| Author |
Message |
triceratops
Joined: 15 Nov 2006
Posts: 7860
Location: The other Nevada
|
Posted: Mon May 21, 2012 8:32 pm
|  |
| geoffwnz wrote: | | felix_casio wrote: | | geoffwnz wrote: | | felix_casio wrote: |
I have these following lenses and all of them have hoods. I don't see how anything can really get in there to cause damage.
|
This is how: |
see I did not take that into account, for those type of shots I would get back with a 200 or 300mm. I was talking more about this...
|
Yeah, slightly less chance of rock throwing provided you have the subject's permission. :-p
But in the case of the three shots I showed above, there was nothing but empty space behind me, so longer lens wasn't going to be much use. |
To hell with the camera. Were you wearing chain-mail for your own protection? LOL |
|
geoffwnz
Joined: 10 Feb 2012
Posts: 174
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
|
|
Posted: Mon May 21, 2012 9:01 pm
| |
| triceratops wrote: | | geoffwnz wrote: | | felix_casio wrote: | | geoffwnz wrote: | | felix_casio wrote: |
I have these following lenses and all of them have hoods. I don't see how anything can really get in there to cause damage.
|
This is how: |
see I did not take that into account, for those type of shots I would get back with a 200 or 300mm. I was talking more about this...
|
Yeah, slightly less chance of rock throwing provided you have the subject's permission. :-p
But in the case of the three shots I showed above, there was nothing but empty space behind me, so longer lens wasn't going to be much use. |
To hell with the camera. Were you wearing chain-mail for your own protection? LOL |
We are into extreme sports over here. Photography is one of them. :-)
To be honest, I hadn't even seen the big rock shown in the composite shot until I was processing the photos afterwards. It appears to have sailed past my right elbow and disappeared over the bank behind me. |
|
jeffbanke
Joined: 18 Dec 2005
Posts: 17463
Location: www.xlr8photo.com, The real California
|
|
Posted: Sat May 26, 2012 11:20 am
| |
Well just to be the devils advocate, after all this time listening to "Don't use a UV filter to protect your lens, etc.!", I just returned from New Zealand with a scratch in the front element of my 300mm Nikon lens, because it didn't have a filter on it.
OK, so you need to understand the lens hood is built in and collapses back over the lens body. The lens cap is a floppy leather thing that falls off at the drop of a hat,, and the damn thing was INSIDE my backpack. So, my only idea is that something I had in there that was sharp enough and moved enough to scratch the lens when I was either shooting and the lens was still in the backpack or when I was carrying it around.
In, either case this lens would have been saved by the use of a filter of some kind on the front.
Needless to say shit happens and we need to be prepared for it. Been having a run of bad luck with lenses, had my 35-70mm f2.8 hit the concrete on a bike ride, so had to go out and buy the 24-70mm f2.8, now my 300mm f4, guess I will have to buy the 300mm f2.8 now :-) |
|
rinder99
Joined: 12 Jul 2005
Posts: 39177
Location: Contact www.rinderart.com/Books and Workshops www.rindersmithphotography.com Youtube/rinder
|
|
Posted: Sat May 26, 2012 10:50 pm
| |
Nothing wrong with protection. Just use something that has a benefit.UV's do not. |
|
jeffbanke
Joined: 18 Dec 2005
Posts: 17463
Location: www.xlr8photo.com, The real California
|
|
Posted: Sun May 27, 2012 12:48 am
| |
Yes, I have been running naked for years, and this is the first time I have had this kind of problem, so I am reconsidering my position regarding filters. Note I am not advocating any particular type of filter, just a condom, but like a condom, don't buy a cheap one! :-) |
|
rinder99
Joined: 12 Jul 2005
Posts: 39177
Location: Contact www.rinderart.com/Books and Workshops www.rindersmithphotography.com Youtube/rinder
|
|
Posted: Sun May 27, 2012 11:30 am
| |
B+W 81A jeff. You will love it. |
|
jeffbanke
Joined: 18 Dec 2005
Posts: 17463
Location: www.xlr8photo.com, The real California
|
|
Posted: Sun May 27, 2012 3:16 pm
| |
| rinder99 wrote: | | B+W 81A jeff. You will love it. |
I have one, just need to remember where I put it LOL! |
|
kenny123
Joined: 13 Aug 2005
Posts: 6079
Location: Masterton,Wairarapa, New Zealand
|
|
Posted: Tue May 29, 2012 5:53 am
| |
| martyhaas wrote: | I never heard anything about lenses coming with UV protection built into them. If that's the case, then it's simply a question of how much peace of mind will I get out of knowing that there's a disposable layer of quality glass protecting the non-disposable glass. One of the options B+W offers is the clear glass.
Putting a cheap piece of glass on the front was never an option for me. I get the problems there. But there is such a ridiculous variety of UV filters that I was perplexed.
Thanks everyone for chiming in. |
This from Commercial Photographer Kirk Tuck, working out of Austin, Texas:
I've experimented many times over the last few decades and I've proven to myself that filters in front of lenses degrade the quality of the final images. Here's how I understand it all: Every air to glass interface causes a slight loss of resolution and contrast. This tends to make a lens look "flatter" and less sharp than it could be. Lens designers have understood for over a century that adding more glass elements increases the compromise. In the 1940's and 1950's they were willing to compromise things like corner sharpness and flatness of field so that they could design lenses with fewer corrective optics that had much more "snap" and "sparkle" than lenses of equivalent focal length designed with more elements.
Everything in lens design and manufacture is a compromise. If you add more elements you can correct for more distortions but you inevitably compromise contrast or resolution. And contrast/resolution is an equation. You can have one or the other or a mix but not high apparent acutance and high resolution in the same design. Really. Macro lenses need to have flatter fields and greater correction of geometric distortion. They have more elements. But in order to keep the image quality very high they have slower f-stops and smaller elements. Smaller lens elements are easier to machine with high accuracy than larger elements. They are easier to correctly assemble in barrels. Faster lenses have bigger elements. According to optics expert, Erwin Puts, every time you double the diameter of an optical glass element you increase the manufacturing complexity by something like a factor of 8X.
The idea behind the desire to use a filter is to protect the front element of the lens. In days of old, when people would sit around on their davenports and immerse themselves in the latest novels of Nabokov and Kerouac while sipping cognac, the coatings and the glass used on lenses was......soft. Rigorous and frequent cleaning degraded the coatings and could scratch the front surface of the glass which led to flare and other nasty optical business.
But lenses have been hardcoated for years and years (five decades?). And the infinitely expensive fast telephoto lenses from Nikon, Canon and Leica are designed with a neutral front element that is, essentially a built in protective filter. The difference being that the systems were designed with that component as an integral part. Not an after thought that's only benefit is to increase the commission of your camera sales person or to increase the margin on your internet purchase.
Take the filters off the lenses. Shoot like a real man. Or a real woman. And if your lens is destroyed then make sure you have a good story to go along with the loss. That's the way it's done. |
|
martyhaas
Joined: 25 Apr 2007
Posts: 148
|
|
Posted: Tue May 29, 2012 2:02 pm
| |
| kenny123 wrote: | | Take the filters off the lenses. Shoot like a real man. Or a real woman. And if your lens is destroyed then make sure you have a good story to go along with the loss. That's the way it's done. |
LOL. This has been a very interesting and informative dialogue. But after reading about Jeff's experience of having his lens scratched up inside the case, I'm not sure I want to be a real man. I've had lens caps fall off plenty of times, and I don't want to find out the hard way that something was loose in my case scratching on the lens. |
|
jeffbanke
Joined: 18 Dec 2005
Posts: 17463
Location: www.xlr8photo.com, The real California
|
|
Posted: Thu May 31, 2012 12:27 am
| |
Kenny's post is correct though, every air/glass interface is a source of degredation or introduction of distortion and Chromatic Aberrations.
Interestingly enough, I took a bunch of images with the 300mm (the lens with scratch in it), and cannot see any flaws in them YET! |
|
martyhaas
Joined: 25 Apr 2007
Posts: 148
|
|
Posted: Thu May 31, 2012 1:01 am
| |
May you never see them, Jeff. |
|
jeffbanke
Joined: 18 Dec 2005
Posts: 17463
Location: www.xlr8photo.com, The real California
|
|
Posted: Thu May 31, 2012 11:52 pm
| |
| martyhaas wrote: | | May you never see them, Jeff. |
LOL!, thanks Marty, I will post some here later perhaps someone else can see them :-) |
|
rixie
Joined: 29 Dec 2007
Posts: 3430
Location: Hampshire, UK
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 01, 2012 1:12 pm
| |
| felix_casio wrote: | | geoffwnz wrote: | | felix_casio wrote: |
I have these following lenses and all of them have hoods. I don't see how anything can really get in there to cause damage.
|
This is how: |
see I did not take that into account, for those type of shots I would get back with a 200 or 300mm. I was talking more about this...
 |
Dave, please cold you cook these girls a good, wholesome meal?
Sorry, also meant to add that I had a UV filter on the MVP workshop. It caused vignetting so I took it off and put it away. £40 wasted, as I'm unlikely to do any of those cars on dirt track shots! |
|
hhltdave5
Joined: 20 Jun 2006
Posts: 24070
Location: Our Stock, Food & Portrait photography books at www.rindersmithphotography.com
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 01, 2012 1:41 pm
| |
LOL yea Jane it looks like they could use a good home cooked meal! I think I could whip something up for them :) |
|
rinder99
Joined: 12 Jul 2005
Posts: 39177
Location: Contact www.rinderart.com/Books and Workshops www.rindersmithphotography.com Youtube/rinder
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 01, 2012 2:11 pm
| |
| jeffbanke wrote: | Kenny's post is correct though, every air/glass interface is a source of degredation or introduction of distortion and Chromatic Aberrations.
Interestingly enough, I took a bunch of images with the 300mm (the lens with scratch in it), and cannot see any flaws in them YET! |
your not gonna see a scratch jeff. |
|
| |
|
Log in
