- Messages
- 6,956
- Name
- King
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I am going to order one of these for my Sigma 150-500.
What does Digitally Optimised mean? It's made by Sigma.
What does Digitally Optimised mean? It's made by Sigma.
Digitially Optmised UV Filter
- Thread starter King of Groove
- Start date
arclight
Oooh that burglar's a cutie
- Messages
- 11,635
- Name
- Doug
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Digitally Optimised (DG) Filters
EX DG filters benefit from Sigma's multi-layer lens coating, developed to counteract the highly reflective characteristic of image sensors. With older style filters, light would reflect off the image sensor, bounce off the lens and filter elements and re-enter the image sensor, creating a ghost image. The multi-layer coating dramatically reduces this effect. In addition to this, an optimum, neutral colour balance is ensured, increasing the white balance accuracy of the digital camera.
That's the story. How well it does it I have no idea.
EX DG filters benefit from Sigma's multi-layer lens coating, developed to counteract the highly reflective characteristic of image sensors. With older style filters, light would reflect off the image sensor, bounce off the lens and filter elements and re-enter the image sensor, creating a ghost image. The multi-layer coating dramatically reduces this effect. In addition to this, an optimum, neutral colour balance is ensured, increasing the white balance accuracy of the digital camera.
That's the story. How well it does it I have no idea.
- Messages
- 23,200
- Name
- Richard
- Edit My Images
- No
I don't think that digital multicoating is any different to regular multicoating on filters TBH. I suspect they have just rebranded their regular multicoated filters with that magical marketing word, digital.
However, it is certainly true that reflections off the back of the filters are a real problem that didn't exist with film - because the sensor and the filter are parallel reflecting surfaces and light just bounces back and forth between them like two mirrors. And multicoated or otherwise, is a great help.
There was a thread about it recently with some amazing/alarming pics. I'll try and find a link.
Edit: here it is. Check post #19
http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=130960&highlight=filters+flare
However, it is certainly true that reflections off the back of the filters are a real problem that didn't exist with film - because the sensor and the filter are parallel reflecting surfaces and light just bounces back and forth between them like two mirrors. And multicoated or otherwise, is a great help.
There was a thread about it recently with some amazing/alarming pics. I'll try and find a link.
Edit: here it is. Check post #19
http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=130960&highlight=filters+flare
- Messages
- 6,776
- Name
- Andy Drake
- Edit My Images
- Yes
This is my opinion as well.
Although not made by Sigma, Kenko re-branded their (glassless!) extension tubes with "DG"
DG is snakeoil - I do not believe there is such a thing as a "digital" coating.
Steve Smith
Joe
- Messages
- 9,277
- Edit My Images
- No
It's a bit like the digital headphones I saw for sale in Dxons not long after CDs were introduced.
Steve.
Steve.
OP
- Messages
- 6,956
- Name
- King
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Thanks for advice everyone. Going to cricket on Thursday and Friday and the Sigma 150-500 needs a filter!
- Messages
- 23,200
- Name
- Richard
- Edit My Images
- No
Why? I would just leave it naked. Use a lens hood for protection.
If you must use a filter, make sure it's multi-coated.
- Messages
- 2,859
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I agree, if anything hits your front element it will be a cricket ball, which isn't going to be stopped by a filter...
Which is one of the reasons I think the use of UV filters on Digital cameras is useless (unless you are shooting a rally/in inhospitable climates such as a desert).