The only lens ever to get destroyed here at Chez Watkins was a lovely heavy piece of Nikon glass that had a UV filter on it (this was in the film days and I shoot in the mountains frequently). Camera was on a neckstrap, lens on camera, wife leaned over to look at a student's work, camera and lens pendulumed (not really a verb) into back of students chair, with feelin', and the lens was ruined. I'm sure it would have been ruined without a filter.
Neck straps therefore should be the target of our angst based on my sample of one.
Except for almost disposable cameras or lenses, and my 6x6 gear, pretty much any decent interchangeable lens here has always had a high quality multicoated filter on it from day one, to help reduce cleaning activity on the front element and because I don't like using lens caps while shooting. I also shoot in bad weather, near the ocean from time to time, and in the mountains while on skis or backpacking. I've replaced a few UV filters over the years but never a lens due to regular usage.
On my best lenses I've done my own tests for flare and can't see an issue worth worrying about, most of the time at any rate, although my sense was the X100 had more trouble than most of my other lenses with a front mounted filter and really needed a hood as well. If flare seemed to be objectionable in the field for a particular shot I can always remove a filter at that point in time to see if any improvement can be had.
I think of these filters as see-through lens caps of very high quality.
edwardkaraa wrote:
The flare thing is total BS. Many tests and comparisons have been done. There may be flare with the filter, but when you remove the filter, guess what, the flare is still there, probably slightly less, but there nevertheless. Same goes for ghostings at night. Nice quality lenses and filters are flare resistant. It's just a matter of personal preference.
Remember FPF's shots with the green ghosts from the chandeliers? Those weren't even night shots. Or Paul Yi's shots with his Rokkor 16/2.8 fisheye which has ghosts caused by the built in filter (also daytime shots)?
Ghosting happens because filters are planar and essentially mirror the sensor's reflections back to the sensor again. Lens elements are practically never planar, so they don't create ghosting like filters do. I'm sure you know all of this, but saying that the same ghosts are there when you don't have a filter on is nonsense.
obik wrote:
Ghosting at night is a _huge_ problem with any filter.
Ghosting used to be a problem with my old 20 years old glass and filters. I tried to cause it with my current Zeiss glass and it was very difficult though not impossible to produce, but in any case the amounts of ghosting are much much less than before. The filters don't seem to make any difference, with or without. I keep the filters when I shoot at night and in the rare cases when I get a couple of faint light reflections I just clone them out.
AhamB wrote:
Remember FPF's shots with the green ghosts from the chandeliers? Those weren't even night shots. Or Paul Yi's shots with his Rokkor 16/2.8 fisheye which has ghosts caused by the built in filter (also daytime shots)?
Ghosting happens because filters are planar and essentially mirror the sensor's reflections back to the sensor again. Lens elements are practically never planar, so they don't create ghosting like filters do. I'm sure you know all of this, but saying that the same ghosts are there when you don't have a filter on is nonsense.
I remember FPF's shots and to be honest, not only was the issue very minor, almost non existing, that had absolutely no consequences on the quality of the images, but also, I did not see any comparison without filter. I myself have done comparisons with the same lens and filter in extreme lighting conditions, and did see some faint ghosting even without filter, and they were only slightly more visible with the filter. I am aware about the theory of filters being flat, but like many photographic theories, they are not true in practice.
edwardkaraa wrote:
Do you have sex with or without condoms?
No Condoms either! very careful with my willie, same as with my lens' shot surf, MX, road racing ect... very careful cleaning the front element, no issues ... so far *crosses fingers & toes*
edwardkaraa wrote:
I remember FPF's shots and to be honest, not only was the issue very minor, almost non existing, that had absolutely no consequences on the quality of the images, but also, I did not see any comparison without filter.
AhamB wrote:
Remember FPF's shots with the green ghosts from the chandeliers? Those weren't even night shots. Or Paul Yi's shots with his Rokkor 16/2.8 fisheye which has ghosts caused by the built in filter (also daytime shots)?
Ghosting happens because filters are planar and essentially mirror the sensor's reflections back to the sensor again. Lens elements are practically never planar, so they don't create ghosting like filters do. I'm sure you know all of this, but saying that the same ghosts are there when you don't have a filter on is nonsense.
That was not a great filter. I retried with bw filters on point indoor light sources, could not duplicate the results.
I was going to check the "Never" box but then I remembered at high altitudes good UV filters are actually useful.
Wait, I like ND filters... Oops, exception!
Wait times two, some filters with B&W film are nice! Damn I hate all these exceptions. Why can't I just hate all filters and be done with it?!?
Wait times three, I like polarizers sometimes too. Ga! OK, I hate all non-polarizing, non ND filters when I'm not shooting B&W film below 2,000 feet elevation. There, nailed it!
i have had far too many shots ruined by top quality B&W MRC filters because of ghosting to use except when i absolutely need them. it's not personal preference, it's optical performance. i am surprised with your lens selection you haven't had a filter flare a lot and the lens not.
Herb...
edwardkaraa wrote:
I use UV filters AND lens hoods on all my lenses. Not to protect from impacts, but from frequent cleanings. The flare thing is total BS. Many tests and comparisons have been done. There may be flare with the filter, but when you remove the filter, guess what, the flare is still there, probably slightly less, but there nevertheless. Same goes for ghostings at night. Nice quality lenses and filters are flare resistant. It's just a matter of personal preference.
it's exactly my Zeiss glass where the filter's effects are most noticeable.
Herb...
edwardkaraa wrote:
Ghosting used to be a problem with my old 20 years old glass and filters. I tried to cause it with my current Zeiss glass and it was very difficult though not impossible to produce, but in any case the amounts of ghosting are much much less than before. The filters don't seem to make any difference, with or without. I keep the filters when I shoot at night and in the rare cases when I get a couple of faint light reflections I just clone them out.
As I mentioned I used to have this problem with older Contax glass and older BW filters. Since I switched to ZA glass, I was rarely able to replicate the effect. To be honest, With my current glass consisting of 4 ZM lenses, I feel that I do get more ghosting than the ZA, but I have not done any comparisons.
HerbChong wrote:
i have had far too many shots ruined by top quality B&W MRC filters because of ghosting to use except when i absolutely need them. it's not personal preference, it's optical performance. i am surprised with your lens selection you haven't had a filter flare a lot and the lens not.
Edwardkaraa, clearly we have different ideas about what constitutes a huge problem. I just took a ten minute trawl through my archive and dug up some ghost shots. All produced by B+W MRC UV filters purchased from B&H (not some shady Chinese ebay seller). I could probably dig up a couple from Tiffen filters too.
I'll dig up three examples where a uv or clear filter has saved two $2000 lenses from long costly repairs and one example where it saved an unrepairable cy zeiss 35-70.
Obik, I have never had this kind of ghosting in any of my photos (excluding the first shot). Even no. 2 looks extreme to me, let alone the show wrecker series.
my feelings exactly. there is no such thing as a minor effect of the filter. either it's invisible or it's not. for someone who shoots as much Zeiss glass as he does, i am surprised. why get the Zeiss glass in the first place?
Herb...
obik wrote:
Edwardkaraa, clearly we have different ideas about what constitutes a huge problem.
I think filters can be useful under certain conditions such as blowing sand, or where you don't want to have to clean the lens repeatedly, such as shooting a dirt bike race track side. Fun stuff but you get blasted with mud and its much easier to swap the filters between races than to try to clean the lens out on the track.
However, I just never really get the "protection" thing. If anyone is so worried about protecting their gear, and the stated cause of damage always seems to be drops, then why aren't they also covering their camera in bubble wrap or something ?
I mean really now, if you think there is a good chance that your the type who will drop their camera, or swing it into something on its strap etc, and yeah, some people are klutz's I'm sure, then why stop at a filter ?
Better get rubber bumpers etc on the rest of the body right ?
Or does the mythical filter somehow extend its protection over the whole camera ?
Perhaps this little brass or aluminum ring screwed into the front element not only had the power to absorb all the energy from 4+ foot drops at the front of the camera, but also anywhere its dropped ?
Or perhaps its just that a camera always falls lens first, just like toast "always" falls buttered side down and that all you need to worry about ?
Personally, I'm trying to buy any many UV filters as I can find ? Why ? Because I'm planning to place them around the perimeter of my car. Given the amazing ability of these little rings to stop damage from all the claims I read, I think they should be great in a traffic accident as well.
After getting into a head-on crash, I will be able to walk away unharmed, and while my filters will be destroyed, the car body behind them will be just fine!
Its far cheaper to replace a few filters than to pay for a whole new car right ??
edwardkaraa wrote:
Obik, I have never had this kind of ghosting in any of my photos. Even no. 2 looks extreme to me, let alone the show wrecker series.
#2 is worse than normal because it had stopped raining and fog had come in, coating the filter with water droplets. It's still pretty easily corrected though.
