[Steinar1]

[quote name='wim' timestamp='1283791072' post='2537']

The B+W MRC is the B+W Multi-Resistant Coating, the multicoated, scratch resistant, water and grease/oil replllant version in their filter range. A pol filter is a polarizing filter <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />.



Sorry about that <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />.



Kind regards, Wim

[/quote]



Thanks! I have just ordered all my "stuff" and when I wanted to pay I found to my despair that PayPal did not want to pay this large amount. So, I have to pay via bank transfer, which will delay delivery by several days. Oh well, I guess I have spent enough time changing my mind to accept a couple of days more waiting. But Wim, Jenbenn, Brightcolours, Markus, Rainer and lots more, I can't wait to show you my first efforts with the new equipment and hope it won't kill you laughing!I will then have the excuse that I did not do any PP (because I will not have gotten that far)and I can also counter any criticism of flare, glare etc by saying I did not use a filter <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' /> Kind regards Loup Impatient

[wim]

[ name='Brightcolours' timestamp='1283766427' post='2517']

That is what Iove about internet, all these internet myths that keep on going around.

[color="#0000ff"]

[color="#0000ff"][/color]Yep. Like the one about filters that filters do not protect a lens <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />. As I mentioned in another thread, among others, my camera retailer friend, who sees on average at least 1 damaged filter or lens a week, has a different experience to yours.

[/color]

It is VERY hard to scratch a front element, to do so you need something that is harder. Not easy to find, most sand grains are not even as hard as the coated elements.



[color="#0000ff"]Most coatings with few exceptions are actually softer than the lens surface itself, and sandgrains being crystalline silica are harder than glass, which is in essence non-crystalline silica, and softer than sand by at least 1/2 a unit on the scale of Mohs, which is a logarithmic scale from 1 to 10 (10 being diamond). In short, sand can scratch a lens, and quite easily as a matter of fact.

[/color]

Basically you can NOT scratch a front element when you normally clean it (with microfiber lens cloth and a drop of lens cleaning fluid).



[color="#0000ff"]You can when you don't blow it clean first, and don't make sure that any residu left on the lens isn't a particle of some sort. Even then, cleaning always is in essence a form of polishing, which one shouldn't really do to a perfectly polished lens surface. The polishing materials used for e.g. glass fibre, are so smooth to the touch, that one wouldn't believe they are actually abrasive. However, they are.[/color]



And if you are leaving "cleaning marks"... then you are not cleaning it, obviously.



If you are paranoid about it, also get a soft lens cleaning brush, with or without blower, to get rid of dust and any other particles before cleaning.



[color="#0000ff"]That's actually a must.[/color]



If you actually leave cleaning marks on the front element... you leave cleaning marks on the filter! [/quote]



[color="#0000ff"]Not true. It depends on the filter. A B&W MRC filter cleans very, very easily, with virtually no effort. This can't be said of most of the front lenses and their coatings.

[/color]

Most arguments for "protective filters" are myths and bogus, born out some irrational fear and fueled by hearsay stories.



[color="#0000ff"]Oh? I guess my retailer friend doesn't count in that case, even though I witnessed some of the damage done in person, and even though filters protected my own lenses in certain cases, like a fall down a cliff, about 150 meters lower in altitude than where its fall started. I guess that is also all myth.

[/color]

The easiest way to scratch a front element is this (most common in fact):

Put an thin sheet of optical glass in front of the front element (filter). Drop the lens or bump your camera bag against a rock or something else.

Find out that that THIN sheet of glass did not withstand the shock, and broke, leaving sharp shards of glass to scratch your front element.



[color="#0000ff"]By your own reckoning, if sand can't scratch the front lens, neither can glass, as it is softer than sand, i.e, crystalline quartz. With impurities it gets even harder.

[/color]

[color="#0000ff"]BTW, I have seen quite a few lenses that had damaged front lens surfaces due to incorrect cleaning procedures. Essentially, they were polished unevenly with small scratch marks as a result, most of the time anyway. Sometimes the damge was more obvious.



[/color]If you are lucky, and the filter glass splinters did not scratch the front element, tell everyone on internet how your filter saves your lens (it didn't, your lens would have been fine without).



[color="#0000ff"]It actually did save the lens, see above. And again, if sand can't scratch a lens, neither can glass, it is softer than sand. Furthermore, the metal filter ring adds rigidity to the lens.[/color]



Fact: A lens cap protects the front elements against the bumps. It does not have a thin sheet of glass to break.



[color="#0000ff"]True enough. But what if it gets bumped off , e.g. by a fall? Happened to me.

[/color]

Fact: A hood protects the lens in a fall, as it will act as a shock absorber. It may crack, but will save the lens. It also acts as a buffer against bumping into things.



[color="#0000ff"]Also true. But again, what it it gets bumped off, or when it isn't mounted yet? Happened to me too.



[/color]Fact: UV filters DO degrade IQ, sometimes ruining a photo. Even if you buy expensive multi coated ones.



[color="#0000ff"]By 0.3 % at most. That is very rare to happen. BTW, the 100-400L with a filter not AF-ing well is pure myth. Just in case soemone drags up that myth. I should know. Owned two, both always had/have filters mounted.[/color]



My advice: Only put a filter on when there is something to filter, or when there is something to protect the lens against (and to which the filter can actually protect it). So, if you plan to shoot at a beach when it is stormy, or go shoot a motocross race, I can imagine a protective filter will give you peace of mind. Some lenses which are weather sealed want a filter to complete sealing, but no lenses you are considering are weather sealed. And you are probably not weather sealed yourself... <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />. Finger grease is not something to protect a lens from, as it is easier to clean a front element that to clean a filter (due to the shape).



[color="#0000ff"]Based on over 35 years of cleaning lenses and filters, both from a hobby and professional POV, I completely disagree. Most filters are more easy to clean than lenses are. And the filters with water and grease repellent coatings are extremely easy to clean. It is good to see that some of the newer lenses now also provide this type of coating, especially if they can't take filters.



[/color]I have never used protective filters (only used UV filters when they were needed with film), and I have never had a scratch on any filter element (front or back). And I am not particularly careful with my equipment, and I HAVE broken a lens hood with a fall of the lens. I currently have 5 Nikon, 3 Canon, 2 Sigma, 1 Tamron and 1 Tokina lenses without any scratch and with nicely cleaned elements without cleaning marks. And I have not thrown away money on filters with thin sheets of glass that can scratch lenses when they break.



[color="#0000ff"]As I mentioned, if sand can't scratch a lens, neither can filters. The rocks a lens falls on, can scratch a lens, yes. Most rocks are much harder than a lens, and there also is the impact.

[/color]

[color="#0000ff"]The problem with this whole debate is whether you believe it or not. I believe a filter protects a lens, because I have seen many examples where it did. You don't believe in it, good for you. You also don't use a blower I gather, just a microfiber cloth plus some solution. Fine, you have been very lucky. I once SAW somebody making a scratch on a lens with a sand grain, because he was too lazy to blow it clean first. Let me say, he wasn't very pleased.



Ah well, whatever, really ... <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' /> I didn't want to get involved in another pro-contra filter debate, and now I did anyway <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />.



Kind regards, Wim



P.S.:removed all quote marks, my comments in blue, as I had too many quote blocks.[/color]

[wim]

[quote name='Brightcolours' timestamp='1283774005' post='2525']

Like I said before, I am not particularly careful with my lenses. And yes, I am a photographer, not an over concerned parent. So I care about the image degrading properties of "protective filters" much more than quite irrational fears of front element scratches.

It is about the photo, not about a fear of imaginary scratches.



Explain how you have bumped front elements? In particular against something that could scratch it?



UV filters do degrade, just not in EVERY photo.



It is again just a faulty proposition, that when you travel a small corn of sand somehow gets itself into a micro fiber lens cloth and makes scratches. That is just in your imagination. You do not put lens cloths just anywhere, they have a very smooth surface and have a colour, one WOULD notice something had happened to it. Just again fueling to the myth, but camera shops and filter manufacturers will love to sell you expensive UV filters for all your lenses.



It is fine for you to keep using UV filters standard on all your lenses. But it is also fine to point out the protection value myth.

[/quote]

It really is whether you want that extra little bit of insurance or not. It doesn't happen often, but it does, and a filter does protect, and a sand grain can scratch if it goes unnoticed.



Kind regards, Wim

[wim]

[quote name='Brightcolours' timestamp='1283787003' post='2534']

The point is not whether people can have different opinions, but the point is whether wrong arguments are being used. Myths are plenty, and yes, why would a manufacturer of UV filters not say it is protecting your lens element? do you believe every claim every manufacturer or anything and every salesman makes?



To illustrate just how easy it is to get a front element scratched:

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vzOLbMPe0u8[/media]



And yes, broken filters indeed can scratch front elements. Breaking filters is EASY. Breaking lens elements... judge for yourself.



And now about filter induced IQ degrading.

Contrast loss/veiling with backlight:

With UV protective filter:



Without:



[url="http://neilvn.com/tangents/2010/02/27/using-filters/"]http://neilvn.com/ta.../using-filters/[/url]



Ghost light images:



Hoya DMC pro1 Digital





According to Luminous Landscape:

"The filter flare factor"





"Ironically, the better your lens, the more desirable it is not to have a filter on it. Also, if you commonly shoot with a zoom with more than ten elements, a filter, even if it's multicoated, isn't doing the lens's inherent flare and veiling glare characteristics any favors. The more glass surfaces, the less the transmission, period.



So use a filter when you need one, and by all means get one of those slick new Schneider MRC filters if you ever shoot in the wet. Otherwise, use that UV filter like a lenscap, and take it off before you shoot."

[/quote]

Just a note: IMO the photo of the lady is a manufactured photograph. That is not veiling but PP on an otherwise sharp and good photograph. It is too sharp underneath the veiling, and no detail is lost.



Regarding the other photographs: how much is really caused by the filter, and how much by the lens? I have actually seen photographs proving that it doesn't make a difference at all, i.e., yes with a cheap filter, no with a good filter, no with a lens without filter. I do know it does with cheap filters and difficult lighting conditions, but under those same conditions I personally could not get a good filter to flare or veil like this, no more than the lens without filter. I am pretty sure it must be possble, as it is logical, but the chances are really extremely slim. Actually, most veiling originates from reflections of the inside of the filter. Especially single coated filters with one-sided coating, also called mono-coated filters, are really most prone to this, as far as I could determine.



Kind regards, Wim

[Brightcolours]

That is what Iove about internet, all these internet myths that keep on going around.

[color="#0000ff"]

Yep. Like the one about filters that filters do not protect a lens <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />. As I mentioned in another thread, among others, my camera retailer friend, who sees on average at least 1 damaged filter or lens a week, has a different experience to yours.[/color]

[color="#FF0000"]No, he does not.



This reminds me of a guy in out country (the netherlands) promoting on a paper/research on how caffeine free coffee was bad for you heart. He noted that in a group that drank caffeine free coffee there was more heart trouble than in the group that drank coffee with caffeine.



Well.. duuuuh... which people tend to (more often) drink coffee without caffeine? Right. The people with poor health.



Faulty research from the start.



Now lets look into this camera retailer friend.

What does he get in damaged lenses? According to him and you, lenses with damaged filters and lenses with damaged front elements.



Now... how much lenses does he get without damaged front elements and without damaged filters?

Right... none.



The conclusions he is making are not thought through, as it excludes the last group, of people who bumped a lens, and the lens was fine, and since it had no filter, it has no broken filter.[/color]





[color="#0000ff"]The problem with this whole debate is whether you believe it or not. I believe a filter protects a lens, because I have seen many examples where it did. You don't believe in it, good for you. You also don't use a blower I gather, just a microfiber cloth plus some solution. Fine, you have been very lucky. I once SAW somebody making a scratch on a lens with a sand grain, because he was too lazy to blow it clean first. Let me say, he wasn't very pleased.



Ah well, whatever, really ... <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' /> I didn't want to get involved in another pro-contra filter debate, and now I did anyway <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />.



Kind regards, Wim



P.S.:removed all quote marks, my comments in blue, as I had too many quote blocks.

[/color]

[color="#FF0000"]

You say you have seen many examples where it did. The only way you can have seen that for real... is where you had a control lens having the same "accident" and where the lens got damaged, where the lens without filter got saved.



See, the problem is that we get a scare with a lens, and then think "phewww... glad i had that filter on it".

But we don't think about if that is a right thing to say. As the video I linked to shows... coatings are NOT so easily scratched, and lens elements are HARD to actually break. So... whenever a filter breaks... it just does not absorbs enough energy to save the front element (It is only a thin plate of glass...). If the front element is fine, it would most probably have been fine without filter. Front elements getting scratched from glass filter splinters is real, though. That happens.

So... while there is a slight chance a front element absorbs just enough energy to prevent front element damage, at the same time it can be the cause of front element scratches.



I clean my lenses with a soft lens brush. After that, I clean them with a micro fiber cloth and lens cleaning fluid spray (all from a funny little Zeiss set).



What is also real, is filter caused image degradation when bright light hits the filter. Expensive multicoated filters are better than cheap ones, but all show a degradation under those conditions.



To me, the perceived advantages do not in any way weigh up to the real disadvantages. And yes, these debates are "pointless" in that die hard filter users never give in (nor will non-filter users), but they are informative to newcomers.



Although, it must be said, that often you do find posts of former diehard filter users who stop after years of using them after having discovered that even the expensive filters at times seem to mess up the AF accuracy and gave artifacts in images. Or saw that funny youtube video <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />[/color]

[Guest]

I just love it. He talks about internet myths and downloads a few pics from some random people from the internet who claim to have experienced certain effects. There is no way that the veiling in the portrait photo could be caused by a modern mulicoated filter. I suggest, brightcolors, you try for yourself before believing in the myths people post online. You may be in for a surprise about the loss in optical quality.

[popo]

If I may chip in with some observations over time. I started in the filter camp. I got what was probably a single coated filter for my main lens. Now I know it wasn't really any good at anti-reflection. I kept using it without problem until I tried a long exposure night shot, where I first encountered the flare and I stopped using it. I went with the hood is "good enough" protection after that.



As mentioned elsewhere, that ended when one day down the park, I tried to get a little too close to a swan family and one of them pecked the middle of a brand new EF-S 15-85. The hood was useless as protection in that case. There are now two small marks on the lens now, which don't clean off. I'll do a macro of this if people really want. That swung me back to using filters. On review, I settled on Hoya HMC as a good balance of cost and anti-reflection quality. Of course, now I know in what situations flare can happen, I can take precautions such as additional shielding or if unavoidable, removing the filter.



I would add that the damage isn't significant to image quality, but if I ever were to resell it will certainly have an impact. I did also do some serious pixel peeping. In situations where there is no flare or glare, there is no difference I can see to using a filter or not in terms of sharpness. Some filters might have a slight colour cast though.



I suppose further to the video, I could repeat a similar experiment myself. I have an old Sigma zoom lens that is essentially junk (broken AF) so I could do it to that, although no doubt there will be a question on the quality of the coating itself. I'd use some possible real world damage cases, like sand or grit.

[Guest]

<img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' /> Tip: put your camera on a tripod so not to change position. then take the same photo with and without a good multicoated filter. Report back if you see differences. (In strong contra light you may be able to see one ADDITIONAL flare mark, caused by the filter on top of the marks produced by your lens. You will then notice that it doesnt make a differnce whether there are six or seven flare marks in your photo. When your lens doenst flare, the filter wont flare, too, because it is coated as good as your lens.)



And please stop fooling people like vieux loup, who try to learn. Only talk about what you have tried and what you know, skip the myth you read or heard from some unvarified source .



[quote name='Brightcolours' timestamp='1283787003' post='2534']

The point is not whether people can have different opinions, but the point is whether wrong arguments are being used. Myths are plenty, and yes, why would a manufacturer of UV filters not say it is protecting your lens element? do you believe every claim every manufacturer or anything and every salesman makes?



To illustrate just how easy it is to get a front element scratched:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vzOLbMPe0u8



And yes, broken filters indeed can scratch front elements. Breaking filters is EASY. Breaking lens elements... judge for yourself.



And now about filter induced IQ degrading.

Contrast loss/veiling with backlight:

With UV protective filter:



Without:



http://neilvn.com/tangents/2010/02/27/using-filters/



Ghost light images:



Hoya DMC pro1 Digital





According to Luminous Landscape:

"The filter flare factor"





"Ironically, the better your lens, the more desirable it is not to have a filter on it. Also, if you commonly shoot with a zoom with more than ten elements, a filter, even if it's multicoated, isn't doing the lens's inherent flare and veiling glare characteristics any favors. The more glass surfaces, the less the transmission, period.



So use a filter when you need one, and by all means get one of those slick new Schneider MRC filters if you ever shoot in the wet. Otherwise, use that UV filter like a lenscap, and take it off before you shoot."

[/quote]

[Brightcolours]

[quote name='jenbenn' timestamp='1283805012' post='2553']

<img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' /> Tip: put your camera on a tripod so not to change position. then take the same photo with and without a good multicoated filter. Report back if you see differences. (In strong contra light you may be able to see one ADDITIONAL flare mark, caused by the filter on top of the marks produced by your lens. You will then notice that it doesnt make a differnce whether there are six or seven flare marks in your photo. When your lens doenst flare, the filter wont flare, too, because it is coated as good as your lens.)



And please stop fooling people like vieux loup, who try to learn. Only talk about what you have tried and what you know, skip the myth you read or heard from some unvarified source .

[/quote]

I actually give some (from a lot of) examples of problems UV filters can give with LIGHT.



If you want to go and call the serious photographer who blogged about what he encountered a liar, go ahead, I posted the link to his personal site.



If you want to call the article on luminous landscape fabricated, go ahead and tell them that.



If you want to call all the ghost lights caused by cheap and expensive UV filters a hoax, fine. Just do a google search for fun.

If you want to not believe everyone who had a broken UV filter scratch the front element, if you want to believe front elements actually break easily, fine.

And if you want to believe that everyone who experiences AF problems with certain lenses in certain light conditions, only when they had an UV filter mounted are all making things up... fine.



But stop writing as if I am spreading myths, I am not. And UV filter ghost lights are NOT flares, they are a mirrored-through-the-optical-axis reflected image, and happen with expensive multi coated filters too.



Myths are that thin slabs of glass have magical impact absorption powers, and that they will not have an impact on IQ.



I do not have to make a photo with and without multicoated filter in problem situations: They have been done many times, and can easily be found on internet. I linked to some only this week, and even today. I even linked to a funny youtube video which demonstrates just how difficult it is to actually damage a front element (when you do not have any swans picking into your lens).



But just for you, another link. Because you must be joking if you think I will actually go spend money on an expensive UV filter just to show you what others show already.

http://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-camera-field-accessories/36555-lens-filters-versus-flare-ghost-images.html



You are free to put UV filters on lenses, whenever you want.

[Guest]

<img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' /> <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />

[quote name='Brightcolours' timestamp='1283814028' post='2558']

I actually give some (from a lot of) examples of problems UV filters can give with LIGHT.



If you want to go and call the serious photographer who blogged about what he encountered a liar, go ahead, I posted the link to his personal site.



If you want to call the article on luminous landscape fabricated, go ahead and tell them that.



If you want to call all the ghost lights caused by cheap and expensive UV filters a hoax, fine. Just do a google search for fun.

If you want to not believe everyone who had a broken UV filter scratch the front element, if you want to believe front elements actually break easily, fine.

And if you want to believe that everyone who experiences AF problems with certain lenses in certain light conditions, only when they had an UV filter mounted are all making things up... fine.



But stop writing as if I am spreading myths, I am not. And UV filter ghost lights are NOT flares, they are a mirrored-through-the-optical-axis reflected image, and happen with expensive multi coated filters too.



Myths are that thin slabs of glass have magical impact absorption powers, and that they will not have an impact on IQ.



I do not have to make a photo with and without multicoated filter in problem situations: They have been done many times, and can easily be found on internet. I linked to some only this week, and even today. I even linked to a funny youtube video which demonstrates just how difficult it is to actually damage a front element (when you do not have any swans picking into your lens).



But just for you, another link. Because you must be joking if you think I will actually go spend money on an expensive UV filter just to show you what others show already.

http://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-camera-field-accessories/36555-lens-filters-versus-flare-ghost-images.html



You are free to put UV filters on lenses, whenever you want.

[/quote]