File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
Lens condoms, or just a waste of money?

ITT DSLR filters
EXIF data available. Clickhereto show/hide.
Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeNIKON CORPORATIONCamera ModelNIKON D40Camera SoftwareVer.1.10Maximum Lens Aperturef/5.7Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color AreaColor Filter Array Pattern836Focal Length (35mm Equiv)82 mmImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution300 dpiVertical Resolution300 dpiImage Created2007:07:03 21:53:40Exposure Time1/60 secF-Numberf/5.6Exposure ProgramNormal ProgramISO Speed Rating200Exposure Bias-0.7 EVMetering ModePatternLight SourceUnknownFlashFlash, Auto, Return Not DetectedFocal Length55.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width3008Image Height2000RenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoScene Capture TypeStandardGain ControlNoneContrastNormalSharpnessNormalSubject Distance RangeUnknownISO Speed Used200Color ModeCOLORImage QualityFINEWhite BalanceAUTOImage SharpeningAUTOFocus ModeAF-AFlash SettingNORMALAuto Flash ModeBuilt-in,TTLFlash Compensation0.0 EVISO Speed Requested200Tone CompensationAUTOLens TypeNikon D SeriesLens Range18.0 - 55.0 mm; f/3.5 - f/5.6Auto FocusDynamic Area, Center Selected, Top FocusedShooting/Bracketing ModeSingle Frame/OffColor ModeLandscape sRGBLighting TypeSPEEDLIGHTNoise ReductionOFFCamera Actuations195Image OptimizationCUSTOMSaturation 2NORMAL
>> Anonymous
>>60142
UV lens is great when I want to protect anything from actually touching the lens. I don't see any reason why not, but depending on what type of shots you may be taking, a polarizing filter will be more useful and also help to save your more expensive lens from any damage. I really don't think it's a waste of money at all, especially for approximately 10 dollars. If you think this is a lot of money, then you're in for a surprise. Unfortunately, it's just chump change compared to the cost of a good lens. Might as well buy one for your most used lenses, but not necessarily every single one.
>> Anonymous
>>60149
Polarizing filters = loss of about 2 stops of light, And they constantly need adjusting (Portrait or landscape layout switches, bumped etc)

If you only take daytime shots then a polarizer might be alright to just leave on.

I use 2 UV filters for protection, Both on 500$ + lenses, And both just to keep dust dirt and mud from hitting the front element. Otherwise I don't feel i need one.
>> Anonymous
>>60149

Explain to me what effect the polarizing filter has on things. Would it be good to just put on and forget it or do I have to take it out in certain situations?

I read that the color correction in the camera negates the effect of the filter. True?
>> elf_man !fBgo7jDjms
     File :-(, x)
Polarizing filter doesn't actually change the colors, it cuts out light that comes into the lens from certain angles, so there isn't really anything for the camera to color correct. You will most likely want to take it off when it gets dark, since it cuts out between 1-2 stops. When you rotate it, the effect strengthens and weakens. It cuts out lots of reflections, which tends to increase overall saturation. This is especially noticeable on water, making it easier to see under the surface. One of its signature effects is the deep blue color it can make the sky (pic related). Yeah, I have the camera's saturation turned up, but that's besides the point. At minimal effect, the trees were little more than a dark block, and most of the algae was blocked by glare and reflection from the sky. Since it has a noticeable effect, there may be times that you want to take it off, but seeing as you can minimize the effect, it's very versatile.

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeNIKON CORPORATIONCamera ModelNIKON D40Camera SoftwareVer.1.10Maximum Lens Aperturef/4.6Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color AreaColor Filter Array Pattern3456Focal Length (35mm Equiv)52 mmImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationRight-Hand, TopHorizontal Resolution300 dpiVertical Resolution300 dpiImage Created2007:06:29 21:27:43Exposure Time1/40 secF-Numberf/16.0Exposure ProgramAperture PriorityISO Speed Rating200Exposure Bias-0.7 EVMetering ModePatternLight SourceUnknownFlashNo FlashFocal Length35.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width3008Image Height2000RenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoScene Capture TypeStandardGain ControlNoneContrastHardSharpnessNormalSubject Distance RangeUnknownISO Speed Used200Color ModeCOLORImage QualityFINEWhite BalanceAUTOImage SharpeningAUTOFocus ModeAF-AFlash SettingNORMALFlash Compensation42.3 EVISO Speed Requested200Tone CompensationMED.HLens TypeNikon D SeriesLens Range18.0 - 55.0 mm; f/3.5 - f/5.6Auto FocusSingle Area, Center Selected, Top FocusedShooting/Bracketing ModeSingle Frame/OffColor ModeLandscape sRGBLighting TypeNATURALNoise ReductionOFFCamera Actuations1990Image OptimizationCUSTOMSaturation 2ENHANCED
>> Anonymous
>>60155

Hey, thanks for the info. Who makes a good one? Anyone will do?
>> Anonymous
There's no such thing as a dSLR filter. It's just a filter. Works on any cam on which it fits.
>> Anonymous
>>60187
He probably refers to the fact that very few types of filters are actually useful on a dSLR, most just act as a lens condom and/or a waste of money.
>> Anonymous
>>60190
They're not a waste of money if you want to protect your expensive lens.

But then again a lens cap might do a better job at it + protects against flare.

>>60181
The Hoyas seem to be the cheapest, and their coated or multicoated versions are pretty good. Just be sure to get a coated version.
>> Anonymous
>>60191
Screw on a small filter adapter, something short enough that it won't cause any vignetting.

If the lens bumps into something, it'll bump into that, without putting another layer of glass that probably is of lower quality inbetween the lens and the scene.

Otherwise, use a lens cap. They come off easily.

The only time I would use a protective filter would be if I was shooting in a snowstorm or something like that. And then I would try to find an absolutely clear one, not this sunlight or UV filter BS.

As for filters useful on DSLRs, I think we can all agree it's pretty much ND, graduated ND, polarizers, soft focus, star, infrared, and those little close-up screw on things if one is too cheap to buy a macro lens.
>> Anonymous
>>60198
The list is even less probably. Infrared filter usefulness depends on the internal CCD filter of a camera, some require monstrous exposures to get a decent IR picture. Soft focus can be imitated in software with acceptable quality most of the time. And those macro addons are not filters, but lenses.
>> Anonymous !Bjd0a/XWuE
>>60142

Integral to the lenses economical stability with the worlds infrastructure. ie. Yes, lens condoms are important. You should have a filter on each lens you own.
>> Anonymous
>>60212
>Soft focus can be imitated in software with acceptable quality most of the time
Not the same and it's much faster and easier to do it with hardware than software.

>And those macro addons are not filters, but lenses.
Well, yeah, but they're sold as filters. Why I don't know.
>> Anonymous
>>60217
Because those attach to the same place as filters do and dumb people only understand simple concepts... hurr durr
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>60222
They attach to the same place as filters AND they're almost as thin as filters. Anything bigger is sold as a "lens" or a "converter".
>> Pragmatism~ des
You know you could just go out shooting with and without a "condom" filter under similar conditions and compare results. Every filter/lens combination is going to give you different results.
The only absolutes are death, taxes and trolls on interbutt.

Those in the lens caps fall off camp- hay guys, I'm pretty sure they still make screw-in metal caps.
>>60198
I'll agree with your filter adaptor idea (or just get the lens' hood for a little bit more money) but I disagree that haze filters are BS.
>>60222
moar leik pedantry amirite
>> Anonymous
>>60225
Pedantry is the concubine of stupidity.