Sigma 10-20 and UV filters...

[lanef]

At the end of the day, do you own tests, draw your own conclusion and choose the system that best suits you. Don't listen to pseudo experts who are narrow minded Johnny come lately to photography.

 

[revdhd]

My local camera shop had an excellent display of eleven lenses and their smashed filters. Each lens, in this particular case, had been completely protected by its filter, the front element unscratched and unbroken. The total cost of the filters was about $650. (Most were 77mm, a most expensive size). The total cost of the lenses they protected was over $18,000.

Now I know that camera shops are in the business of selling things like filters, but honestly, after seeing that display, I decided that a $40 filter on the front of a $1,500 lens is awfully good insurance, whether I unscrew it before I shoot or leave it in place. On my budget, I can afford another $40... well, sort of. But I may never come up with another $1,500 to replace a lens or repair costs to fix it.

I've used filters since I started shooting digital SLR, about 18 months ago (about 10,000 images), and I have never seen a problem that I could blame on a filter. And if I ever do, I can take ten seconds and begin removing filters before I start shooting.

I just bought a new Sigma 10-20 and it sits in my camera case right now with a new Nikon "pinch-in-the-middle" lens cap and a Hoya Pro1 SHMC UV(0) filter mounted. I'll not carry it any other way. All my lenses are protected by the same kind of filters.

Hope this helps. Good luck as you decide what will fit your style and your wallet. I hope you have as much fun as I do with this most wonderful of hobbies! And God bless.
--
Doug

My Life in Two Words: Chromatic Aberration

 

[dad_of_four]

Now I know that camera shops are in the business of selling things
like filters, but honestly, after seeing that display, I decided
that a $40 filter on the front of a $1,500 lens is awfully good
insurance, whether I unscrew it before I shoot or leave it in
place.

I'll bet they show that display to every new camera owner and just rack-up the sales of filters.

I honestly don't know why people would bother taking on/off a filter for a critical shot. Why not just use a lens cap?

 

[Windancer]

I decided that a $40 filter on the front of a $1,500 lens is awfully good
insurance,

.....have you ever compared 2 shots taken one right after the other one with the $40 filter and one without? Just curious....not saying using a $40 filter is wrong, but I have to ask.

I have a lot of pro glass including lenses such as the Nikkor 17-55/2.8 and 70-200/2.8 VR and they both have $100+ B+W UV filters and if you view shots at full size I feel in my eyes that I can see a difference.

Regards
Terry

 

[Windancer]

I have a lot of pro glass including lenses such as the Nikkor
17-55/2.8 and 70-200/2.8 VR and they both have $100+ B+W UV filters
and if you view shots at full size I feel in my eyes that I can see
a difference.

By the way, the only time that I use a UV is when conditions warrant it, otherwise I shoot naked....the lenses that is. All of my lenses (24) have metal or rigid plastic hoods for protection.

Regards
Terry

 

[revdhd]

.....have you ever compared 2 shots taken one right after the other
one with the $40 filter and one without? Just curious....not saying
using a $40 filter is wrong, but I have to ask.

I have a lot of pro glass including lenses such as the Nikkor
17-55/2.8 and 70-200/2.8 VR and they both have $100+ B+W UV filters
and if you view shots at full size I feel in my eyes that I can see
a difference.

Regards
Terry

Hi, Terry,

Very good question. I also have the 17-55 and 70-200. I protect them with Hoya Pro1 SHMC UV(0) filters. I took some test shots with and without the filter on the 17-55 as I was learning how to use it.

Several things wrong with the test... 1) The lens was new to me and I was just learning how to use it (still am), 2) The subject I was shooting, a landscape - pond, woods, stone bridge - around sunset, would not be likely to stress the lens, IMHO. (see one of the images below).

Purely non-scientific comparison appeared to show no difference between the images shot with the filter and those shot without. I just simply couldn't detect any at all.

On the basis of that brief experiment, and the results the lenses have produced since then, I have never found a flaw that I could attribute to a filter. No ghosting, flare, blooming, etc., that I didn't produce from my own incompetence.

D200, Nikkkor 17-55 @ 17mm, f/2.8, 1/500 second, ISO 100



If I had kept the companion shots, I'd gladly post them. But since they appeared to be duplicates, I deleted them. Now, of course, I wish I hadn't for I'd be delighted to offer them to you or anyone with discerning eyes to inspect and evaluate.

Makes me want to go out and shoot another set of comparisons, just to challenge my own initial impressions. In fact, I think I'm going to do that. I'll post my results when I do.

Terry, have you kept any comparison shots that would be useful to folks in making this judgment for themselves?

Sorry I don't have a better answer for you, but I sure appreciate the question. Now you've made me think about this issue again. And summer is coming so I was looking forward to not thinking for awhile! =-)

God bless.
--
Doug

My Life in Two Words: Chromatic Aberration

 

[lanef]

I agree with you. It's always good to hear both sides of the argument, but at the end of the day, it is better to do your own tests and draw your own conclusion. I have also done some tests with and without a SHMC filter, cropped to 100% and posted on the forum asking for anyone to spot the difference, but no one could.

.....have you ever compared 2 shots taken one right after the other
one with the $40 filter and one without? Just curious....not saying
using a $40 filter is wrong, but I have to ask.

I have a lot of pro glass including lenses such as the Nikkor
17-55/2.8 and 70-200/2.8 VR and they both have $100+ B+W UV filters
and if you view shots at full size I feel in my eyes that I can see
a difference.

Regards
Terry

Hi, Terry,
Very good question. I also have the 17-55 and 70-200. I protect
them with Hoya Pro1 SHMC UV(0) filters. I took some test shots with
and without the filter on the 17-55 as I was learning how to use it.

Several things wrong with the test... 1) The lens was new to me and
I was just learning how to use it (still am), 2) The subject I was
shooting, a landscape - pond, woods, stone bridge - around sunset,
would not be likely to stress the lens, IMHO. (see one of the
images below).

Purely non-scientific comparison appeared to show no difference
between the images shot with the filter and those shot without. I
just simply couldn't detect any at all.

On the basis of that brief experiment, and the results the lenses
have produced since then, I have never found a flaw that I could
attribute to a filter. No ghosting, flare, blooming, etc., that I
didn't produce from my own incompetence.

D200, Nikkkor 17-55 @ 17mm, f/2.8, 1/500 second, ISO 100



If I had kept the companion shots, I'd gladly post them. But since
they appeared to be duplicates, I deleted them. Now, of course, I
wish I hadn't for I'd be delighted to offer them to you or anyone
with discerning eyes to inspect and evaluate.

Makes me want to go out and shoot another set of comparisons, just
to challenge my own initial impressions. In fact, I think I'm
going to do that. I'll post my results when I do.

Terry, have you kept any comparison shots that would be useful to
folks in making this judgment for themselves?

Sorry I don't have a better answer for you, but I sure appreciate
the question. Now you've made me think about this issue again. And
summer is coming so I was looking forward to not thinking for
awhile! =-)

God bless.
--
Doug

My Life in Two Words: Chromatic Aberration

 

[Windancer]

I have also done some tests with and without a SHMC filter, cropped to > 100% and posted on the forum asking for anyone to spot the
difference, but no one could.

Well that's good then, it's a testament to your filter.

Regards
Terry

 

[Windancer]

Very good question. I also have the 17-55 and 70-200. I protect
them with Hoya Pro1 SHMC UV(0) filters. I took some test shots with
and without the filter on the 17-55 as I was learning how to use it.

Hi Doug

I was just curious that's all, as I said in a previous post, I wasn't saying it was wrong, just curious.

Makes me want to go out and shoot another set of comparisons, just
to challenge my own initial impressions. In fact, I think I'm
going to do that. I'll post my results when I do.

Might be interesting to see....one other reason I try not to use a UV is that it adds another air/glass surface in which to refract light.

Terry, have you kept any comparison shots that would be useful to
folks in making this judgment for themselves?

I should go out and do some shooting also and see if I can notice any difference in my B+W UV filters.

Regards
Terry

 

[Ricbell]

The front element sticks out on that lens . So there is nothing protecting it and the coatings . $15 for a filter or $215 to replace it as I just did . I was careful but when working quickly at a event anything can happen. Sigma did a fantastic job on repair and time. It looks better now and yes a filter will be on there. It does not take much to destroy the coatings and yes you will see the results .

 

[Ricbell]

I just paid $215 to replace the front element that got damaged while working a event . Those coatings scratch pretty easily. And if you do ever drop your lens the filter will absorb the impact . Even a cheap filter is better than nothing. I disagree I can't see the difference with or without the filter. I certainly could see the splotch from rubbing off the coatings in pics.I have been shooting for 45 years and this has never happened before.