dkCambridgeshire Posted March 25, 2016 Share #21 Posted March 25, 2016 Advertisement (gone after registration) I use B+W MRC filters as they have an ultra-low reflectivity. And they are very easy to clean. They are amazing. The only time I would consider removing them is if shooting by candlelight as any filter will show extra reflections then. I don't have any Otus lenses, so I don't share Ming's problem. I shoot weddings and from time to time I get a smudge on a lens. It could be my own fingerprint, someone's drink, food, rain, smoke, sweat, etc. With a filter I can do a quick cleaning with a lens cloth (or any cloth) and have that lens back in action almost instantly. Without a filter, I don't have time to do a proper cleaning, and that lens is disabled until I get home. Takes a lot of smudges/fingerprints/dust etc on the front element to really degrade an image. dunk Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted March 25, 2016 Posted March 25, 2016 Hi dkCambridgeshire, Take a look here Ming Thein on filters. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
tobey bilek Posted March 25, 2016 Share #22 Posted March 25, 2016 More than once I have conducted ordinary "sun at my back" from a tripod with filter and no filter, f5.6. The filter causes causes loss of resolution, small but there. Whether you are willing to accept that loss is up to you. If you use an M8 for color, the UV/IR filter is required to keep colors pure. That debate is long gone. Can not post because the differences are too small to see on the internet. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NB23 Posted March 25, 2016 Share #23 Posted March 25, 2016 I've had a few scratched/damaged lenses and this is all too often correct in that image 'sharpness' is unaffected but issues like flare can increase but not always in every shot - easy to try, buy a used cheap filter, deliberately scratch it and shoot with and without it under varying conditions. You will find that some results will be so near identical as to be indistinguishable, other will show results of the scratch. The point is that the same people that won't use a filter because of "image degradation" will do anything to make you believe that scratched front elements "have no effect" on image quality. 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schrödinger's cat Posted March 25, 2016 Share #24 Posted March 25, 2016 (edited) "I don’t actually think there’s a clear answer on when filters are detrimental." Night time. Back from the trip ? Use a filter ? Edited March 25, 2016 by Schrödinger's cat Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdlaing Posted March 25, 2016 Share #25 Posted March 25, 2016 Back from the trip ? Use a filter ? Still in East Armpit, Utah. I don't dabble in filters. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Posted March 26, 2016 Share #26 Posted March 26, 2016 How can an article be taken seriously when at the end there are links to buying his favorite filters? Rick 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyalf Posted March 26, 2016 Author Share #27 Posted March 26, 2016 Advertisement (gone after registration) How can an article be taken seriously when at the end there are links to buying his favorite filters? Rick Because the article is about general filter usage, not particular brands tested? Because the article writer has some kind of benefit from us following links, and thus have to write an interesting article? Because there is something to read before the the end? Because the links are not the conclusion? Because some us us are happy with someone producing, not smugly criticizing only ? 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pgk Posted March 26, 2016 Share #28 Posted March 26, 2016 Because some us us are happy with someone producing, not smugly criticizing only ? Look. Anyone can test the difference between using and not using a filter. If they can't see the difference its irrelevant. If we are talking about Leica lenses a filter is a relatively low cost compared with the lens and certainly immensely lower than repairing damaged coating or front element. Possible optical degradation versus damage is a no-brainer as far as I'm concerned and I've tested for myself and am confident that any degradation is absolutely negligible inmost cases using decent filters. But reading someone else's comparison is only valid if you believe them and their conclusions are relevant to you. What smug criticism about this? 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
250swb Posted March 26, 2016 Share #29 Posted March 26, 2016 Why would anyone buy an expensive lens and then accepted the risk of a degradation in image quality in order to protect the expensive lens? I imagine because the lens is one of the type that fits on the front of your camera? Or is that too simple and obvious? You often have little choice when other lens parameters are taking into account so buying one that fits is good sense whether it is expensive or not. If a filter then means it is more usable than the common faffing around that goes on in mounting a lens it has to be a big plus for the filter, because a good photography is better than a perfect technical photograph or no photograph at all. Steve Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Posted March 26, 2016 Share #30 Posted March 26, 2016 Because the article is about general filter usage, not particular brands tested? Because the article writer has some kind of benefit from us following links, and thus have to write an interesting article? Because there is something to read before the the end? Because the links are not the conclusion? Because some us us are happy with someone producing, not smugly criticizing only ? Hi. Just pointing out the obvious. There is possibly a reason(s) when a blogger posts on the internet. They make money by stirring up interest and GAS when they write an article. Not much going on in camera-land right now, so write an accessory article and end it with a link to buy. Nothing wrong with that at all, and I'm not smugly criticizing, just pointing out the obvious. Here is some more obvious stuff: Need and ND filter - use an ND filter Need a polarizer filter - use a polarizer filter Need a uv/ir - use a uv/ir filter Want lens protection - use a filter or a lens hood Don't need a filter - don't use a filter Concerned you don't have the best filter - spend more money and read more articles. Rick 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Posted March 26, 2016 Share #31 Posted March 26, 2016 (edited) Ok, that last post was somewhat tongue in cheek. But, if anybody cares, I don't use filters to protect my modern lenses. I have found lens hoods offer contrast and protect the lens much better in almost all cases than a filter. I am a huge lens hood user. If, I need a filter I use a filter. When I want a polarizer I don't even think about degradation because, the benefit of getting the image I want totally outweighs the worry of any (if any) degradation. Lastly, modern front lenses coatings will stand up to a Scotchbrite, they are tough! Rick 12451 Edited March 26, 2016 by Rick 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schrödinger's cat Posted March 26, 2016 Share #32 Posted March 26, 2016 (edited) I imagine because the lens is one of the type that fits on the front of your camera? Or is that too simple and obvious? You often have little choice when other lens parameters are taking into account so buying one that fits is good sense whether it is expensive or not. If a filter then means it is more usable than the common faffing around that goes on in mounting a lens it has to be a big plus for the filter, because a good photography is better than a perfect technical photograph or no photograph at all. Steve Huh ? Some nice images on your flicker page Edited March 26, 2016 by Schrödinger's cat Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pgk Posted March 26, 2016 Share #33 Posted March 26, 2016 Lastly, modern front lenses coatings will stand up to a Scotchbrite, they are tough! Water droplets especially can cause damage depending on whether they contain anything other than water (salt) and whether they are promptly removed or left to dry. Chemical damage is just as bad as physical damage. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NB23 Posted March 26, 2016 Share #34 Posted March 26, 2016 Water droplets especially can cause damage depending on whether they contain anything other than water (salt) and whether they are promptly removed or left to dry. Chemical damage is just as bad as physical damage. Air, simply. It can be greasy, contains chemicals. A front element needs as much cleaning as a filter. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Kilmister Posted March 26, 2016 Share #35 Posted March 26, 2016 Air is a real problem ... we have to breathe it. Then we cough. Seriously, in a clean atmosphere, it isn't too bad. But I don't live in a town or a city. Out in the sticks the worst thing is sandy rain. I have been told that every rain drop is built around a grain of dust. Beware of rain but not as bad a salt water spray as @pgk says. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkP Posted March 26, 2016 Share #36 Posted March 26, 2016 I am a huge lens hood user. 1. You use huge lens hoods? 2. You use lens hoods hugely? (i.e. definition - to a very great extent) 3. You are huge and use lens hoods? 4. Any combination of the above? Please clarify ;-) 3 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkP Posted March 26, 2016 Share #37 Posted March 26, 2016 (edited) There is always a filter (for protection and/or effects) on my lenses, unless I'm shooting at night with point light sources, unless I'm shooting at night with point light sources where my lens front element may get dirty/damaged in which case the filter is back on! There have been a handful of photos I've taken at night with a filter on where I've thought the filter led to extra internal reflections. Otherwise, with some limited testing, or just looking at my photographs I've not ever convinced myself the photo is worse because of the filter. Having said that I may just go back and do some more rigorous testing. I'd rather not have bought a $60 to $100 UV/protection filter for each of my lenses over the years as by now they would almost have paid for another lens. I just view them as lens prophylaxis. If I was a true Liecaman then I'd also never use a filter as it's very important to show the world (and myself) that beautiful Leica writing on the ring surrounding the front lens element ;-) Edited March 26, 2016 by MarkP Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dkCambridgeshire Posted March 26, 2016 Share #38 Posted March 26, 2016 Ming may experience the advantage of not using a filter because the KL climate is very different to that of e.g. London (where he used to live). In KL there are frequent heavy rains which clear the atmosphere - probably leaving it crystal clear late in the day - thus optimising imaging and maybe exacerbating the noticeable difference between using or not using a filter. dunk Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NB23 Posted March 26, 2016 Share #39 Posted March 26, 2016 Air is a real problem ... we have to breathe it. Then we cough. . We live in an extremwly polluted world. So much that even the clothes that we wear are killing us. New maladies are now the norm such as Chromic fatigue, which probably comes from aur poisoning. Poisons emanating from the walls, floors, clothes. This is real. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dkCambridgeshire Posted March 27, 2016 Share #40 Posted March 27, 2016 (edited) We live in an extremwly polluted world. So much that even the clothes that we wear are killing us. New maladies are now the norm such as Chromic fatigue, which probably comes from aur poisoning. Poisons emanating from the walls, floors, clothes. This is real. Nobody knows for sure the probable cause(s) of chronic fatigue syndrome and it is certainly not a 'norm' … and to suggest it's caused by air poisoning is pure conjecture. Fact is, people are living longer than their forebears so in most 'normal' environments all the alleged poisons are not having a detrimental affect on our longevities - unless you smoke tobacco, drink too much alcohol, or consume too much sugar and red meat. dunk Edited March 27, 2016 by dkCambridgeshire 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.