1. Forum
  2. Usenet
  3. REC.PHOTO.DIGITAL

  • DSLR and Mirrorless - Filter ?

    From Geoff@21:1/5 to All on Tue Aug 13 15:00:29 2024
    Certainly a protection against particulates onto the front element, but
    is a UV (or whatever) filter of any optical benefit these days ?

    Or a potential liability with essentially an additional element, and
    potential flare from the surface being closer to the front of a lens-hood ?

    geoff

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Abandoned Trolley@21:1/5 to Geoff on Tue Aug 13 08:26:44 2024
    On 13/08/2024 04:00, Geoff wrote:
    Certainly a protection against particulates onto the front element, but
    is a UV (or whatever) filter of any optical benefit these days ?

    Or a potential liability with essentially an additional element, and potential flare from the surface being closer to the front of a lens-hood ?

    geoff


    Or maybe consider the lens hood as a bit of a liability ?

    I owned at least one telephoto lens which suffered from vignetting
    caused by the supplied lens hood

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Geoff@21:1/5 to Abandoned Trolley on Tue Aug 13 19:29:54 2024
    On 13/08/2024 7:26 pm, Abandoned Trolley wrote:
    On 13/08/2024 04:00, Geoff wrote:
    Certainly a protection against particulates onto the front element,
    but is a UV (or whatever) filter of any optical benefit these days ?

    Or a potential liability with essentially an additional element, and
    potential flare from the surface being closer to the front of a lens-
    hood ?

    geoff


    Or maybe consider the lens hood as a bit of a liability ?

    I owned at least one telephoto lens which suffered from vignetting
    caused by the supplied lens hood

    I think it would be a bit of a scandal if a Nikon piece did that ....

    geoff

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Abandoned Trolley@21:1/5 to All on Tue Aug 13 10:41:12 2024

    I owned at least one telephoto lens which suffered from vignetting
    caused by the supplied lens hood

    I think it would be a bit of a scandal if a Nikon piece did that ....

    geoff

    Perhaps - although I have been told that "they have all done it" at some
    time or other, and apparently it doesnt even need a telehoto lens.

    My example was an Olympus OM lens with the supplied lens hood.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Geoff@21:1/5 to Abandoned Trolley on Wed Aug 14 11:12:31 2024
    On 13/08/2024 9:41 pm, Abandoned Trolley wrote:


    I owned at least one telephoto lens which suffered from vignetting
    caused by the supplied lens hood

    I think it would be a bit of a scandal if a Nikon piece did that ....

    geoff

    Perhaps - although I have been told that "they have all done it" at some
    time or other, and apparently it doesnt even need a telehoto lens.

    My example was an Olympus OM lens with the supplied lens hood.



    Well a wide-angle lens would like be more susceptible that a tele,
    spanning a, um, wider angle ....

    geoff

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Alan Browne@21:1/5 to Geoff on Wed Aug 14 12:58:42 2024
    On 2024-08-12 23:00, Geoff wrote:
    Certainly a protection against particulates onto the front element, but
    is a UV (or whatever) filter of any optical benefit these days ?

    Or a potential liability with essentially an additional element, and potential flare from the surface being closer to the front of a lens-hood ?

    I suggest you look at what UV filter is in front of the sensor on your
    camera. It's probably more than adequate for the UV purpose.

    Depending on the lens, I use ND 0 filters for protection or no filter at
    all. High end B+W filters often have thin bezels (but may not be
    stackable).

    (For the avoidance of confusion, B+W is a brand).

    --
    "It would be a measureless disaster if Russian barbarism overlaid
    the culture and independence of the ancient States of Europe."
    Winston Churchill

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Geoff@21:1/5 to Alan Browne on Thu Aug 15 10:01:19 2024
    On 15/08/2024 4:58 am, Alan Browne wrote:
    On 2024-08-12 23:00, Geoff wrote:
    Certainly a protection against particulates onto the front element,
    but is a UV (or whatever) filter of any optical benefit these days ?

    Or a potential liability with essentially an additional element, and
    potential flare from the surface being closer to the front of a lens-
    hood ?

    I suggest you look at what UV filter is in front of the sensor on your camera.  It's probably more than adequate for the UV purpose.

    Depending on the lens, I use ND 0 filters for protection or no filter at all.  High end B+W filters often have thin bezels (but may not be stackable).

    (For the avoidance of confusion, B+W is a brand).


    Bowers & Wilkins :-) (ha ha)

    geoff

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)