Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Pentax / Samsung dSLR, K Mount Mirrorless

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Sep 2, 2011, 3:49 PM   #11
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Australia, New South Wales central coast
Posts: 2,891
Default

G'day fellas

Can't help here ~ the only "examples" I have seen have been by someone who stacked 12 filters then showed the 2 samples ... and extrapolated backwards to make the claims re- deteriorating sharpness

Regards, Phil
__________________
Has Fuji & Lumix superzoom cameras and loves their amazing capabilities
Spends 8-9 months each year travelling Australia
Recent images at http://www.flickr.com/photos/ozzie_traveller/sets/
Ozzie_Traveller is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 2, 2011, 6:59 PM   #12
Senior Member
 
Black Knight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Oxford, CT
Posts: 1,309
Default

I used to use them. But now i just use the lense hood
Black Knight is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 2, 2011, 11:01 PM   #13
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: East Central Vermont
Posts: 1,890
Default

Many years ago, I did a fair amount of technical mountain climbing, and there was a very real possibility that as I struggled up a cliff, my lenses could hit the rock face -- hard. I really needed to protect my lenses, so obviously I got into the habit of using UV filters to protect my lenses.

Old habits die hard, and although my technical mountaineering days ended several decades ago, I still usually put a filter on to protect my lenses. Only thing is, my outdoor activities these days are quite tame, and there's little danger that I'll damage a lens. I know the filter really isn't necessary, but as often as not, I put a filter on "just to be sure."

For whatever it's worth, I've never noticed any difference between those images that were taken with a UV filter and those without. But I'm not a pixel peeper, so I probably wouldn't notice anyway.
mtnman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 3, 2011, 10:24 AM   #14
Senior Member
 
Frogfish's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Shanghai, China
Posts: 2,774
Default

Absolutely no filters ... but ALWAYS hoods.
__________________
http://frogfish.smugmug.com
Pentax : 15 Ltd, 77 Ltd, 43/1.9 Ltd, Cosina 55/1.2, DA*300/4, Contax Zeiss Distagon 28/2.8, Raynox 150/250, AFA x1.7, Metz 50 af1.

Nikon : D800, D600, Sigma 500/4.5, Sigma 120-300/2.8, Zeiss Distagon ZF2 - 21/2.8, Zeiss Distagon ZF2 - 35/2.0, Nikkor 85/1.8G, Sigma 50/1.4. Nikon x1.4 TC, Sigma x2.0 TC
Frogfish is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 3, 2011, 3:11 PM   #15
Senior Member
 
nhmom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Southern New Hampshire
Posts: 5,202
Default

Since getting my K100 in 2006 I've always used skylight filters on all lenses. Just buy one when I get a new lens and it stays on. But, after a discussion a while back about the same thing, I had determined that was what was making the "missing" part of my images. They were so much clearer without the filter. (I tend to buy the cheap ones from Ritz.) So, I was going to stop using them. But, then I discovered a crack in one of the filters and hemmed and hawed again about stopping.

So, for right now, they are still on most of my lenses. Although, my newer lenses don't have any. I just can't decide.

Patty
nhmom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 3, 2011, 3:17 PM   #16
Senior Member
 
Wingman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Hebron, Kentucky (northern Kentucky/Greater Cincinnati):KCVG
Posts: 4,322
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nhmom View Post
They were so much clearer without the filter. (I tend to buy the cheap ones from Ritz.)
So, for right now, they are still on most of my lenses. Although, my newer lenses don't have any. I just can't decide.

Patty
Do you have any examples that you can post? I'm still interested in seeing the image degradation in using a filter (apart from flare).

Jehan
Wingman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 3, 2011, 3:25 PM   #17
Senior Member
 
nhmom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Southern New Hampshire
Posts: 5,202
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jelpee View Post
Do you have any examples that you can post? I'm still interested in seeing the image degradation in using a filter (apart from flare).

Jehan
Oh, I'm not sure that I could easily identify at this point which were with or without the filter. I just remember there was a time before being diagnosed that I had noticed my images were clearer and realized it was because I had forgotten to put the filter back on.

Maybe I'll do a test later today.

Patty
nhmom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 3, 2011, 3:42 PM   #18
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Western Canada
Posts: 3,076
Default

As mentioned before I always use them...except on my Pentax 10-17mm fisheye which doesn't have provision for a filter and my advanced compact Canon G 12...which doesn't have provision for a filter...except some really awkward ones I saw awhile back.

But a question I have...I've seen some pictures taken with lenses that have obvious scratches on them...yet the pictures taken with these less than pristine lenses seem to be ok ?

Why ?

Makes me wonder....do I need them if I stay away from sand ?
lesmore49 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 3, 2011, 7:08 PM   #19
Senior Member
 
Wingman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Hebron, Kentucky (northern Kentucky/Greater Cincinnati):KCVG
Posts: 4,322
Default

I went thru some of my images taken with my K20D and various lenses which have always had a UV protective filter on it and here's a typical one. As a convicted pixel peeper, this image strikes me as pretty darn sharp, good color saturation, and balance. While I do not have a the same image taken without the filter, I can't really imagine how much better the image could have been.



I now shoot with another brand and here's an example taken with the Tamron 18-270 lens also with a protective UV filter.



Don't get me wrong...I do not work for Hoya or Tiffen or B+W, etc. I'm just curious about the issue of reduced IQ when using a protective filter.

Jehan
Wingman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 3, 2011, 8:05 PM   #20
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Western Canada
Posts: 3,076
Default

Jehan,

Yup...that's a very good question....how much sharper could your image...say of that Toyota car be....I can't really imagine that it could be sharper.

That very question has occurred to me over the years. When I look at pix I take of vintage cars, hot rods, etc....with my K10D and arguably my sharpest and IMO, best lens...a Pentax 12-24 mm...which has a B+W Clear filter over it....I ask myself the very same question....I can't imagine how much sharper it could be.

I'm starting to wonder if all filters, including the pricey, top quality ones got a bit of a bad rap...due to possible distortion, etc...from slapping a cheap and nasty filter on the front of a lens ?

I haven't done an experiment either...for example by taking the same picture, under the same lighting situation with all factors being equal...filter and non filter on the same lens, to test my theory.

But I do know that using a couple of my non filtered lenses...such as my 10-17 fisheye and Leitz Elmar 50mm...there doesn't appear to be a discernible difference, between non filtered and filtered.

I do take similar pix at the same events, using my KM (K2000) and 10-17 unfiltered (@ 17mm) and K10D with 12-24 filtered.

The 10-17mm is a very sharp lens....but the 12-24mm is a hair above it in sharpness....IMO.

Les
lesmore49 is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

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 Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 2:05 PM.