Buying lenses at B&H..what filter ?

gus

Whats the best thing to do here guys. Im wanting to buy some lenses tonight from B&H to have on the Yosemite trip.

Below the lenses you always get the offer to buy filters/protectors. Whats the best thing to do...buy just the UV filters $24 or go for the polarizer for $54 ?

I assume if i am wanting to shoot surfing then a polarizer would be a given.

Will this polarizer effect the lens in other lighting conditions ?

Ta Gus

ian408

Humungus wrote:

Whats the best thing to do here guys. Im wanting to buy some lenses tonight from B&H to have on the Yosemite trip.

Below the lenses you always get the offer to buy filters/protectors. Whats the best thing to do...buy just the UV filters $24 or go for the polarizer for $54 ?

I assume if i am wanting to shoot surfing then a polarizer would be a given.

Will this polarizer effect the lens in other lighting conditions ?

Ta Gus

Depending on the polarizer, it could be anywhere from 1 to 2 stops. So you
wouldn't want to shoot with one all the time. You'll also need the circular
polarizer.

I don't shoot surf with a polarizer. But I could probably benefit using one
(the drop in for the 500 is a pain to use).

I'd at least get the UV though some might argue it takes away from
image quality.

Ian

luckyrwe

A polarizer will reduce reflections on non-metallic objects. It can apear to sharpen the image and can adjust darkness of colors a bit.

A UV Haze filter is usually left on the lens at all times to protect the front element. You would not leave a polarizer on all the time.

For Yosemite you may want to get a graduated filter to help keep the sky blue while not losing detail in the land. Cokin had a great filter line, I wonder if they are still around?

There are dozens of other filters you may need for certain effects under various shooting conditions. I highly recommend "The 35MM Photographer's Handbook" for more details!

fish

Yet another religious topic. I put UV filters on all of my lenses and leave them on. Why? Mostly to protect the front element from scratches, dirt, kid fingerprints, rain, etc. I don't buy the cheapy lenses, so I don't buy the cheapy filters either. All my filters are either Heliopan or B+W. I've done a few tests and could not detect any difference at all between images shot with the filter and those shot without. That includes a reduction in haze.

just my opinion of course, and not everybody believes as I do (although they should )

gus

Great info gents...ta

wxwax

http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=8808&highlight=filter

Jekyll & Hyde

J: I appear to belong to that "other" religion.

H: My thoughts on filters for protection:

J: Any and all glass in front of the lens will impart some amount of flare, scatter, ghosting, or distortion and aberrations. Flare from specular highlights within or just outside of the frame; scatter from light hitting the filter directly (esp without a sunshade); ghosting from reflections off of the imaging sensor bouncing off of the rear surface of the filter; distortion, aberration, and more scatter from poor quality glass.

H: It can range from virtually unnoticeable to quite annoying, depending upon filter quality and shooting conditions. The good news is that most folks don't notice the difference most of the time, so it doesn't impair them in any way. The protection a filter offers can certainly outweigh any of the minor image degradations if shooting conditions are hazardous. I use a high quality B+W MRC (Multi-Resistant Coating) haze filter to protect the lens in blowing sand, snow, and spray. They're kinda expensive at about $79, but I know of no better filter (the multicoated Heliopan are comparable - and may even use the same Schott glass).

J: One note regarding digital cameras. Lens design and filter coatings are even more critical with digital cameras due to the highly reflective sensor surface (actually the surface of the imager's built-in filter). A reflection of the image can bounce off of the imager's surface and then reflect off of the rear of the lens elements (and rear surface of the accessory filter), then back to the imager producing a ghosting effect.

H: Recently lens manufacturers (esp. Canon and Nikon) have improved the coatings and even designed some of the lens element surfaces to curve in different directions from each other to eliminate this ghost reflection. Unfortunately the rear surface of an accessory filter is flat, and will act to bounce this ghost image back to the imager. Some manufacturers of long telephoto lenses (that use a built-in rear filter) have redesigned the rear surface of the filter to be slightly curved to disperse the ghost image.

J: My recommendation is to use protection when you need it (some may need it all of the time, some almost never). As for protection from falls, I've seen an equal number of lenses damaged when the filter shattered and the glass fragments tore the front coatings all up.

H: For many, the question boils down to - Do you want to use your lens at 99% for the life of the camera? (and every shot you ever take?) Or do you want to get 100% from your lens, and risk its untimely demise (perhaps in very short order?)

Just my "sermon" for today.
J&H

gus

Thankyou J&H...nice to see you both agreeing for a change.

Shay Stephens

This may get some knees jerking ;-)

Jekyll & Hyde wrote:

J: I appear to belong to that "other" religion.

I'm with J&H. For all the time I have been using cameras, I have used the lens cap for general protection, filters to achieve effects or protect against specific and imminent threats (flying sand, snot, or other secretions) and clean the lenses as needed with a puff of steamy breath and a microfiber cloth.

Never had a problem with coatings coming off, broken lenses, or elements getting scratched.

So what I take away from that is that the benefit a UV filter actually provides is rather low, since operating without one has not been any kind of detriment. I also conclude from that, that the real and most potent benefit provided by a UV filter is peace of mind, which I will admit can be a big benefit, if not a hollow one.

And you will note, I didn't even need to bring up the optical reasons to only use a filter when actually needed...

In the end, people will do what makes them happy. I like to bring up the opposing view on this as a public service to the masses

gus

Shay Stephens wrote:

I'm with J&H. For all the time I have been using cameras, I have used the lens cap for general protection, filters to achieve effects or protect against specific and imminent threats (flying sand, snot, or other secretions) and clean the lenses as needed with a puff of steamy breath and a microfiber cloth.

Never had a problem with coatings coming off, broken lenses, or elements getting scratched.

So what I take away from that is that the benefit a UV filter actually provides is rather low, since operating without one has not been any kind of detriment. I also conclude from that, that the real and most potent benefit provided by a UV filter is peace of mind, which I will admit can be a big benefit, if not a hollow one.

And you will note, I didn't even need to bring up the optical reasons to only use a filter when actually needed...

In the end, people will do what makes them happy. I like to bring up the opposing view on this as a public service to the masses

Thanks shay...would you think a polarizer is req for shooting surfing in bright sunlight ?

Shay Stephens

I like using a polarizer for outdoor shots for the glare reduction, sky effects, and saturation improvement it provides. Unless it is too dark to use effectively, a polarizer generally provides more benefit than the optical degradation takes away.

I fully bless the usage of polarizers

Humungus wrote:

Thanks shay...would you think a polarizer is req for shooting surfing in bright sunlight ?

gus

Shay Stephens wrote:

I like using a polarizer for outdoor shots for the glare reduction, sky effects, and saturation improvement it provides. Unless it is too dark to use effectively, a polarizer generally provides more benefit than the optical degradation takes away.

I fully bless the usage of polarizers

Ta

David_S85

The Filter Flare Factor
About a month ago, Mike Johnston devoted his monthly column to protective filters and whether or not they're actually needed.

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

an interesting and provocative read.