|
|
Posted by PTravel on 03/13/07 12:21
"Spex" <No.spam@ta.com> wrote in message
news:45f6622d$0$8729$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader02.plus.net...
> PTravel wrote:
>>
>> "beowulf@nowhere.net" <r.oelerich@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:1173740307.838953.278010@n33g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>>> On Mar 12, 1:15 pm, "PTravel" <ptra...@travelersvideo.com> wrote:
>>> ..
>>>> I always use a UV filter. Filters cost a couple of bucks. A lens
>>>> costs
>>>> many hundreds.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> That has always been my philosophy, and what I do with my cameras. But
>>> then a couple of people over on the dig photo usenet forums were
>>> saying NOT to do that, to just use the lens covers smartly, that
>>> lenses is scratched can be fixed with "lens ink" and that more damage
>>> can be caused by a broken lens filter scratching the lens, and then
>>> the risk of lens flare from using filters. It really goes against what
>>> I have always believed.
>>>
>>
>> "Lens ink"? Lenses are precision ground -- a scratch is going to cause
>> far more image degradation and flare than a filter. As for flare,
>> multi-coated high-quality filters are not going to introduce any more
>> flare than the lens elements themselves.
>>
>> I shoot travel video. My camera gets handled fairly roughly and in all
>> sorts of environments. The only time I use it without a filter is when I
>> have my WA adapter in place, and that's only because I haven't found a
>> filter thin enough to eliminate vignetting.
>>
>>>
>>
> Tiffen have WA versions of some of their filters.
I've tried them. Unfortunately, my Optex WA will vignette on my VX2000 when
used with them. Even worse, both the LCD and the viewfinder overscan, so I
can't tell it's vignetting until I get the footage on my computer. I've
started to think of the Optext as a $300 filter. ;) The good news is that I
find, as I get more experience shooting, I require extreme wide angle less
and less.
>
> In truth the photography people are correct and putting anything in front
> of the lens can be a problem and one would certainly want to minimise the
> number of filters on the front of the lens to the absolute minimum.
> Filter stacking is not a good idea for sure especially with screw ons.
>
> I use a Tiffen UV filter on my XH-A1 and have not noticed any additional
> flares or aberrations. I don't use a filter on my Canon 5D as the lens
> cap is off only while shooting. One would reasonably expect a video
> camera lens to be exposed for longer periods than a stills camera hence
> the additional protection.
When a lens is multiple elements, I see a filter (which is really just
another element) as adding to flare only incrementally. At any rate, I
can't recall any shot in which I could say, "this flare is attributable to
the filter and wouldn't have been present had I not used it." I agree, of
course, that filter stacking is a bad idea. Aside from protecting the lens,
polarizing, or adding ND for depth of field, I would think that it would
make sense to do any other special effects or correction in post.
>
> Horses for courses.
Absolutely. And I should add my usual disclaimer: I'm just an amateur. The
pros here know far better than I.
>
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|