image degradation in some circumstances. However, they rarely
    "ruin" your images. I would even venture to say that in most shooting
    circumstances, you won't even be able to tell the difference. Having said
    that, I do as Michael Quak does and I do not usually use a protective
    filter. HOWEVER, if I am shooting at the beach or in the desert, especially
    when wind is present, I do use a protective filter to prevent sandblasting
    of my much more expensive lens. Now, if you are a professional, and have
    money or insurance to burn, and absoulutely need the best pictures in these
    circumstances, then go ahead and take the chance on the lens. If you are
    like me, and make my money in other fields, and just enjoy photography, and
    don't particulary like having a lens scratched, go ahead and use a
    protective filter when shooting in harsh conditions. Heck, our family
    photographer (a real classy guy with talent and history -- don't even
    mention "digital" to this guy wihtout causing chest pain haha) was shooting
    our family at the La Jolla Cove. He has a filter on his set up and I asked
    him this very question. He basically said the same thing as I stated above,
    and he, as a person I respect in photography, solidified my opinion I have
    stated. The kicker was, he said that I am not worth a scratched lens from a
    sand grain

    Sure there is tremendous markup, but if you consider it insurance, it is no
    worse than any other insurance products or extended warranties. Almost
    always a bad deal, but it does give you a piece of mind, and you may take
    photographs in situations you may not otherwise.

    Except for politics and choice of wine or beer :) I think we need to be
    more realistic and not be so extreme in viewpoints of which there are
    several valid different answers.

    Weth


    "Michael Quack" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > In article <n0pj9jB1amE$>,
    > Alan F Cross says...
    >
    >
    > > Will want to protect the lens on my 10D when it arrives.

    >
    > Then use a lens shade and put the cap on while you
    > are not shooting. "Protective" filters protect the
    > turnover of your dealer, nothing but. And they ruin
    > your images.
    >
    > --
    > Michael Quack <>
    >
    > http://www.photoquack.de/glamour/1.htm
    > http://www.photoquack.de/fashion/1.htm
    weth, Jul 19, 2003
    #12
  13. Alan F Cross

    Charlie D Guest

    In article <zN3Sa.18874$>,
    "weth" <> wrote:

    > I agree with Michael Quack that putting an extra layer of glass
    > can cause image degradation in some circumstances. However, they rarely
    > "ruin" your images. I would even venture to say that in most shooting
    > circumstances, you won't even be able to tell the difference. Having said
    > that, I do as Michael Quak does and I do not usually use a protective
    > filter. HOWEVER, if I am shooting at the beach or in the desert, especially
    > when wind is present, I do use a protective filter to prevent sandblasting
    > of my much more expensive lens.


    Basically my philosophy except if you don't use a lens hood or your hand
    or a hat, they will seriously reduce contrast in many cases; that is any
    time the Sun is not behind you.
    I just don't see those who use protective filters and no hood as having
    the forethought to use their hand or hat.

    --
    Charlie Dilks
    Newark, DE USA
    Charlie D, Jul 19, 2003
    #13
  14. Alan F Cross

    Charlie Self Guest

    Charlie D states:

    >I just don't see those who use protective filters and no hood as having
    >the forethought to use their hand or hat.


    Damn. I must remember that the next time a shop tool flings a piece of material
    into the camera. My hand is better than a filter.

    People keep writing about using a lens hood to protect the lens: WTF for? Or
    from? A lens cap does a decent job, when the the tool is not in use. When it's
    in use in a rough environment, the photographer has a choice: possibly
    sacrifice a lens that cost several hundred bucks; possibly sacrifice a 15 buck
    piece of optical glass...that, IME, does NOT reduce contrast. I'm not exactly
    sure how a hand or hat is going to protect a lens element from wind driven
    sand, salt water, and similar fun things.


    Charlie Self

    We thought, because we had power, we had wisdom.
    Stephen Vincent Benet
    Charlie Self, Jul 19, 2003
    #14
  15. "Charlie Self" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    SNIP
    > People keep writing about using a lens hood to protect the lens: WTF for?

    Or
    > from?


    In practice, and from experience, a lens hood (especially for medium to long
    focal lengths) catches 90% of the mechanical impacts on the lens (unless it
    comes straight at you). It also, and that is its official task, reduces
    flare due to internal reflections.

    > A lens cap does a decent job, when the the tool is not in use. When it's
    > in use in a rough environment, the photographer has a choice: possibly
    > sacrifice a lens that cost several hundred bucks; possibly sacrifice a 15

    buck
    > piece of optical glass...that, IME, does NOT reduce contrast.


    Sorry to disappoint you, physical law predicts an average reflection of
    uncoated glass/air surfaces of some 4%. This means you lose 4% of the
    available light on each of the two surfaces, and that light is mostly
    causing internal reflections that reduce contrast. Also the fact that the
    surface, protruding to the front, is larger than the front surface of the
    lens, adds to the amount of deterioration.

    > I'm not exactly
    > sure how a hand or hat is going to protect a lens element from wind driven
    > sand, salt water, and similar fun things.


    It helps reducing flare and stray light.

    Bart
    Bart van der Wolf, Jul 19, 2003
    #15
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Peter James

    Q: Skylight/UV Filter for Olympus C720

    Peter James, Oct 29, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    517
    HandymanNW
    Oct 30, 2003
  2. Phil Stripling

    UV or skylight filter for Digital Rebel

    Phil Stripling, Jun 11, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    13
    Views:
    3,539
    Paul J Gans
    Jun 18, 2004
  3. john

    UV Protector filter vs. Skylight filter?

    john, Jun 26, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    21,554
  4. Fred B.

    1a or 2a skylight filters and digital cameras

    Fred B., Aug 18, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    2,428
    Andy Hewitt
    Aug 20, 2004
  5. Giuen
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    863
    Giuen
    Sep 12, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page