UV protectors on lenses

"Sander Vesik" <sander DeleteThis @haldjas.folklore.ee> wrote in message
news:1128387499.867140@haldjas.folklore.ee...
>> >
>> >Some 3rd party consumer lenses are AFAICT uncleanable - the coating on
>> >the outside of teh front element is too soft, nd will degrade no matter
>> >what you do (except not cleaing it in any way at all => always on filter
>> >


Check eBay listings--they are routinely described as "cleaning marks." And
nearly always followed by the suggestion that they will "probably have no
effect on the images."

There is no correct answer to the question of "to filter or not to filter."
Those of us that value keeping our front elements pristine will filter,
those that place image quality paramount will not. It just depends where
one sets his priorities.

I just hate it when the filter-free guys spread that rumor that filters were
invented and sold just as a means of increasing the profit from the sales of
lenses. Those of us that buy and use filters understand the cost and have
chosen to pay it as a form of insurance, not because we have been
manipulated by a bunch of camera dealers.
 >> Stay informed about: UV protectors on lenses 

In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems David Littlewood <david DeleteThis @nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <1128337548.864499.3970 DeleteThis @f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, Hussam
><hktaha DeleteThis @gmail.com> writes
>>I agree that they aren't so necessary. It's classic product
>>cross-selling.. like buying the salsa with doritos. I was always super
>>extra ultra careful not to have a single spec of dust on my lenses
>>thinking it made much of a difference. Then I started using a
>>scratched Nikon lens (we're talking visible scratches here!) and
>>results were always perfect with no noticeable effect! No one would
>>ever know that the images were taken with a scratched lens.
>>
>>So worrying about a bit of dust or even a small scratch or two is just
>>being paranoid and over protective.
>>
>>We are not buying better image quality when we put UV lenses, we are
>>merely buying piece of mind... that's all.
>>
>>Sam
>>
>There is a world of difference between a single moderate scratch and an
>overall coating of fine dust, or indeed an overall mesh of very fine
>scratches. The latter, often caused by incompetent cleaning, may be
>invisible to the naked eye, but reduce contrast significantly.

>In answer to the original question, I have always taken the view that a
>top-quality lens hood has more to offer than a protective filter in most
>circumstances. It actually enhances quality by reducing flare, rather
>than degrading it (however slightly); it provides better protection
>against surface impacts, and is cheaper than the necessary top quality
>filters if you need one for every lens. They mostly keep your fingers
>off the lens glass quite well.

>The exception is in circumstances where corrosive spray (such as sea
>spray) is likely. Then I would use a filter, but at least I only need
>one per lens filter ring size (pretty well all 77 or 72mm).

>I always use the Canon bayonet fit hoods which are made of very tough
>plastic and are designed specifically for each lens. I have on several
>occasions had the hood bounce off a surface which could have otherwise
>damaged the lens. A filter would offer poor protection in such cases.

>They do though take up more room in the bag!

But are they multicoated and made by a top-flight
manufacturer?

Sorry. Couldn't resist.

------ Paul J. Gans
 >> Stay informed about: UV protectors on lenses 

"Jeremy" <jeremy RemoveThis @nospam.com> wrote in message
news:EXt0f.3988$Wb3.3604@trndny04...
> "Sander Vesik" <sander RemoveThis @haldjas.folklore.ee> wrote in message
> news:1128387499.867140@haldjas.folklore.ee...
> >> >
> >> >Some 3rd party consumer lenses are AFAICT uncleanable - the coating on
> >> >the outside of teh front element is too soft, nd will degrade no
matter
> >> >what you do (except not cleaing it in any way at all => always on
filter
> >> >
>
>
> Check eBay listings--they are routinely described as "cleaning marks."
And
> nearly always followed by the suggestion that they will "probably have no
> effect on the images."
>
> There is no correct answer to the question of "to filter or not to
filter."
> Those of us that value keeping our front elements pristine will filter,
> those that place image quality paramount will not. It just depends where
> one sets his priorities.
>
> I just hate it when the filter-free guys spread that rumor that filters
were
> invented and sold just as a means of increasing the profit from the sales
of
> lenses. Those of us that buy and use filters understand the cost and have
> chosen to pay it as a form of insurance, not because we have been
> manipulated by a bunch of camera dealers.
>
> I havn't done a whole lot of filter research, but I shoot a lot at
the beach in the winter. And I can't believe that fine sand blowing around
isn't going to damage everything. It ruins windshields, takes paint off
everything, and I know it destroys filters. It's a lot easier to wash a
filter under the sink and throw it away when it's done than waste a lens
every week. Bob Hickey.
 >> Stay informed about: UV protectors on lenses 

On 2 Oct 2005 10:58:46 -0700, "Bala Variyam" <bala.variyam.DeleteThis@gmail.com>
wrote:

>Hi,
>
>I have got a UV protector on all my lenses to protect the lens surface
>from scratches/dust/etc. Is it a best practice to remove the UV

i use b+w uv-haze filters on all my lenses and there is *no*
difference in photos with or without the filter.

with el-cheapo filter sometimes you see some quality loss.

regards,
--
Gianni Rondinini (30, tanti, RA)
VBR - Vero Birro Romagnolo
Hai capito, scelf?
 >> Stay informed about: UV protectors on lenses 

In article <1128322129.424777.DeleteThis@haldjas.folklore.ee>, Sander Vesik
<sander.DeleteThis@haldjas.folklore.ee> wrote:

> Ever seen a defect resulting from reflections from the UV (or any other)
> filter?

The only thing that should be in front of the lens is the subject.
 >> Stay informed about: UV protectors on lenses 

In article <141020050557588213%rag@nospam.techline.com>,
Randall Ainsworth <rag.DeleteThis@nospam.techline.com> wrote:

> In article <1128322129.424777.DeleteThis@haldjas.folklore.ee>, Sander Vesik
> <sander.DeleteThis@haldjas.folklore.ee> wrote:
>
> > Ever seen a defect resulting from reflections from the UV (or any other)
> > filter?
>
> The only thing that should be in front of the lens is the subject.

Especially when it is windy or you are by sand, snow, rain, smoke,
peanut butter and jelly sandwiches, beer parties, pillow fights,
camping, etc.

--
To reply no_ HPMarketing Corp.
 >> Stay informed about: UV protectors on lenses 

Bob Salomon wrote:
> In article <141020050557588213%rag@nospam.techline.com>,
> Randall Ainsworth <rag RemoveThis @nospam.techline.com> wrote:
>
>
>>In article <1128322129.424777 RemoveThis @haldjas.folklore.ee>, Sander Vesik
>><sander RemoveThis @haldjas.folklore.ee> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Ever seen a defect resulting from reflections from the UV (or any other)
>>>filter?
>>
>>The only thing that should be in front of the lens is the subject.
>
>
> Especially when it is windy or you are by sand, snow, rain, smoke,
> peanut butter and jelly sandwiches, beer parties, pillow fights,
> camping, etc.

I was lucky to have the UV filter and lens hood attached when I was
photographing ice hockey last weekend. Disaster averted.
 >> Stay informed about: UV protectors on lenses 

In article <bob_salomon-C22DE1.11375814102005.DeleteThis@news.isp.giganews.com>,
Bob Salomon <bob_salomon.DeleteThis@mindspring.com> wrote:

> Especially when it is windy or you are by sand, snow, rain, smoke,
> peanut butter and jelly sandwiches, beer parties, pillow fights,
> camping, etc.

This summer I took pictures at the beach, on the side of Mount Rainier,
in museums, in foggy conditions, at the base of large and small
waterfalls - still didn't need some piece of glass in front of the lens
to muck up the image.
 >> Stay informed about: UV protectors on lenses 

I've always used a good-quality UV lens on my SLR, along with a lens hood
suitable for the size/angle of lens (to avoid vignetting)

Cleaning then becomes a piece of cake since its easier to clean a the filter
than the front lens element.

The only time I might remove it is when taking a sunset where the sun is in
the frame - and then it depends on what see in the viewfinder (i.e.
reflections etc)

"Randall Ainsworth" <rag.RemoveThis@nospam.techline.com> wrote in message
news:141020050557588213%rag@nospam.techline.com...
> In article <1128322129.424777.RemoveThis@haldjas.folklore.ee>, Sander Vesik
> <sander.RemoveThis@haldjas.folklore.ee> wrote:
>
>> Ever seen a defect resulting from reflections from the UV (or any other)
>> filter?
>
> The only thing that should be in front of the lens is the subject.
 >> Stay informed about: UV protectors on lenses 

On Fri, 14 Oct 2005 18:35:12 -0700, Randall Ainsworth
<rag.DeleteThis@nospam.techline.com> wrote:

>In article <bob_salomon-C22DE1.11375814102005.DeleteThis@news.isp.giganews.com>,
>Bob Salomon <bob_salomon.DeleteThis@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>> Especially when it is windy or you are by sand, snow, rain, smoke,
>> peanut butter and jelly sandwiches, beer parties, pillow fights,
>> camping, etc.
>
>This summer I took pictures at the beach, on the side of Mount Rainier,
>in museums, in foggy conditions, at the base of large and small
>waterfalls - still didn't need some piece of glass in front of the lens
>to muck up the image.

I never purchase a lens without purchasing a good UV filter as well.
When I say good, they aren't cheap and do not degrade the image.
Usually if any distance or sky is involved they improve it. They make
a tremendous difference on landscapes. Even my large telephotos have
them.

Over the years I've had UV filters save two expensive lenses. In one
case the camera was dropped and in the other the lens was hit by
something as I was carrying it. In both cases the filters were
destroyed. One was driven right down into the filter ring on the lens,
but did not ruin the ring.

Still, I find they improve the type of shooting I do, some of which is
aerial photography. There they make the difference of night and day.
Polaroid filters also work well up there, "most of the time".

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

Roger
 >> Stay informed about: UV protectors on lenses 

"Randall Ainsworth" <rag.RemoveThis@nospam.techline.com> wrote in message

>
> This summer I took pictures at the beach, on the side of Mount Rainier,
> in museums, in foggy conditions, at the base of large and small
> waterfalls - still didn't need some piece of glass in front of the lens
> to muck up the image.

You are entitled to your opinion, but many of us prefer the added protection
afforded by filters. I've never noticed my filters mucking up my images.
 >> Stay informed about: UV protectors on lenses 

In article <DI94f.1238$W32.1114@trnddc06>, Jeremy <jeremy RemoveThis @nospam.com>
wrote:

> You are entitled to your opinion, but many of us prefer the added protection
> afforded by filters. I've never noticed my filters mucking up my images.

One man's ceiling is another man's floor.
 >> Stay informed about: UV protectors on lenses 

This message is not archived
 >> Stay informed about: UV protectors on lenses