Lens care?

unknowndomain said:
Yeah, Nikon do/did free sensor cleaning if you want to send it in to them, I would personally follow their advise which they gave me, turn the camera off and point it down when taking the lens off, and have the next lens ready to go , but point it down until your just under the camera in order to minimise dust getting in, plus don't do any of this on a beach. LOL
Click to expand...

I think we are talking about lenses, not sensors. Don't think Nikon wipes the lens for you......even if they do, its not something you can't do at home.

monkeyspank said:
Well finger prints, I'd say no personally. Metallic objects, yes, definitely , and that is why I keep metallic objects away from my lenses. And my fingers
Click to expand...

That's why they are call accidents.

Where is that photo I saw of a photographer at the Olympics who turned and knocked something pointy with his 400mm telephoto and the lens survived but the filter didn't ? Yes you can get insurance but I rather have the lens for the rest of the day than it out of action for a few weeks.
 
Agree with that.
But when a replacement lens would cost a little more than a decent filter to protect it I wouldn't apply the same logic, especially to someone just starting out.
a 400mm prime, yes I would probably put a filter on.
 
There is a give and take.

For a Kit Lens, narh, i wouldn't bther.

Anything £200 onwards thou i would, any L Glass, any Prime (except the Nifty), I would put a filter on, and the price would be proportional to the costs of the lens. ie. £70 B&W on a £250 Sigma is not economical.
 
For use with a wider angles lens:
4128_HB-35-Lens-Hood_FRONT.jpg


Hoods prevent certain impacts on the frontal element.
Click to expand...


There used for protection? :| erm i better not mention what i though it was used for then :P
 
Just got another Canon 24-70 2.8 L and have lost the UV filter on my other so anyone suggest a brand etc. Money isn't really a factor its more about maintaining the IQ.

Blackvault
 
Blackvault said:
Just got another Canon 24-70 2.8 L and have lost the UV filter on my other so anyone suggest a brand etc. Money isn't really a factor its more about maintaining the IQ.

Blackvault
Click to expand...

B+W is the desired, if you don't want to spend that much then Hoya Pro1 is good alternative for £25 on the bay.
 
I'm a bit stuck on the different options available to me, I have four options:

B+W 77mm 010 MRC UV SH Filter - £56
B+W 77mm 010 MRC UV SL Filter - £53
B+W 77mm 010 UV SH Filter - £45
B+W 77mm 010 UV SL Filter - £85

Any help.

Blackvault
 
domthecondom said:
There used for protection? :| erm i better not mention what i though it was used for then :P
Click to expand...

Not its primary use mate, unless I am mistaken the primary use is to cut out light from other sources that are not what you are taking a picture of, or something like that anyway...

Please correct me if I am wrong people, I am a noob to photography. :)
 
J.T said:
Not its primary use mate, unless I am mistaken the primary use is to cut out light from other sources that are not what you are taking a picture of, or something like that anyway...

Please correct me if I am wrong people, I am a noob to photography. :)
Click to expand...

Generally speaking they don't cut out much extra light etc and are primarily used for protection.

Blackvault
 
Hoods are formost intended to prevent light directly hitting the front element of the lens and certain angles which can cause images to look 'Washed Out' and also the tell-tail lens flare rings that again can bugger up an otherwise perfectly good image. The protection factor can be look upon as a bonus of design.

Example:

This can happen, a lens hood would have prevented this:

KhadijaAndCarolineSmile.jpg


Just googled the image btw
 
The Canon lens hoods for the 300 2.8 L IS and larger are around 10% of the total cost of a lens. So look to spend ~£300 for the 300 2.8 IS for example. While expensive they are invaluable.

Blackvault
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom