Steve's Digicams Forums

Steve's Digicams Forums (https://forums.steves-digicams.com/)
-   Olympus dSLR (https://forums.steves-digicams.com/olympus-dslr-40/)
-   -   Protective Filter Perspective (https://forums.steves-digicams.com/olympus-dslr-40/protective-filter-perspective-166885/)

fldspringer Feb 28, 2010 9:17 AM

Protective Filter Perspective
 
(if there is an ad, i don't endorse it)

There has been a thread dealing with this, and I wanted to supply a link to some testing done in this area. How does your's fare?

http://lenstip.com/113.1-article-UV_filters_test.html

There is simply no "right" answer. Its personal preference. I shoot in some crappy conditions and I protect most of my lenses with multi-coated Hoya HMC filters. The link supplied says I didn't choose too badly.

For me, its peace of mind. Its to not deal with the lens surface at all, and clean the filter, under running water if necessary. Its to ensure that light impacts will scratch a replaceable component rather than the objective lens. Its my decision based on my use, my investment, and my level of comfort.

As a side note, I don't protect two lenses. I don't protect the 35 macro because of the deep inset of the front element and the smaller cost of replacement if it becomes damaged. The other still bothers me whenever I use it. The 7-14 has a buldging front element that cannot be protected with a filter, and if it becomes damaged, costs $1200 to repair. I keep the lens cap on that one nearly 100% of the time.

Greg

cshanaberger Feb 28, 2010 10:16 AM

greg, thanks for the link very interesting article, i do agree with you 100% this issue is a "matter of personal preference & comfort level (financial repair cost)", but i also think these debates are of great value to those looking to learn as to me they provide a real world experience that magazine or internet reviews just do not provide, every photographer shoots in different conditions and these conditions are very rarely met by magazine reviews. i shoot in what i would guess at being semi harsh conditions, and choose not to use uv filters anymore, but when i first started shooting i used them all the time, my choice is based on many trips afield and conditions i have met with and decided after "time" they just were not necessary to my shooting needs & goals. i do not shoot in areas that have a lot of blowing sand (deserts,beaches,etc.) but must admit would be apprehensive shooting in these conditions without some sort of protection although in these areas a polarizer would more than likely be on my lens. this is just my experience and am only presenting it for info purposes. when i first started shooting i wish i had the different view points to mull over that are available on fourms like this today, but i must admit nothing replaces shooting for yourself and learning first hand what your personal preference & comfort levels are.
charles

tkurkowski Feb 28, 2010 11:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fldspringer (Post 1058959)

There has been a thread dealing with this, and I wanted to supply a link to some testing done in this area. How does your's fare?

http://lenstip.com/113.1-article-UV_filters_test.html

There is simply no "right" answer. Its personal preference. I shoot in some crappy conditions and I protect most of my lenses with multi-coated Hoya HMC filters. The link supplied says I didn't choose too badly.

Greg

Greg I also want to say thanks for posting this. And yep, all but one of my filters are the Hoya HMCs and the one exception is a B&W MRC. Woohoo. The Hoyas always seemed to me to be a good value but I didn't have any quantitative evidence of that until now.

I do wonder sometimes, whether the UV does much and whether a good clear protective filter would be fine. But I'm with you that I'd rather clean a filter than the front element of an expensive lens.

Ted

PS: Polish engineers rock!

Edit: I was surprised by the poor performance of the Tiffen. Too bad the Tiffen HT filters weren't out when they did that testing (a year ago) - I'd have liked to see how the HT fared.

fldspringer Feb 28, 2010 11:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cshanaberger (Post 1058983)
greg, thanks for the link very interesting article, i do agree with you 100% this issue is a "matter of personal preference & comfort level (financial repair cost)", but i also think these debates are of great value to those looking to learn as to me they provide a real world experience that magazine or internet reviews just do not provide, every photographer shoots in different conditions and these conditions are very rarely met by magazine reviews. i shoot in what i would guess at being semi harsh conditions, and choose not to use uv filters anymore, but when i first started shooting i used them all the time, my choice is based on many trips afield and conditions i have met with and decided after "time" they just were not necessary to my shooting needs & goals. i do not shoot in areas that have a lot of blowing sand (deserts,beaches,etc.) but must admit would be apprehensive shooting in these conditions without some sort of protection although in these areas a polarizer would more than likely be on my lens. this is just my experience and am only presenting it for info purposes. when i first started shooting i wish i had the different view points to mull over that are available on fourms like this today, but i must admit nothing replaces shooting for yourself and learning first hand what your personal preference & comfort levels are.
charles

I think you are making a decision based on your needs. Makes sens to me. I'm going to show a few pics and add comments.

A few from a field trial held by our club. I was wiping the filter with my shirt here.

http://www.spanielsport.com/photos/7...7_27i4P-XL.jpg

http://www.spanielsport.com/photos/7...2_NMY5L-XL.jpg

This is typical behavior for my "boys"...

This lens was well over $1000.

http://www.spanielsport.com/photos/6...7_QnuuT-XL.jpg

http://www.spanielsport.com/photos/5...3_dEw5K-XL.jpg

http://www.spanielsport.com/photos/2...4_hRhje-XL.jpg

And because I'm to lazy to remove the filters, here are some that are taken with UV filters in place.

http://www.spanielsport.com/photos/7...2_W3G5A-XL.jpg

http://www.spanielsport.com/photos/5...5_qDwWE-XL.jpg

http://www.spanielsport.com/photos/7...3_ciLxA-XL.jpg

There are good points on both sides of these discussions. Everyone has to decide how the use would/will affect their own use.


Greg

fldspringer Feb 28, 2010 12:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tkurkowski (Post 1059010)
And yep, all but one of my filters are the Hoya HMCs and the one exception is a B&W MRC. Woohoo. The Hoyas always seemed to me to be a good value but I didn't have any quantitative evidence of that until now.

I love the Hoya HMC, and no, the UV isn't necessary, but doesn't hurt either.

The only other one I use is the B&W I bought for the 300 f2.8. That sucker set me back $150 and I don't even know if it multicoated:mad:. The lens cost enough that I simply cannot take unnecessary risk.

Greg

Greg Chappell Feb 28, 2010 12:10 PM

I've waffled back & forth over the years with protective UV filters. If I were in an invironment where I felt it necessary, I would own B+W multicoated UV filters for my lenses. I have used them in the past. I do not use filters today on any of my lenses and choose simply to make sure I don't put my lens caps in my pants pockets when I take them off to minimize lint finding it's way from the cap to the front element and keep the lens hoods on all the time.

cshanaberger Feb 28, 2010 12:16 PM

greg, those are definitely great shots and image quality seems top notch. one question though, did you modify the orange vest in post? every time i have shot florescent colors like those vests they tend to blow when rest of image is exposed right.
charles

tkurkowski Feb 28, 2010 12:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Greg Chappell (Post 1059034)
(snip) choose simply to make sure I don't put my lens caps in my pants pockets when I take them off to minimize lint finding it's way from the cap to the front element and keep the lens hoods on all the time.

I do the same but I still find that over time the filters get dust on them.

Ted

fldspringer Feb 28, 2010 12:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cshanaberger (Post 1059038)
greg, those are definitely great shots and image quality seems top notch. one question though, did you modify the orange vest in post? every time i have shot florescent colors like those vests they tend to blow when rest of image is exposed right.
charles

It is processed in lightroom, and my tendency is to add saturation, not remove it. Have more problem with whites than the orange.

Greg

shoturtle Feb 28, 2010 12:22 PM

For these conditions I would most defiantly use a protective filter. Just need to remember to remove it when shooting toward the sun.

Quote:

Originally Posted by fldspringer (Post 1059025)
I think you are making a decision based on your needs. Makes sens to me. I'm going to show a few pics and add comments.

A few from a field trial held by our club. I was wiping the filter with my shirt here.

http://www.spanielsport.com/photos/7...7_27i4P-XL.jpg

http://www.spanielsport.com/photos/7...2_NMY5L-XL.jpg

This is typical behavior for my "boys"...

This lens was well over $1000.

http://www.spanielsport.com/photos/6...7_QnuuT-XL.jpg

http://www.spanielsport.com/photos/5...3_dEw5K-XL.jpg

http://www.spanielsport.com/photos/2...4_hRhje-XL.jpg

And because I'm to lazy to remove the filters, here are some that are taken with UV filters in place.

http://www.spanielsport.com/photos/7...2_W3G5A-XL.jpg

http://www.spanielsport.com/photos/5...5_qDwWE-XL.jpg

http://www.spanielsport.com/photos/7...3_ciLxA-XL.jpg

There are good points on both sides of these discussions. Everyone has to decide how the use would/will affect their own use.


Greg



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 1:31 PM.