dortizphoto wrote:
I wasn\'t so much interested in protection as opposed to preventing flare, and increasing image quality.
A filter will have, at best, the opposite effect than that which you are looking for. I cannot make things better. In the best case it will not produce any visible degradation. In some cases it can have negative effects.
David Baldwin wrote:
If you have a look at most photographers unprotected front elements after a year or two you can usually see that the coatings have been smeared and degraded by \"cleaning\".
As someone with a bag full of lenses that are almost all older than a \"year or two\" and which get rather substantial use...
... I have to call \"nonsense\" on that one. :-)
Unless someone is obsessively unnecessarily \"cleaning\" their lens way too much. And perhaps with sandpaper. Or steel wool. ;-)
dortizphoto wrote:
I read somewhere -- (can\'t remember where, wish I did), that the optics/image quality are FAR better on a prime lens than the zoom lens -- even if it\'s a regular prime vs. an L class lens -- the prime will always win out.
That notion deserves some comment. A prime can be \"better\" (e.g. better resolution, a bit more contrast, etc.) than a zoom in some cases, particularly if you shoot at the largest aperture of the zoom. But...
- the advantage is small to the point of insignificance in some specific lens comparisons.
- the advantage, to the extent it exists, diminishes as you stop down.
- the improvement probably only matters if you are a very careful shooter - e.g. tripod and remote release and very careful focus.
- if you can crop in camera with a zoom as opposed to cropping in post with a shot made with your prime, the advantage diminishes, disappears, or even reverses.
- the increment of improved resolution, when it exists, is quite small - and you will never see it in anything but a fairly large and well-made print.
- there are other factors that are not trivial - such as the ability to flexibly respond to a variety of shooting situations
\"Better\" is better if it actually makes a positive difference in your photography. (BTW, I use primes and zooms - five of one and four of the other.)
dortizphoto wrote:
If it was a projectile that did this, I doubt a hood would have saved him. He\'s right though, I\'d rather my filter look that way than the front element of my $1,500 lens.
Understandable. But have you priced the cost of replacing a front element? It isn\'t as much as most people imagine. Given the low odds of actually suffering a broken front element (and not also damaging the lens at the same time in other ways that the filter could not possibly stop), it is probably a better insurance bet to save your money and pay for the repair in the unlikely event that it happens.
dortizphoto wrote:
I wasn\'t so much interested in protection as opposed to preventing flare, and increasing image quality.
Thoughts?
Dave
A filter will have, at best, the opposite effect than that which you are looking for.
David Baldwin wrote:
If you have a look at most photographers unprotected front elements after a year or two you can usually see that the coatings have been smeared and degraded by \"cleaning\".
As someone with a bag full of lenses that are almost all older than a \"year or two\" and which get rather substantial use...
... I have to call \"nonsense\" on that one. :-)
Unless someone is obsessively unnecessarily \"cleaning\" their lens way too much. And perhaps with sandpaper. Or steel wool. ;-)
dortizphoto wrote:
I read somewhere -- (can\'t remember where, wish I did), that the optics/image quality are FAR better on a prime lens than the zoom lens -- even if it\'s a regular prime vs. an L class lens -- the prime will always win out.
That notion deserves some comment. A prime can be \"better\" (e.g. better resolution, a bit more contrast, etc.) than a zoom in some cases, particularly if you shoot at the largest aperture of the zoom. But...
- the advantage is small to the point of insignificance in some specific lens comparisons.
- the advantage, to the extent it exists, diminishes as you stop down.
- the improvement probably only matters if you are a very careful shooter - e.g. tripod and remote release and very careful focus.
- if you can crop in camera with a zoom as opposed to cropping in post with a shot made with your prime, the advantage diminishes, disappears, or even reverses.
- the increment of improved resolution, when it exists, is quite small - and you will never see it in anything but a fairly large and well-made print.
- there are other factors that are not trivial - such as the ability to flexibly respond to a variety of shooting situations
\"Better\" is better if it actually makes a positive difference in your photography. (BTW, I use primes and zooms - five of one and four of the other.)
dortizphoto wrote:
If it was a projectile that did this, I doubt a hood would have saved him. He\'s right though, I\'d rather my filter look that way than the front element of my $1,500 lens.
Understandable. But have you priced the cost of replacing a front element? It isn\'t as much as most people imagine. Given the low odds of actually suffering a broken front element (and not also damaging the lens at the same time in other ways that the filter could not possibly stop), it is probably a better insurance bet to save your money and pay for the repair in the unlikely event that it happens.
dortizphoto wrote:
I wasn\'t so much interested in protection as opposed to preventing flare, and increasing image quality.
Thoughts?
Dave
A filter will have, at best, the opposite effect than that which you are looking for.
David Baldwin wrote:
If you have a look at most photographers unprotected front elements after a year or two you can usually see that the coatings have been smeared and degraded by \"cleaning\".
As someone with a bag full of lenses that are almost all older than a \"year or two\" and which get rather substantial use...
... I have to call \"nonsense\" on that one. :-)
Unless someone is obsessively unnecessarily \"cleaning\" their lens way too much. And perhaps with sandpaper. Or steel wool. ;-)
dortizphoto wrote:
I read somewhere -- (can\'t remember where, wish I did), that the optics/image quality are FAR better on a prime lens than the zoom lens -- even if it\'s a regular prime vs. an L class lens -- the prime will always win out.
That notion deserves some comment. A prime can be \"better\" (e.g. better resolution, a bit more contrast, etc.) than a zoom in some cases, particularly if you shoot at the largest aperture of the zoom. But...
- the advantage is small to the point of insignificance in some specific lens comparisons.
- the advantage, to the extent it exists, diminishes as you stop down.
- the improvement probably only matters if you are a very careful shooter - e.g. tripod and remote release and very careful focus.
- if you can crop in camera with a zoom as opposed to cropping in post with a shot made with your prime, the advantage diminishes, disappears, or even reverses.
- the increment of improved resolution, when it exists, is quite small - and you will never see it in anything but a fairly large and well-made print.
- there are other factors that are not trivial - such as the ability to flexibly respond to a variety of shooting situations
\"Better\" is better if it actually makes a positive difference in your photography. (BTW, I use primes and zooms - five of one and four of the other.)
dortizphoto wrote:
If it was a projectile that did this, I doubt a hood would have saved him. He\'s right though, I\'d rather my filter look that way than the front element of my $1,500 lens.
Understandable. But have you priced the cost of replacing a front element. It isn\'t as much as most people imagine. Given the low odds of actually suffering a broken front element, it is probably a better insurance bet to save your money and pay for the repair in the unlikely event that it happens.
