- This topic is empty.
Lens Filters
-
I got 3 lens filters with my Nikon Kit ,
The writing on the sides sayUV
PL
FLDI get the Uv is ultraviolet light but what exactly are they for
The UV doesn’t really have much of a purpose, except to act as protection for your lens.
The PL is a polariser, and is one of the most useful types of filters you can get. Read this……. http://www.experience-seminars.co.uk/yorkfolder/polarising.htm
And finally, read this for info on the FLD filter (I doubt you will use it much) http://www.adorama.com/CKA139.html
UV: Reduces the amount of ultraviolet light reaching the film/sensor. Too much ultraviolet light (at high altitudes or at the coast) can cause a blue cast on the pictures. It’s however less important with digital photography as you can use WB to get the colours right. Most photographers leave the UV filter permanently on the lens as protection.
PL: Polariser, increases saturation and contrast (try it on blue sky with white fluffy clouds) and reduces reflection (water surface, windows, etc.)
FLD: not necessary when shooting digital, WB does the job
Carsten
Are you using a digital camera Oatesy? If so, as the guys above have said, the UV isn’t needed as the filter pack in front of the sensor blocks virtually all UV light, the Flourescent correction filter is of no good as you can correct the colours with a neutral grey card and editing software (or preset wb in your camera), the Polariser is useful for controlling reflections (from glass, skin, roads, water etc) and also enriching colours under certain light (deep blue skies at certain angle get even deeper).
There are debatees as to the use of UV filters on modern lenses/digital cameras. Genrally putting anything extra and unneccessary in front of your lens doesn’t make sense from a quality perspective but it will protect your lens (as does a decent lens cap).
Which Nikon did you get?
Si
its a nikkon d70s.. cheers for all the info guys. i made that post ages ago,, i use the uv for protection as id like to avoid damagaing the lens as best i can,
ill sacrafice a little quality for thatOatesy wrote:
its a nikkon d70s.. cheers for all the info guys. i made that post ages ago,, i use the uv for protection as id like to avoid damagaing the lens as best i can,
ill sacrafice a little quality for thatYou can pick up clear “filters” for protection, it’s just a piece of glass and I got a 67mm one in Jessops for ( I think ) ?20
No need to sacrifice qualityGraham
anything yo put in front of your lens will affect the quality in some way or at least the characteristics of the lens
The protection thing does make sense, but if you are using an expensive lens (say up to 1000 euro) why would you put 20euros worth of glass or plastic in front of it???
stcstc wrote:
The protection thing does make sense, but if you are using an expensive lens (say up to 1000 euro) why would you put 20euros worth of glass or plastic in front of it???
Simply because it is a 1000 euro lens. The clear filter i bought may have only been 20 quid but it is good glass and there is no quality issues that i can see,
perhaps there are more techinical reason that i’m unaware of but for me I would rather scratch a 20quid filter than a 1000 lens.
maybe I am missing some thing about the extra piece of glass but i am more than willing to be educated on the matterbecause the lens is designed with the elements its built with it has particular characteristics.
Most lenses have some for of curve to the front element for example, most filters are flat. So one thing that will change is some difraction as the filter is further away from the edge of the lens than it is at the centre.
My understanding is that by adding the filter you increase the chances of chromatic aberations too.
I understand the point of not scratching the lens. But when would this happen (i am playing devils advocate) when transporting the lens i guess its got both caps on unless its on the camera. when your shooting your looking after your kit.
I know it could happen, but i dont think its as easy to scratch a lens as it sounds, if your carefl with your kit that is.
another point is, if you have all your kit insured, if the lens get scratched can you not claim it on your insurance???
I guess I’m still in that “nervous about my equipment phase”.
I do look after the my equipment but i tend to do a lot of street shooting and I have
had people bump of the camera. For now i’d rather leave the clear filter on rather than take the chances.I take your point on insurance as well, I’ve heard of this working well for some people.
I guess my level of photography hasn’t yet reached the point where I am noticing the difference between having
the filter on/off.Thanks for the reply though – you’ve given me some new stuff to google as well. (chromatic aberations )
byrne5012 wrote:
stcstc wrote:
The protection thing does make sense, but if you are using an expensive lens (say up to 1000 euro) why would you put 20euros worth of glass or plastic in front of it???
Simply because it is a 1000 euro lens. The clear filter i bought may have only been 20 quid but it is good glass and there is no quality issues that i can see,
perhaps there are more technical reason that i’m unaware of but for me I would rather scratch a 20quid filter than a 1000 lens.
maybe I am missing some thing about the extra piece of glass but i am more than willing to be educated on the matterSo here’s a question – why spend ? 1,000 on a lens and then put a ? 20 filter on it? If you’re that afraid of damaging the lens, why not just buy a cheaper lens, with which you wouldn’t have the same concerns? I’m guessing you bought a ? 1,000 lens because it offers much better image quality than it’s ? 300 counterpart. But by putting a cheap filter on it, you’re losing a lot of that quality that you paid a lot of money for. Here’s why. By adding a filter, you are adding another layer that will diffract light. Keep in mind that for every glass to air interface you have, the light that passes through that point will have to bend (diffract) as the speed of light through air is different than the sped of light through glass (or whatever material the filter is made of). Filter manufacturers go to great lengths to mitigate the effects of diffraction by coating the filters, but it’s impossible to eliminate altogether. The other thing that happens is that you get increased flare and a loss of contrast. Again this is down to how the light interacts with the filter.
I gave up using a UV filter for these reasons but I always always use a lens hood. A lens hood offers very good protection for a lens. I really like the plastic ones because they can absorb a lot of the energy of an impact, thereby protecting the lens. With a lens hood attached, it means that the front element of the lens is that much further away from any thing that might impact with it. I must admit, so far the only problem I’ve encountered by working in this way is dust, which I can blow off, or finger marks, which I remove with the same product I sue to clean my sensor with. A lens hood also helps to improve the image quality by reducing flare.
Do I ever use filters? Of course I do, polarisers and graduated ND’s being the only ones I really use now. But only when I feel they will benefit the final image.
Graham
I am quite new to this stuff too, so dont take mywords as gospel, its only what i have found out.
there are pros who say use filters and others that say dont
heres an article about why not to use them that i found quite interesting, and there are quite a few of them
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/columns/sm-feb-05.shtml
Ok I’m sold – the clear filter comes off.
Thanks for the lesson guys.
Have to update that insurance policy now. :)graham
where i noticed the difference the most is on my wide angle lens, doing like landscape shots etc, particularly if it is quite bright. no matter how far I stopped the lens down it was never quite enought for the detail if the farground, took the filter off and it made a huge difference.
I think for certain sorts of photography it wouldnt make a huge noticable difference, but for others it really does.
I can see after reading the link you sent and other ones I found that using a clear filter as a protective cover is not
the best idea. I using a polarizer sometimes but all my other filter are the Cokin one that are in a holder in front of
the lens rather than mounted directly. I have noticed that some of my landscape shots come out a little soft ( hope thats
the right word ) when I have the Cokins on.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
