Friday, July 17, 2009

A Damn Shame

A Damn Shame

13 comments:

  1. huh.... I'd actually "A Damn Shame = $1600 Lens WITHOUT a $10 UV Filter"

    not too much quality difference detected in uv filters on the front of a lens... (have yet to see a photographer produce comparison pics that showed any reason NOT to have the filter on the camera) and a sad thing then $1,600 worth of glass gets destroyed when a $10 filter could have saved the day ;-)

    ReplyDelete
  2. @tim - Or you can have your 10 dollar filter broken and jammed stuck to your lens.

    Ask david williams about this one.

    ReplyDelete
  3. @Tim Halberg - We'll have to do some tests! You may be right...

    My point was that you have this beautifully coated glass, and then you put $10 piece of crap over it. There are some great UV filters out there, but they cost $$

    ReplyDelete
  4. I actually had a $800 lens saved by a $40 UV filter. The remnants of the filter were jammed a bit on the lens, but a steady hand with a dremel tool and 15 minutes later and it was removed and the lens was unharmed. I immediately spent another $40 on a filter.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I've broken uv filters on three different occassions on beautiful pieces of glass and was AMPED that my beautiful coated L series lenses weren't all jacked/scratched/cracked...

    the beautiful thing about a UV filter is that it's not re-focusing light, so it doesn't require coating...

    but yeah, I'd spend a few extra bucks and get a better uv filter ;-)

    I've had the filter get stuck before, but with a little effort you can always get them off... (of course, one time it took a hack saw, but it came off and you'd of never known it was on there, broken or stuck)

    ReplyDelete
  6. ok, and I may have gone too far saying "it doesn't require coating"

    probably more accurately, it's not as critical in the optics as the glass in the lens that's refocusing the light...

    ReplyDelete
  7. The filter really does require coating. If you use a cheap uncoated filter you'll see a nice clear reflection of the image formed on the sensor in very high contrast situations like streetlights at night, and a lesser effect in all other shooting situations.

    http://www.luminous-landscape.com/columns/sm-feb-05.shtml

    I had a cheap UV filter on a lens I inherited from my dad. I took a picture of someone sitting in front of a montior, a nice perfect image of the screen could be seen in the shadow detail. Took the filter off, no more image.

    If you want to reduce the quality of your images, there's no better option than a cheap UV filter. Get a good one or don't get one.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I stopped using filters altogether for my professional work, and I always use lens hoods, and the normal lens cap when not shooting. Even a $$ UV filter can ruin photos where I'm shooting into the sun.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I had NO idea that it was the filter that was making the reflections in some of my images. I always thought it was kind of a form of sunflare or something....I'm glad to know it, because now when I see that I can at least take the filter off. Do all UV filters do that, or just the cheap ones? Sadly, I am exceptionally clumsy and careless and a filter is a requirement.

    ReplyDelete
  10. dude this comment stream is SUCKING all the fun out of the blog post.

    ReplyDelete