polarized or uv

ergoe said:

As to polarizing filters, I have a question myself. Several of mine
have notches on the rim, while others don't. How do you make use of
those notches?

Click to expand...

.....I think that they are a visual way of making note of where the filter should be should you not be able to look through them to see the effect....ie: using it on a rangefinder camera.

As an example when I use my old Rollei TLR I have to put my polarizer on and look throught the "Viewing Lens" and make a mental note as to the positioning of the filter. Then I put the polarizer on the "Taking Lens" and take the photo.

Perhaps someone else can give me a better explanation or reason for the notches.

Regards
Terry

James Darwin said:

I keep My UV filters on most of the time, even though I can see no
difference in IQ..Its more for protection of lens....No I'm not
shooting in a sand storm, but did see a some small scratches on one
of my filters and have no clue how they got there...Better filter
then the front element! When you spend thousands of dollars on lens
, better safer than sorry.

Click to expand...

I'm guessing that you have spent more money and gotten good quality filters. Before anybody "jumps" on me, I do have UV filters on most of my 2 dozen lenses, but tend to only use them when conditions warrant it.

The one thing is that a filter adds one more air/glass surface in which to cause refraction.

Regards
Terry

Mark53 said:

Are you one of those people who think a UV filter will "ruin"
the images from their expensive lenses?

Click to expand...

....not sure who is responding to who. ;-)

But I am definitely not one of those people, I just use a filter only when I feel that it is really necessary. I too use Nikon or B+W filters on my lenses.

Regards
Terry

Windancer said:

Are you one of these people that has a $1000 lens with a $20 UV
filter on it? Just curious....;-)

Click to expand...

As opposed to someone who spends $1000 on a lens and doesn't invest $20 to protect it?

--

:-(
http://camera-ephemera.blogspot.com

If you critically test you'll find there is a difference, haven't used a filter in 35 years, haven't had a damaged front element either. Suggested reading http://www.bythom.com/filters.htm covers this issue at least as I see it.

Have had my lenses on beaches (not large waves), and in the desert this year, no damage.

If having a filter on the lens makes you feel better, by all means do it, but it isn't necessary, use lens caps (when not in use) and hoods, you should be fine.

Tom

There is a lot of theory going on here, can you post some photos taken with a good quality multicoated filter and the same photo taken without the filter. Of course, I am not talking about shooting into sunlight.

The tests I have conducted did not reveal any difference at all. I am one of those who like to see to believe. I treat my photography the same way, no dogma at all.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/38519080@N00/sets/72157594443652688/

Leonard Shepherd said:

It is much easier to get a double image reflected back to the
sensor if you have a filter on than no filter on, and it is easy
enough to compare the slight to obvious loss of shadow detail
(depends on the lens and lighting) compared to without a filter
using a histogram.

Click to expand...

thanx for the reply Terry, no probs. I honestly tot that it was some kinda technical guide to shooting with a polarizer, hahaha

Windancer said:

....what I meant is that if you are shooting a photograph with the
sun at your back you are basically 180° to the sun...if you are
shooting a photo and the sun is above either shoulder, then you are
90° to the sun.

Does that make more sense?

Sorry

Click to expand...

No need to b.

--
Cheers
Aarik

Tom Monego said:

If having a filter on the lens makes you feel better, by all means
do it

Click to expand...

And that's really the bottom line, isn't it? I just get tired of all the snarky commentary on it - on BOTH sides. There are arguments on both sides, and both sides have equal merit. Using the filters do no harm if the photographer is satisified with the pictures coming out. And for those who choose not to use filters, it's your lens.

Neither side as any moral high ground.

The test I did in college was take PanX film, shoot a highly detailed object, I had a beautiful old door, shoot it with and without a filter, print to 8x10. There was a definite difference. The camera I used was a Leica M2 with a 50mm Dual Range Summicron, one of the best lenses made at the time, with a Leitz UV1 filter. Printed with a 50mm Leitz enlarging lens.

This made an impression on me in 1972 and have only used filters when I needed them since. Used a lot of light balancing filters when I shot film. I still have the same M2, a 35mm f1.4 and 85 f2 Nikkor that I had then, sold the 50mm to a friend who still loves it.

To change this test to digital find a detailed subject under flat lighting shoot with and with a filter. Then make a judgement, flat lighting is important, good lens helps too.

Recently bought a lens cheap, an old 70-210 f4 Nikkor, the seller did not warranty the lens, I was suspicious but it was cheap. The lens came with a cheap filter on it, first shots were disappointing. took off the filter, found out I had a decent lens.

Tom