D
Deleted member 49428
Guest
See sky's linked video.What evidence do you have for such a stupid comment
Not that stupid afterall
Last edited by a moderator:
See sky's linked video.What evidence do you have for such a stupid comment
I've seen a filter with a stone chipping embedded in it. The photographer was covering a rally special stage and one of the cars had picked up the chipping and flung it into his lens. The front element of his lens was untouched thanks to the filer; without the protection that filter gave, it would have been an expensive repair! Obviously this depends on how much space there is between the filter and the front element of the lens, but on that occasion there was enough for the chap to get away with the cost of a new filter instead of the cost of a new front lens element.Deffinitely. Filters can have their use in conditions like that but filters protection against impacts are approx zero
Did you watch the video Sky linked to?I've seen a filter with a stone chipping embedded in it. The photographer was covering a rally special stage and one of the cars had picked up the chipping and flung it into his lens. The front element of his lens was untouched thanks to the filer; without the protection that filter gave, it would have been an expensive repair! Obviously this depends on how much space there is between the filter and the front element of the lens, but on that occasion there was enough for the chap to get away with the cost of a new filter instead of the cost of a new front lens element.
I think the second video Marc posted was about the most sensible and unbiased presentation about the 'filter debate' I've seen yet, and I'd recommend everyone watches it and then just makes up their own mind about the subject, rather than listening to popular misconceptions being repeated parrot fashion, ironically by some people who are also keen to repeat the myth that even deep scratches on the front element of a lens will make no difference to image quality! It might not make a noticeable difference in dull weather/indoor test conditions, but try shooting with a lens with a scratched or broken front element into the sun, or at an acute angle to the sun, and that myth will be as busted as the front element is! Mind you... you could always use a lens hood I suppose!
Did you watch the video Sky linked to?
To get reasonable flare resistance on a lens like a 24-105 it NEEDS to be big. A hood like your 1980s version would be usable at the wide end, but does very little at 105.Does anyone use lens hoods these days?
I've mentioned I was away from photography for 30 years. When I got back, lens hoods had become huge. I've got a whole cabinet full of lens hoods. I admonish my wife periodically about the refrigerator and pantry, DON'T STORE AIR. Lens hoods, when stored or transported, are liters and liters of air.
View attachment 292788 View attachment 292789
Left: Canon 24-105mm f/4 with hood, circa 2016. Right: Nikkor 24mm f/2 with hood, circa 1980.
When a lens hood comes into play, you're looking at a tough shot anyway. You might reconsider the angle of your light. But if you think, no, this is the shot I want, then a left hand is an almost-always adequate shade.
So I don't carry lens hoods. Just too much empty space to lug around.
Yes, still the strengt difference aplies. A damaged filter does not equal a saved front element.I think that video appeared to concentrate on testing the front element of lenses to absolute destruction, not just chipping or marking them. Also, I believe using heavy weights at fairly slow velocity is likely to cause internal damage, as well a breaking the front element, whereas a lighter object travelling at a higher velocity is unlikely to cause mechanical/internal damage, but still leave a mark on the front element. I'm sure you can see the difference there?
A damaged filter may not equal a smashed or cracked front element, but it may very well equal a chipped or marked front element. In which case, I'd take a damaged and easily replicable filter any day of the week! If you believe otherwise then fine, that's your affair.Yes, still the strengt difference aplies. A damaged filter does not equal a saved front element.
I dont think so. Filters are very fragile compared to lens front elements as seen in the video. It takes next to nothing to crack og break the filter and the foreign matter being embeded in the filter shows that was very little force. Being somewhere risking flying items with forces large enough to Damage the lens my own security would come first and id get my butt out of there. Offcource if se are talking shooting a welder or grinder in action its filter on.A damaged filter may not equal a smashed or cracked front element, but it may very well equal a chipped or marked front element. In which case, I'd take a damaged and easily replicable filter any day of the week! If you believe otherwise then fine, that's your affair.
In case you missed it, my post meant that I don't care what you think! You believe whatever you want to.I dont think so.
If you're looking for max lens protection, giant lens hoods are your best bet. You got a net buoy clipped to the end. They should paint them orange.
Ive broken two lenses over the last 22 years. One(Nikon 28-70 zoom) down a trail in the high Tatras, lenses intact zoom and Focus inoperable. The seconds was this summer when I dropped my 9 mm Laowa from a control tower on an old military airfield(10-15m). Lenses intact but fix Focus and tilt was introduced. I even mounted and used the lens after picking it up. The apperture also worked. My A6000 with 12mm samyang took a 6ft dive onto a Boulder beach a few years back but the lenshoods took the punishment and even that survived. While filters may save your filter thread on lens they offer No shock absorbance or significant shock distribution to save anything other from Damages uppon impact but they do almost you to go crazy on cleaning without risking marks on the front element.I spent 10 years banging Nikons around. Bumps and bruises were a badge of honor. But I don't think I ever scratched a lens element.
Now I kept (and keep) UV filters on my lenses religiously, and maybe that's why. Or maybe not. That's not why I use them. It's the rim shot I'm protecting against. Unless you're in a garage cracking glass with a bearing press, the bezel on the front of the lens is way more likely to get banged up than the recessed front element. If you bang the rim hard enough it will damage the mechanics and brick the lens. More likely, you'll bend the bezel and that lens will never take filters again -- which sucks.
I broke 1 filter where I had to chip the glass out and peel the rim out from the lens threads with a pair of pliers. Filter rims are soft metal, aluminum or brass. Absorbs blows. Lens was fine -- glass and barrel. Had to use it for a few days without a filter. Made me nervous.
So yeah, filters are fragile. They're meant to be. You want them to be the weak link. If anything breaks, it's the filter.
If you're looking for max lens protection, giant lens hoods are your best bet. You got a net buoy clipped to the end. They should paint them orange.
Yes, mainly as protection for the front element.
Having a good time yet?Larger lens hoods can also be useful to hide behind when making your escape after someone starts a discussion about UV filters.
Perhaps a discussion about using a UV filter on a mirrorless camera (all of which are better than any DSLR), while taking photos to do sky swapped, HDR, wedding photos on a professional basis without any experience or insurance, and giving away lots of the photos to newspapers and magazines to use free of charge?Larger lens hoods can also be useful to hide behind when making your escape after someone starts a discussion about UV filters.
And a single cardslot........dont forget the single cardslotPerhaps a discussion about using a UV filter on a mirrorless camera (all of which are better than any DSLR), while taking photos to do sky swapped, HDR, wedding photos on a professional basis without any experience or insurance, and giving away lots of the photos to newspapers and magazines to use free of charge?
Perhaps a discussion about using a UV filter on a mirrorless camera (all of which are better than any DSLR), while taking photos to do sky swapped, HDR, wedding photos on a professional basis without any experience or insurance, and giving away lots of the photos to newspapers and magazines to use free of charge?
Processed? Can't you get it right in camera?Stuff all that, will the photos be processed on a Mac or PC?
Processed? Can't you get it right in camera?
Linux of course, using GIMP. I pity the fool who pays the Adobe Tax...Stuff all that, will the photos be processed on a Mac or PC?
Well, as we save so much money buying from grey market dealers it doesn't seem necessary to charge for the photos...Perhaps a discussion about using a UV filter on a mirrorless camera (all of which are better than any DSLR), while taking photos to do sky swapped, HDR, wedding photos on a professional basis without any experience or insurance, and giving away lots of the photos to newspapers and magazines to use free of charge?
Loving the fact they do deals for buying multiple hoods! So let’s think, I’ve got four lenses I’ll buy four ‘universal’ hoods, or I could buy one and spend more time changing it every time I change lens than taking photos, or I could use the manufacturers proper hoods, that fit perfectly and work to the very best level for each lens.....I just saw this today. It's in Kickstarter mode. I think I'll get one. And, judging by the number of folks who have signed up, I'm not the only one who hates traffic-cone-sized lens hoods. Not as much protection, but it would work as a lens hood when I need it, and pack away when I don't.
Universal Lens Hood
"S and M" as they put it. In black rubber.And that "Universal" hood is so "universal" that they sell it in 2 sizes medium and large.
You are quite keen on the 35mm focal length, then! I have a Summicron with a rectangular hood like that - nice hood, but terrible cap that usually falls off when I take the camera out of the bag (maybe automatic cap removal is a feature?).
You are quite keen on the 35mm focal length, then! I have a Summicron with a rectangular hood like that - nice hood, but terrible cap that usually falls off when I take the camera out of the bag (maybe automatic cap removal is a feature?).