Lens protection filters

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Hans-Georg Michna" <hans-georgNoEmailPlease@michna.com> wrote in message
news:m7bhr0p3cilh4pdnkgel9tb6gif511e7u0@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 9 Dec 2004 12:18:00 -0000, "Angela"
> <anyoldmail@gmail.takethisout.com> wrote:
>
> >I use UV filters to protect my lens but I must admit it is a bit of a
dilema
> >as what you end up doing is buying a super lens then putting what
(probably)
> >is an inferior peice of glass in front of it!! I wonder if in fact
you're
> >better buying a cheaper lens and not using a filter.
>
> Angela,
>
> no, you're better off buying a super lens and not putting any
> filters on it unless you really need the filtering. Then make
> sure not to bump the lens against anything or put a hood on it.
> That's the only professional way. 🙂-)
>
> Hans-Georg
>
> --
Actually the only professional way is to photograph with an uncoated lens.
Most all lenses are coated today. But I'll have to agree with Angela and
use a protection filter and save the lens. Not sure if you've ever got
grits of fine sand on a lens? Try wiping/blowing that off a multi-coated
lens, I don't care what soft chamois you have, it will scratch the coating,
I've seen it under a microscope. It's very hard for me to tell the
difference of a image shot with a UV, ND+3 and lower, 1A, etc. and one shot
with no filter. Unless you shoot test targets.
-tom

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Thu, 09 Dec 2004 13:37:15 -0500, Bob Salomon
<bob_salomon@mindspring.com> wrote:

>In article <spjgr090t1u1i4s9inc19vp1o1oq7cbeaj@4ax.com>,
> Hans-Georg Michna <hans-georgNoEmailPlease@michna.com> wrote:

>> On Wed, 08 Dec 2004 16:25:44 -0500, Bob Salomon
>> <bob_salomon@mindspring.com> wrote:

>> >In article <sgper0pohdc0jc7nsi5h6igv63vo8ed61q@4ax.com>,
>> > Hans-Georg Michna <hans-georgNoEmailPlease@michna.com> wrote:

>> >> hold a filter

>> >A coated filter, an uncoated filter, a multi-coated filter, a solid
>> >glass filter, a sandwiched filter?

>> whatever you want to test. Even the best filters will add very
>> visible reflections in a night shot.

>In other words you have personally tested them all and are not going to
>answer the original question?

Bob,

of course I have tested them all. Send me more, I'll test them.

Hans-Georg

--
No mail, please.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <cpakcq$86q$1@news.Stanford.EDU>,
"Tom Nakashima" <tom@slac.stanford.edu> wrote:


> Most all lenses are coated today. But I'll have to agree with Angela and
> use a protection filter and save the lens. Not sure if you've ever got
> grits of fine sand on a lens? Try wiping/blowing that off a multi-coated
> lens, I don't care what soft chamois you have, it will scratch the coating,
> I've seen it under a microscope.

Why not do it the way astronomers clean eyepieces and mirrors? They'd
kill anyone who would take a chamois to an optical surface. One common
method is to use reagent grade alcohol and new cotton balls, floating
off the dirt.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"richard schumacher" <no-spam@thank-you.com> wrote in message
news:no-spam-53745D.22324309122004@news.isp.giganews.com...
> In article <cpakcq$86q$1@news.Stanford.EDU>,
> "Tom Nakashima" <tom@slac.stanford.edu> wrote:
>
>> Most all lenses are coated today. But I'll have to agree with Angela and
>> use a protection filter and save the lens. Not sure if you've ever got
>> grits of fine sand on a lens? Try wiping/blowing that off a multi-coated
>> lens, I don't care what soft chamois you have, it will scratch the
>> coating,
>> I've seen it under a microscope.
>
> Why not do it the way astronomers clean eyepieces and mirrors? They'd
> kill anyone who would take a chamois to an optical surface. One common
> method is to use reagent grade alcohol and new cotton balls, floating
> off the dirt.

That's the way to clean an aluminized front-surface mirror. Coated lenses
are much tougher. With coated eyepieces, I have no qualms about using
Kimwipes or a microfiber cloth *gently*, with a Windex-like or alcohol-based
solvent. Chamois is not the right material for cleaning lenses.

BTW, a good bit of what passes for damage to coatings is actually just thin
streaks of oil or the like, which can be removed.


--
Clear skies,

Michael A. Covington
Author, Astrophotography for the Amateur
www.covingtoninnovations.com/astromenu.html

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

richard schumacher wrote:
> In article <cpakcq$86q$1@news.Stanford.EDU>,
> "Tom Nakashima" <tom@slac.stanford.edu> wrote:
>
>
>
>>Most all lenses are coated today. But I'll have to agree with Angela and
>>use a protection filter and save the lens. Not sure if you've ever got
>>grits of fine sand on a lens? Try wiping/blowing that off a multi-coated
>>lens, I don't care what soft chamois you have, it will scratch the coating,
>>I've seen it under a microscope.
>
>
> Why not do it the way astronomers clean eyepieces and mirrors? They'd
> kill anyone who would take a chamois to an optical surface.

Different context: Few carry an astronomical telescope around their neck
as they walk down city streets and country trails. I'd never use a UV
filter on my telescopes -- nor feel the need.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Michael A. Covington" <look@www.covingtoninnovations.com.for.address> wrote
in message news:41b934af$1@mustang.speedfactory.net...
> "richard schumacher" <no-spam@thank-you.com> wrote in message
> news:no-spam-53745D.22324309122004@news.isp.giganews.com...
> > In article <cpakcq$86q$1@news.Stanford.EDU>,
> > "Tom Nakashima" <tom@slac.stanford.edu> wrote:
> >
> >> Most all lenses are coated today. But I'll have to agree with Angela
and
> >> use a protection filter and save the lens. Not sure if you've ever got
> >> grits of fine sand on a lens? Try wiping/blowing that off a
multi-coated
> >> lens, I don't care what soft chamois you have, it will scratch the
> >> coating,
> >> I've seen it under a microscope.
> >
> > Why not do it the way astronomers clean eyepieces and mirrors? They'd
> > kill anyone who would take a chamois to an optical surface. One common
> > method is to use reagent grade alcohol and new cotton balls, floating
> > off the dirt.
>
> That's the way to clean an aluminized front-surface mirror. Coated lenses
> are much tougher. With coated eyepieces, I have no qualms about using
> Kimwipes or a microfiber cloth *gently*, with a Windex-like or
alcohol-based
> solvent. Chamois is not the right material for cleaning lenses.
>
> BTW, a good bit of what passes for damage to coatings is actually just
thin
> streaks of oil or the like, which can be removed.
>
>
> --
> Clear skies,
>
> Michael A. Covington
> Author, Astrophotography for the Amateur
> www.covingtoninnovations.com/astromenu.html
>
Oh really? You didn't mention the alcohol, is it Methanol, Propanol,
Ethanol that you use on your aluminized mirrored telescope lenses? The
Stanford Linear Accelerator Center just built a telescope using aluminized
mirrors. They used filtered nitrogen in a cleaning room to remove dust from
the mirrors.
The coating on a camera lens isn't as tough as you think it is. The coating
can be scratch, I don't care how soft your lens tissue is. It's not a good
thing when the light reflects on these scratches, you can run your own test.
The only way to repair these scratches is to have the coating stripped and
reapplied and you're talking bucks, probably better off buying a new lens.
That's why many of the die-hard phographers prefer no coating, so you could
actually clean the lens. Uncoated Nikkor lenses are still a favorite with
some professionals.
When I purchased my Olympus C8080, the first thing I did when I opened the
package is install the UV filter, it's never been off.
fwiw,
-tom

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Archived from "Marcel" <cosmar@rogers.com> on Thu, 9 Dec 2004 10:52:49
-0500:

> B+W is the only filter I use on all my lenses.
>> http://www.schneider-kreuznach.com/neuheiten/schutzfilter_e.htm
>
>Where are these sold, please? I made a research on Internet but couldn't
>find a place. I'm from Canada. Some of these places do not ship here.
>Thanks for any info.
>Marcel

Adorama and BHPhoto both in New York carry the B+W brand of Schneider Optics
filters.

vm








>
>
><I.Reject.Spam@my.isp> wrote in message
>news:xsZtd.3973$hd.2621@twister.socal.rr.com...
>> Archived from Pattern-chaser <pattern-chaser@merrick.britishlibrary.net>
>on
>> Wed, 08 Dec 2004 18:45:25 +0000:
>>
>> >When I used a film-based SLR, I always had a UV filter fitted, to
>> >protect the lens *and* to prevent UV light from compromising picture
>> >quality. Is such (UV) protection necessary for the digital camera I plan
>> >to buy soon (Panasonic FZ3 or K-M Dimage Z3), or are CCDs immune to that
>> >type of problem?
>> >
>> >Pattern-chaser
>> >
>> >"Who cares, wins"
>>
>>
>> B+W is the only filter I use on all my lenses.
>> http://www.schneider-kreuznach.com/neuheiten/schutzfilter_e.htm
>>
>> vm
>>
>