Cheap lens filters . . . ?

[Sutton Warrior]

A topic for discussion? Having just purchased a new WA lens, I had to look at the net for at least a UV filter at 77mm. Thats a big filter, and from the likes of Hoya, pricey!! Heard all the horror stories about cheap filters, but I'm a bit strapped at present . . . ain't we all? So, curiosity got the better and I typed in to fleeBay, 'lens filter 77mm' . . . hay-presto, pages of the blighters. Pennies to nearly one hundred pounds . . . all sorts of names, known and unknown. I know that multi coated 'MC' is the way to go, thats a start, reading the blurb, leans coating can a complicated business.

 

As I say, tight on the hard earned. I looked, made the eyes sore with looking, and the brain hurt, weighing up the pros and cons I was fairly sure forum advise would be 'quality', advise I would normally give myself.

 

Finally, decided, 'Kenko' is a name I know, cheap but known, less than a 'fiver' inc pp. if it lasts a year, thats fine, the question, would the coating be up to muster? Well I have posted a few of the first session with the new lens + UV. Not going to worry Sir Davis Baily, but the filter does seem to be doing its job. Still more familiarisation to do but the 'cheap' filter is OK? . . . I think.

 

Whilst looking for the UV filter, I spied 'polarising filters', the circular variety, pricey at the best of times, but at 77mm phew Another name I have seen 'Sakar',and £5 inc pp??? I speculated, the seller turned out to be a 'dork' but the filter, although not yet tried on lens, is certainly doing a job held to the light and turned, worth a fiver???

 

Next, looking at 'grad and ND' filters, to fleebay or not to fleeBay . . . ??? Any advise on the values that are most useful?

 

A topic for views and discussion . . .

 

SW

[Chippy]

Here's my thoughts, but I'm a bit of a stickler for quality, as I dont see the point in sticking cheap filters on expensive lenses!

 

I've actually been shooting more and more without a UV on. I read a good article somewhere from a pro that takes people on courses. One of the fellas was consistently getting poor results. The pro told him to take the UV off and sure enough the pics instantly improved. Nowadays I only bother with one if I'm likely to be shooting in conditions which could result in lens damage - salt spray, etc.

 

I use a standard Hoya CPLR though and it's been fine. I'm thinking about getting rid of it though and going for their more expensive version (which I've seen on Ebay for the same price as I paid for my standard one).

 

As for ND Grads, I recently moved over to the Cokin Z pros. Mainly because the Cokin P's are too small for wideangle lenses and a full frame sensor, even then I occasionally get a bit of the holder in the frame if it's not perfectly vertical. The filters are great, but £50 a go, so for a set of 3 ND grads, the holder and a 77mm ring, you can kiss goodbye to £200!

[Sutton Warrior]

Here's my thoughts, but I'm a bit of a stickler for quality, as I dont see the point in sticking cheap filters on expensive lenses!

 

I've actually been shooting more and more without a UV on. I read a good article somewhere from a pro that takes people on courses. One of the fellas was consistently getting poor results. The pro told him to take the UV off and sure enough the pics instantly improved. Nowadays I only bother with one if I'm likely to be shooting in conditions which could result in lens damage - salt spray, etc.

 

I use a standard Hoya CPLR though and it's been fine. I'm thinking about getting rid of it though and going for their more expensive version (which I've seen on Ebay for the same price as I paid for my standard one).

 

As for ND Grads, I recently moved over to the Cokin Z pros. Mainly because the Cokin P's are too small for wideangle lenses and a full frame sensor, even then I occasionally get a bit of the holder in the frame if it's not perfectly vertical. The filters are great, but £50 a go, so for a set of 3 ND grads, the holder and a 77mm ring, you can kiss goodbye to £200!

 

 

Interesting Chippy, I will try removing the UV filter next time out and see the differance? I like the colouring on the test pics I posted for the Sigma 10-20, that was with a Kenko UV filter fitted.

 

I'm far from expert in these matters and have always held with 'you get what you pay for'? However there is the other old wives saying, 'cutting the cloth according to the means' and thats how I see things in the present. Self employed, the next 18 months is going to be hard for us all, in truth, perhaps I should have waited a while for the Sigma? But, I made the mental decission, fleeBay prices have gon silly, £280-£300!!! no Gt's etc., £250 seemed about right, I found mine in 'Mifsuds' £249 with Gt. If I had been disapointed, I could have put it on fleesBay and made a profit!!!

 

Thanks for the 'Cokin Z' info. I thought the normal Cokin holder would be a problem on wide angle. Look closley at pic six in the samples, you will see my sleve in the bottom LH corner!! The angle on that lens is amazing.

 

Going to have to put some pennies away then, scour the ads and see whats on offer on fleeBay?

 

SW

[Angly]

UV filters have no great effect on later digital bodies, (and the newer the body the more this is true), the manufacturers go to great lens to reduce UV rays reaching the sensor. Just look for information regarding converting your body to a UV camera.

 

As to using filters for protection, another oft cited reason, I was was firmly in this camp and very aggressively fighting my corner...but I've now changed my mind. Nothing to do with sticking cheap filters on expensive lenses, I used Nikon own recommended filters; just the difficluty of keeping the filters clean. It seemed like everytime I looked there was a smudge, or pieces of dust that needed removing...and you think to yourself, wow, lucky I've got that filter on to protect my lens. But after experimentally removing all my filters I've not once had to clean a front lens element, they don't seem to get as dirty! Bizarre but true, for me at least.

 

With polarisers I went the whole hog and bought a Nikon one, the only other I'd recommend from experience would be the Hoya multi coated.

[Sutton Warrior]

UV filters have no great effect on later digital bodies, (and the newer the body the more this is true), the manufacturers go to great lens to reduce UV rays reaching the sensor. Just look for information regarding converting your body to a UV camera.

 

As to using filters for protection, another oft cited reason, I was was firmly in this camp and very aggressively fighting my corner...but I've now changed my mind. Nothing to do with sticking cheap filters on expensive lenses, I used Nikon own recommended filters; just the difficluty of keeping the filters clean. It seemed like everytime I looked there was a smudge, or pieces of dust that needed removing...and you think to yourself, wow, lucky I've got that filter on to protect my lens. But after experimentally removing all my filters I've not once had to clean a front lens element, they don't seem to get as dirty! Bizarre but true, for me at least.

 

With polarisers I went the whole hog and bought a Nikon one, the only other I'd recommend from experience would be the Hoya multi coated.

 

Wow Angly, I did not know what I was getting myself into . . . Your comments, "UV filters have no effect . . . " . . . OK I will prove the point?

 

Nothing don to these at all!!!

 

UV filter, auto WB

 

UV filter, shade WB

 

UV filter removed, auto WB

 

UV filter removed, shade WB

 

Come to your own conclusions!!! I have been able to adjust the 'Auto WB' in the menu get rid of some of the blue cast -1, it might stand -2? Not really part of this test but it makes for better pictures in the future? Same adjustments available to all the other WB setting, going to make for some interesting shots of my back garden. Perhaps need +1 on the shade setting? But essentially, making the UV filter unnecessary?

 

Also got the vivid set a lttle high now? what you think?

 

SW

Edited February 1, 2009 by Sutton Warrior

[Angly]

"The camera designers don't like UV any more than they do IR coming into their digital contraptions, and for similar reasons. UV has a different focus than visible light and will disrupt sharpness plus contribute to the washing out of colours in sky areas. However, unlike IR, the UV rays are quite efficiently filtered out by pure optical means long before they can reach the imaging chip inside. Thus the optical glass in the lens, bonding substances, and in particular the multi-coating layers, prevent much of the impinging UV to pass through. Of course none of this applies when a dedicated UV lens is put onto the camera. Learning that the D200 possessed a CCD imager, I initially was quite optimistic regarding its potential to do UV. However as events later turned out, this optimism was unfounded.

 

The D200 follows the trend set by the D2X meaning it is little responding to UV. However, unlike the D2X and more similar to other Nikon DSLRs (D1, D1X, D2H) it records UV mostly in the red channel. The D1H and D70 have useful response in the other two channels as well, and the D2X has mainly a blue-channel UV response. "

 

Quoted in accordance with copyright from renowned Nikon expert Dr. Bjørn Rørslett's excellent website here: http://www.naturfotograf.com/nrfotobj.html

 

To test the theory properly, you'd need to select a fixed WB (doesn't matter which, say daylight), shoot a fixed target (no moving clouds), and use a UV filter from a respected manufacturer.

[Sutton Warrior]

Starting to get a bit complicated in my simple mind. What I can see, is that, a little adjustment in the menu will give positive results? By messing about with the working of the lens and camera, it seems we can mess up what the designers have done by introducing a UV filter, or any other filter? although, they are deliberate for effect.

 

This is my final picture for today, light has gone! Just a tad in PS Elements. Its interesting . . . to me, WB is on auto (-1 in menu), no UV filter and no exposure compensation, (Ken Rockwell) whacks on about the D80 needing '-0.7' compensation. He was right I thought, but with the two changes as above, I was happy with the result. Put it into 'Elements Auto tweak' according to 'PS Elements' it needed to be a tad in the '+' direction, I think PSE has looked at the shadows, both are OK, here is Elements version:

 

 

SW

[Angly]

With your D80, Im guessing the AutoWB is good to go for 99% of non-critical shooting situations, it does get fooled by indoor lighting sometimes (esp. strip lighting), but one those times it's really out, it's a quick fix in your photo edit program of choice. In my opinion of course.

 

Be wary of getting too obsessed by WB: remember in film days we used daylight (i.e. midday) balanced film all day long..ever heard anyone complain about the colour cast? Nope, me neither. Add to the fact that the human eye adjusts colours as it see fit (hence why we don't notice the colour cast in daylight film shot at dusk), the you can see it's all pretty much irrelevant. Is the grass green? People white/yellow/black? Sky blueish? Good to go. Sure, if there's something in the frame you know is pure white in real life, but it's off white in the photo, and you're getting it printed to hang, adjust that shot to get rid of the error.

 

I'm guessing that was a Matrix Metered Auto Exposure shot? In which case the camera has correctly noticed there it too much difference between the lightest parts and the darkest parts of the frame to fit it all in, guessed the lightest parts were only sky, and correctly exposed everything else guessing that's what you wanted. Good guess I'd say.

 

Be careful of Ken Rockwell: Although he is a very clever chap, he is often read and regurgitated by those who don't really understand his humour or wit. He makes some excellent points, and offers some thought provoking opinions. His site is a little bare of hard sustainable facts though in my opinion.

 

If you havn't already, read Thom Hogan's D80 review: http://www.bythom.com/d80review.htm

 

Worth checking our the rest of his site too.

[Sutton Warrior]

Be careful of Ken Rockwell: Although he is a very clever chap, he is often read and regurgitated by those who don't really understand his humour or wit. He makes some excellent points, and offers some thought provoking opinions. His site is a little bare of hard sustainable facts though in my opinion.

 

If you havn't already, read Thom Hogan's D80 review: http://www.bythom.com/d80review.htm

 

Worth checking our the rest of his site too.

 

I see where you are coming from, ah, the days of film, I used to hose around with gay abandon with my F601 only ever used a Sigma 70-300, all aircraft shots for a magazine. that was back in the early 90's, only just sold the 70-300, replaced it with a new, Sigma 70-300-HSM motor, Hazel has a D40X! I never used that 601 on anything other than 'auto P', shoot 5-10 rolls of 36 in a day and every one was good enough for publication, exposure wise that is Auto P, cos I never had time to adjust the camera, made me lazy. Thats why I'm only just learning now . . . got time . . . go back to 'auto P', a simple life

 

You are right, the camera was left to do the job, and yes, I agree, it got it right, although, the -1 adjustment to the 'aWB' make a major difference. What I want now is a day when I can shoot all day, and see how the WB fairs.

 

I like Ken Rockwells 'matter of fact' way, but I am learning that one needs to spit out the bones, like the D80 and over exposing for instance, a few basic adjustments and mine seems to have it right?

 

Coincidentally, Ken Hogans site is in my 'favorites list' to be looked at, I will bring him forward and have a gander.

 

SW

[Angly]

F601, had one of them!

 

Sigma 70-300mm (APO version), had one of them too, replaced it last year!

 

When I first went digital with the D70s a few years ago, I was on a mission to become a far better photographer, an arty photographer instead of a snapshot photographer.

 

Many tens of thousands of images later, I've discovered I don't have an arty bone in my body (which is a little odd as my late father was a very arty), but I can now take a pretty damn good digital snapshot!

 

I recently went to an extended families Greek Orthodox Baptism. The official photographer was late, so the mother, knowing I like to snap away, asks if I'd stand in and take hundreds of shots. Unlike CofE churches, I had full access anywhere, and luckily flash was allowed. The official photog did eventually arrive, with his D3 and 28mm 1.4AF...about £6,000 worth of gear, and with the D3 having great high ISO quality, no need for him to use flash. How small did I feel with my D200? Well, to cut a long story short, the mother didn't like a single shot of his (he was working for free as extended family too), and loved all mine! I didn't think mine were that good, but what do I know?

 

I have some of my photos up here: http://www.pbase.com/tuckeruk