Home

Please support mflenses.com if you need any graphic related work order it from us, click on above banner to order!

SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

With or without filter?
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Fri Oct 03, 2014 3:19 pm    Post subject: With or without filter? Reply with quote

Obviously I don't speak about tobacco Wink

I usually put a filter on all my lenses, but I take it out when shooting. It's kind of dust and humidity protection.
Even if the filter is good, it's an additional piece of glass between the picture subject and the sensor/film.
That was my thought. A few days ago I got a clear confirmation:

When taking this picture, I forgot to remove the filter before shooting. Then I noticed some interferences on it, at the right side area of the lamp:



To confirm this I took out the filter and shot the picture again, this time the image was clear of interferences:



So my conlcusion is: without filter always.

What do you think?


PostPosted: Fri Oct 03, 2014 4:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Why not just use a lens cap to protect? I never use filters (except for my special photography...)


PostPosted: Fri Oct 03, 2014 6:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

kds315* wrote:
Why not just use a lens cap to protect? I never use filters (except for my special photography...)


Lens caps are not so hermetic (except the screwed ones, same as a filter).
You're right, there is an exception, circular polarizers, that I do use.


PostPosted: Fri Oct 03, 2014 6:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Jes,

The filter flared, With a thin one with better coatings my guess is you don't have to worry about it.
If a filter would be a bad idea per se, why did Zeiss, Leica, Schneider or Rodenstock made it after all?

Cheers,

Renato


PostPosted: Fri Oct 03, 2014 8:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

RSalles wrote:
Jes,

The filter flared, With a thin one with better coatings my guess is you don't have to worry about it.
If a filter would be a bad idea per se, why did Zeiss, Leica, Schneider or Rodenstock made it after all?

Cheers,

Renato


+1000

Coating would make a lot of difference when comes to handling flares. But most of filters are useless, especially non-multi-coated (UV/Warming/Cooling/Skylight etc). Filters make sense when occasion calls for it: ND/IR/CPL or Red, Green, Orange, Yellow, Blue on B&W film.


PostPosted: Fri Oct 03, 2014 8:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Filters are essential tools, just like lenses, matter what you use. Quality filters are not cause any problems just like quality lenses. I use extensively b+w nd filters I did never experience any quality loss, many filters are only transparent caps to me also, I always put them off before shooting.


PostPosted: Fri Oct 03, 2014 9:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I agree, good filters should put negligible effects on the final result.
But good filters are expensive.
In many cases, with my batch of old cheap lenses, probably the filter would cost me more than the lens Wink


PostPosted: Mon Oct 06, 2014 3:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Jesito wrote:

In many cases, with my batch of old cheap lenses, probably the filter would cost me more than the lens Wink


Not really Very Happy
I've actually gotten some higher end used filters in perfect condition for $2 to $5 a piece (Zeiss, Nikon, B+W, Hoya HMC).


PostPosted: Mon Oct 06, 2014 3:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Me too, got a pair of Rodenstock filters for LF lens tagged at 10-15 USD each.
I prefer to clean a thousand times a filter then a lens front element,

Renato