File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
ok i just got a D-slr and was recommended to buy a uv lens filter. but i hear i dont really need one. so tell me should i get one??
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>59176
>> Anonymous
>>59177
well i didn't want to start a new thread for a simple question. uhm yea i need to buy a lense filter. i suggest tiffen ANYTHING, there always good
>> Anonymous
>>59172
Just keep a small lens hood or filter size adapter screwed on the front. Then that bumps into stuff and not the lens.

It's not needed, OP. Your money would be better spent on a polarizer, graduated neutral density, or neutral density filter. Those are the three big ones.
>> Anonymous
>>59182
It's not like UV filters are big investments.

$20 absolutely tops on ebay. I've picked up filters in perfect condition at used photo stores and pawn shops for $5 (I just got a 72mm 1A filter that had never been opened at a local pawn shop for $10, no tax)

UV Filters are a good idea. Just don't buy knock-off crap from ebay and you'll be fine.
>> Anonymous
thanks you everyone
>> Anonymous
I don't bother with UV filters, in my opinion they are generally just a tactic for camera stores to sqeeze more money out of you. If you're shooting in very dirty or muddy conditions, or situations where there is likely to be a lot of flying debris, it makes sense. Otherwise it's not really necessary.

A top quality UV filter will often cost as much if not more than having the front element of a lens replaced by the manufacturer. If you're using high-end lenses, it makes no sense to put a cheap filter on it and degrade the optical quality.

And finally, a scratch on the lens is a whole lot less big of a deal than most people think. Small scratches won't show up at all. Deep scratches and chips may reduce the contrast or increase flare, but you can usually fix this by blacking out the scratch/chip so that it doesn't catch light.

>>59176
I shoot both digital and film. For film I use a variety of cameras, but my favorites are a Leica M3 and a Nikon F4. Not too long ago I got rid of the last of my medium format gear, but I still have a 4x5 camera that hasn't been used in a couple years.
>> Anonymous
>>59176
I use a Nikon F100 when shooting film.
>> Anonymous
Only buy UV filters for lenses you can't replace easily, And only buy good UV filters. I have one on my 80-200 af-s, and one on my sigma 10-20mm
Mostly because I use those primarily at a Motocross track where dust and flying mud / debris is commonplace (ESPECIALLY for the wide angle where I am like 2 feet away from the bike)

Cheap ones often ghost (depends on the lens aswell), and cause extra reflections that you woulnd't have. And why pay money to take worse quality pictures!
>> street-pirate
>>59192

Even if small scratches wont show up, they will decrease the value of the lens should you eventually want to sell it. I leave a filter on at all times.
>> Anonymous
>>59199
But at what cost, If you get ghosting it can ruin an otherwise good pic. The whole point of a DSLR is letting you capture pics taht you want / that you can't with other P&S camera's.

Its not an investment as much as a tool. Buy good quality UV filters if you do get them, and don't be afraid to ditch them!
>> Anonymous
>>59199
If you buy a lens to use, resale value is irrelevant. If you buy a lens to sell, don't use it.
>> street-pirate
>>59207
No, you buy a lens to use it, knowing that lens technology is still evolving, and that better lenses are on the way, and that someday you might want to get one of these better lens.
>> street-pirate
>>59204
I don't believe good filters makes much of a difference when it comes to ghosting. You can always take if off if need be.
>> Anonymous
>>59213
good lenses have better coatings that prevent ghosting. you generally wont find a $5 filter new that has super duper high quality multi extreme resist coating made from the blood of virgins and unicorns.
>> Anonymous
>>59212
And in the meantime, being careful and worrying about your re-sale value and quality and everything, you miss shots you could've gotten in risky situations.

Besides, if a lens is good, it's good, and will stay good. Better lens coatings might come around, sure, but if a lens can make a good photograph today it will be able to twenty years from now.
>> Anonymous
>>59212
Other than VR/IS, lens technology really hasn't changed much at all in the last 15 years. Other than fast autofocus, lens technology really hasn't changed much in the last 50 years.

Besides, if some magically awesome super lens comes out in the future, everybody is going to want that and it will kill the resale value of your old lens anyway.
>> Anonymous
>>59230
Actually the jump from film to digital made a whole lot of Great lenses seem obsolete. The coatings for digital are quite different from the previous film lenses. CA is very bad on most non optimized lenses. So there have been major advancements.
>> Anonymous
>>59232
That's not an advancement, though, that's a difference in what sort of compensations need to be done with the lens coatings. I'm sure that different lenses work slightly better or worse with different film emulsions.

If Foveon or another strange sensor technology catches on, then radically different coatings might be needed again. But otherwise,>>59230is right.
>> Anonymous
>>59232The coatings for digital are quite different from the previous film lenses...

No they arent, and coatings have nothing to do with chromatic abberation. Coatings compensate for reflection, element composition and optical design are used to compensate for chromatic abberation.

The technology used in "digital optimized" lenses isn't anything new, it's just applied to optimize for a smaller format.
>> Anonymous
>>59207
OFT
>> Anonymous
>>A top quality UV filter will often cost as much if not more than having the front element of a lens replaced by the manufacturer.
maybe on a budget lens.it's a lot of hassle and can get expensive with a more decent lens. plus you have to miss the lens for a while.

alway use an UV filter. i only remove my filter when shooting wide opn on very fast lenses, because you get ghosting with things like the moon and streetlights.

>>Other than VR/IS, lens technology really hasn't changed much at all in the last 15 years.
zoom lenses have improved a lot.

>>The coatings for digital are quite different from the previous film lenses. CA is very bad on most non optimized lenses.
on a decent lens (worth using on digital) there's proper coating. the biggest difference must be the coating on the rear element because the CCD has different reflective properties then film.

no idea if that would produce a lot more of CA. with my MF primes on a digital body, I don't see any real problems.