The "New Gear/Willy Waving" thread

[abbotsmike]

Basically what ever anyone thinks about filters, canon, nikon, JPEG/RAW, full frame/crop you're all wrong no matter what side you stand on, and we're all morons

Think that covers everything

 

[ElDude]

Think that covers everything

Ha, yeah

 

[Above&Beyond]

Probably to protect the front lens element.
Should add another cheaper filter to protect the expensive filter

Some people probably do. Never understood the point, if it was meant to be there it would already have one. Optical glass is pretty resilient.

 

[mrk]

Some people probably do. Never understood the point, if it was meant to be there it would already have one. Optical glass is pretty resilient.

Incorrect.

Use my example above for instance. A spark hitting the front element will mean new front element time. Stick a quality protection filter on there and you have saved yourself a couple of hundred quid instantly and instead only shelled out £40-£80 for the filter. That and on most L lenses full weather sealing is only available once you add a filter.

I know what I'd choose every time based on what I've experienced alone.

 

[Above&Beyond]

Incorrect.

Use my example above for instance. A spark hitting the front element will mean new front element time. Stick a quality protection filter on there and you have saved yourself a couple of hundred quid instantly and instead only shelled out £40-£80 for the filter. That and on most L lenses full weather sealing is only available once you add a filter.

I know what I'd choose every time based on what I've experienced alone.

Did you have the hood on?

 

[Genoma]

Does this count as camera gear???

vid http://youtu.be/I6G2-YT29-U

 

[D.P.]

Incorrect.

Use my example above for instance. A spark hitting the front element will mean new front element time. Stick a quality protection filter on there and you have saved yourself a couple of hundred quid instantly and instead only shelled out £40-£80 for the filter. That and on most L lenses full weather sealing is only available once you add a filter.

I know what I'd choose every time based on what I've experienced alone.

When you shove your camera somewhere where it is likely in the firing line for various shrapnel it makes sense of course, but Above&Beyond is right. Optical glass is actually very strong and you would be surprised how resilient the front element is, much more so than pretty much all filters. So just because something damaged a filter doesn't mean it would damage the front element (especially when considering cheap filters).

It is also surprising how little damage to the front element impacts image quality. Even big cracks and large chunks missing barely make a visible difference under most conditions (flare can be an issue, use a bigger hood), much less important than dust on the rear element and funnily enough cheap filters can have a bigger visual difference than a chip or scratch.


Ironically the only time I've seen a front element damaged was when someone was using a bog standard Hoya filter which exploded and covered the front element with razor sharp shards that made large scratches, and this is apparently a pretty common occurrence which is why I always shell out for B+W filters (mostly CPL).


My moto, use filters sparingly when definitely needed, make sure they are the best you can afford, use a CPL over a UV whenever possible outdoors for the IQ gains.

 

[SDK^]

I have a minor scratch on my 17-40 and was wondering if it would affect image quality. A google search later revealed not. You actually need to have serious lens damage before image quality is affected.

http://kurtmunger.com/dirty_lens_articleid35.html

Lens scratches only impact resale value.

 

[D.P.]

I have a minor scratch on my 17-40 and was wondering if it would affect image quality. A google search later revealed not. You actually need to have serious lens damage before image quality is affected.

http://kurtmunger.com/dirty_lens_articleid35.html

Lens scratches only impact resale value.

That is the link I was looking for.
The funny thing is cheap filters have a much bigger impact (low contrast, flare).
Which is why i use my lenses bare unless I expect something like flying gravel at a rally track.

 

[mrk]

Thing with the spark was it didn't crack the filter or anything, I only knew a spark had hit it after I got home and cleaned the lenses and spotted it. It was burned into the glass, doesn't matter what the stock lens front element is made of, burnt in spark on glass is burnt in spark on glass and I'd much rather it be on a piece of replaceable glass at £70 (I only have B+W filters) instead of the front of a £450 lens permanently. I don't care if it's not going to affect image quality! It's the principal.

That and of course the weather protection features!

 

[Raymond Lin]

Very nice collection there! Am I right in thinking those are all primes? (Can't quite make out the ones at the back)

Most are primes, I own 3 zooms, a 16-35, a 24-70 and a Sigma 70-200 (not shown).

I have filters on ALL my lenses, I don't notice any loss in image quality but it gives me a piece of mine. I don't shoot in a controlled environment like a studio and yes, front elements can be replaced but when you are in the middle of a shoot, it is much easier to take a broken filter off then to replace the front element.

 

[CGrieves]

As for buying filters, don't buy the best you can afford, just buy the best. There's a review of filters out there somewhere (can't find the link) where they used a spectrophotometer for a real measure of transmissive quality. Suffice to say the most expensive (even within the same brand) wasn't the best.

I bought the winning filter (Hoya HMC UV-0) simply because my 70-200 f2.8II was such a big investment at the time. I did a lot of facing and couldn't see any subjective difference with the filter on or off, at any focal length or aperture.

 

[Raymond Lin]

Most appear to be Hoya with a couple of B+W. I learnt the hard way when a flying spark hit my 77mm B+W

Sadly I need that brand on the 17-40 because the Hoya have thicker threads which causes some vignette in images at the wide end.

There are actually more B+W than Hoya

 

[mrk]

Did you have the hood on?

Sometimes yes, sometimes no. The canon UWA lens hood is designed to not exhibit any vignette though. I've only noticed it with normal thickness threads on filters. There's a reason why the B+W ones are nano threads!

 

[D.P.]

Thing with the spark was it didn't crack the filter or anything, I only knew a spark had hit it after I got home and cleaned the lenses and spotted it. It was burned into the glass, doesn't matter what the stock lens front element is made of, burnt in spark on glass is burnt in spark on glass and I'd much rather it be on a piece of replaceable glass at £70 (I only have B+W filters) instead of the front of a £450 lens permanently. I don't care if it's not going to affect image quality! It's the principal.

That and of course the weather protection features!

As Is aid, if you are shooting in environments when that is likely to happen then it makes sense.

 

[D.P.]

As for buying filters, don't buy the best you can afford, just buy the best. There's a review of filters out there somewhere (can't find the link) where they used a spectrophotometer for a real measure of transmissive quality. Suffice to say the most expensive (even within the same brand) wasn't the best.

I bought the winning filter (Hoya HMC UV-0) simply because my 70-200 f2.8II was such a big investment at the time. I did a lot of facing and couldn't see any subjective difference with the filter on or off, at any focal length or aperture.

There is more to it than transmission properties. Things like mount quality and material (brass over alu any day), strength of the glass, resistance to residual etc. B+W do very well because their glass is very strong and the brass mount is superb, prevents crossed threads and is more shock resistant.

I had a Hoya HD CPL shatter from a tny knock on day 1, only purchased because it supposedly has a better transmission than the B+W MRC F-Pro. Never touched Hoya again.

 

[CGrieves]

There is more to it than transmission properties. Things like mount quality and material (brass over alu any day), strength of the glass, resistance to residual etc. B+W do very well because their glass is very strong and the brass mount is superb, prevents crossed threads and is more shock resistant.

I had a Hoya HD CPL shatter from a tny knock on day 1, only purchased because it supposedly has a better transmission than the B+W MRC F-Pro. Never touched Hoya again.

Sure, but your point was that one should not cheap filters generally because they harm image quality. My point is IQ impact is not the domain of the most expensive filters. In fact, from that test I seem to recall it was the opposite- many supposed premium brands came across poorly both technically and subjectively. The test proved that you can have protection with minimal impact to IQ. My experience of the filter that evaluated top seems to agree with their findings, and no shattering episodes so far over the last three years.

Transmissivity was only one of the tests, they also evaluated them for flare, contrast etc. Wish I could find the link.

[Edited to add "Cheap" caveat.]

 

[D.P.]

Sure, but your point was that one should not use them generally because they harm image quality. My point is IQ impact is not the domain of the most expensive filters. In fact, from that test I seem to recall it was the opposite- many supposed premium brands came across poorly both technically and subjectively. The test proved that you can have protection with minimal impact to IQ. My experience of the filter that evaluated top seems to agree with their findings, and no shattering episodes so far over the last three years.

Transmissivity was only one of the tests, they also evaluated them for flare, contrast etc. Wish I could find the link.

no, my point was bad filters affect IQ (worse than scratches and chips in the front element) and bad filters are more likely to damage your lens than going without a filter. Therefore you should avoid bad filters and use good filters whenever a filter is needed, but for everyday use there is no need.

as someone previously said, if filters are needed and have zero cost in terms of IQ then they would be included in the design of the lens. To protect the actually expensive font element of super telephoto lenses they are designed with a special glass meniscus that covers the main elements without leaving an air gap rather than a flat filter.

 

[GTRacer]

That awkward moment when the latest photographic thing you bought was this (clue: not the camera):



I did buy this though:



And used it to make this:

 

[CGrieves]

no, my point was bad filters affect IQ (worse than scratches and chips in the front element) and bad filters are more likely to damage your lens than going without a filter.

No you actually said "buy the best you can afford" and that "cheap" (I quote) filters "have a much bigger impact (low contrast, flare)"

My point is that the price of a filter is no guarantee of optical quality. Quite the opposite. If anyone wants link I'll try and find it tomorrow.

If you're refining what you said to "bad filters are bad", then we are in agreement