Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Lens protection filters

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
December 8, 2004 9:45:25 PM

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

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"
Anonymous
December 8, 2004 9:45:26 PM

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

UV is apparently much less of an issue with digital than it was with
film, although I have had a couple of digital pics from my C-5060
ruined by what looks suspiciously like UV fog.... I think I'm just
being paranoid, though. I keep a UV filter on the camera most of the
time, as much for cheap protection from scratches as anything else -
it's color neutral (unlike skylight filters), doesn't affect exposure,
and they're cheap like borscht.....

ECM
Anonymous
December 8, 2004 9:45:26 PM

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

Pattern-chaser <pattern-chaser@merrick.britishlibrary.net> writes:

> 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

I'd suggest getting a good lens hood instead.

"Who cares who wins?"

--
Phil Stripling | email to the replyto address is presumed
The Civilized Explorer | spam and read later. email from this URL
http://www.cieux.com/ | http://www.civex.com/ is read daily.
Related resources
Can't find your answer ? Ask !
Anonymous
December 8, 2004 9:45:26 PM

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

With modern films and lenses, neither your film camera nor your digital
camera needs a UV-blocking filter for picture quality. If you want to
protect the lens, make sure your filter is multi-coated; otherwise you're
adding a source of unwanted reflections.
Anonymous
December 8, 2004 10:47:09 PM

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

On Wed, 08 Dec 2004 18:45:25 +0000, Pattern-chaser
<pattern-chaser@merrick.britishlibrary.net> wrote:

>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?

CCDs are less sensitive to UV than (most) film. Whatever you buy, make
sure it's multi-coated on BOTH sides of the filter. Many say they are
pointless and just add flare so if you think you need one, you want to
try and reduce that risk.

--
Owamanga!
December 8, 2004 11:42:54 PM

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

"Pattern-chaser" <pattern-

>Is such (UV) protection necessary for the digital camera >I plan to buy
soon?

I believe that the chips are optimized to ignore light in the UV range.
I've never heard of anyone using a UV filter on a digital camera, and one
would think that every filter manufacturer would be pushing them on us if
they could.

Film, unlike our eyes, does respond to UV light. Even though we can't see
it, film does--and it has been known to fog film with a bluish cast. I use
UV filters on all of my lenses for my SLR. I can't recall anyone ever
raising the question regarding digital, though.
Anonymous
December 8, 2004 11:42:55 PM

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

"Jeremy"
>
> "Pattern-chaser" <pattern-
>
> >Is such (UV) protection necessary for the digital camera >I plan to buy
> soon?
>
> I believe that the chips are optimized to ignore light in the UV range.
> I've never heard of anyone using a UV filter on a digital camera, and one
> would think that every filter manufacturer would be pushing them on us if
> they could.
>
> Film, unlike our eyes, does respond to UV light. Even though we can't see
> it, film does--and it has been known to fog film with a bluish cast. I use
> UV filters on all of my lenses for my SLR. I can't recall anyone ever
> raising the question regarding digital, though.


I use one on all of my lenses regardless of film or digital. I'd
rather pay 100 bucks to get rid of a scratch than buy a new
lense.
Anonymous
December 9, 2004 12:42:29 AM

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

On Wed, 08 Dec 2004 18:45:25 +0000, Pattern-chaser
<pattern-chaser@merrick.britishlibrary.net> wrote:

>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?

After I've seen how much worse the stray light situation becomes
with an extra filter, I no longer use any filter for lens
protection.

A simple test is to pull out the camera at night and look at
something that has a few bright lights. Then, while looking
through the TTL viewfinder, hold a filter in front of the lens
and watch several new reflections appear that are simply not
there without the filter.

Unless you are very careless with your camera, you don't need a
protective filter.

In situations with lots of sunlight, instead of a UV filter use
a polarizing filter, if you can put up with the extra work of
rotating it into the optimal position.

Hans-Georg

--
No mail, please.
Anonymous
December 9, 2004 12:42:30 AM

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

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?

--
To reply no_ HPMarketing Corp.
December 9, 2004 12:42:30 AM

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

Hi HAns!

I was always told to use a Skylight. Is this wrong?
Marcel


"Hans-Georg Michna" <hans-georgNoEmailPlease@michna.com> wrote in message
news:sgper0pohdc0jc7nsi5h6igv63vo8ed61q@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 08 Dec 2004 18:45:25 +0000, Pattern-chaser
> <pattern-chaser@merrick.britishlibrary.net> wrote:
>
> >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?
>
> After I've seen how much worse the stray light situation becomes
> with an extra filter, I no longer use any filter for lens
> protection.
>
> A simple test is to pull out the camera at night and look at
> something that has a few bright lights. Then, while looking
> through the TTL viewfinder, hold a filter in front of the lens
> and watch several new reflections appear that are simply not
> there without the filter.
>
> Unless you are very careless with your camera, you don't need a
> protective filter.
>
> In situations with lots of sunlight, instead of a UV filter use
> a polarizing filter, if you can put up with the extra work of
> rotating it into the optimal position.
>
> Hans-Georg
>
> --
> No mail, please.
Anonymous
December 9, 2004 12:42:31 AM

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

In article <hbOdnX7wr7eOFyrcRVn-tw@rogers.com>,
"Marcel" <cosmar@rogers.com> wrote:

> I was always told to use a Skylight. Is this wrong?

A skylight filter is a warming filter so while it won't effect the
exposure (a Heliopan KR i.5 skylight filter has a filter factor of 1.1)
it will add some red to the scene.

A UV filter has the same effect on exposure but it will not add red.

Takes your choice. Both protect your lens from dust, moisture, sand,
fingerprints, smoke, etc. and both will cut UV.

--
To reply no_ HPMarketing Corp.
Anonymous
December 9, 2004 12:42:31 AM

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

"Marcel" <cosmar@rogers.com> wrote in message
news:hbOdnX7wr7eOFyrcRVn-tw@rogers.com...
> Hi HAns!
>
> I was always told to use a Skylight. Is this wrong?
> Marcel

I actually prefer skylight filters (1A or 1B, Nikon L1Bc). They
demonstrably increase the sharpness of some of my long telephoto lenses, and
they warm the colors slightly.
December 9, 2004 10:35:41 AM

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

Hi Bob!
Now I understand why I always have to correct for red, especially with
photos taken with a flash (interior)
Thanks,
Marcel


"Bob Salomon" <bob_salomon@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:bob_salomon-2AFE37.18265208122004@news.isp.giganews.com...
> In article <hbOdnX7wr7eOFyrcRVn-tw@rogers.com>,
> "Marcel" <cosmar@rogers.com> wrote:
>
> > I was always told to use a Skylight. Is this wrong?
>
> A skylight filter is a warming filter so while it won't effect the
> exposure (a Heliopan KR i.5 skylight filter has a filter factor of 1.1)
> it will add some red to the scene.
>
> A UV filter has the same effect on exposure but it will not add red.
>
> Takes your choice. Both protect your lens from dust, moisture, sand,
> fingerprints, smoke, etc. and both will cut UV.
>
> --
> To reply no_ HPMarketing Corp.
Anonymous
December 9, 2004 3:18:00 PM

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

"Michael A. Covington" <look@www.covingtoninnovations.com.for.address&gt; wrote
in message news:41b78e71@mustang.speedfactory.net...
> With modern films and lenses, neither your film camera nor your digital
> camera needs a UV-blocking filter for picture quality. If you want to
> protect the lens, make sure your filter is multi-coated; otherwise you're
> adding a source of unwanted reflections.

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.

Out of interest, what brand of filters does everybody use? I use Hoya but
of there are better I'd change in a heartbeat.

Angela
Anonymous
December 9, 2004 3:18:01 PM

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

In article <cp9fpu$9kf$1@news.freedom2surf.net>,
"Angela" <anyoldmail@gmail.takethisout.com> wrote:

> "Michael A. Covington" <look@www.covingtoninnovations.com.for.address&gt; wrote
> in message news:41b78e71@mustang.speedfactory.net...
> > With modern films and lenses, neither your film camera nor your digital
> > camera needs a UV-blocking filter for picture quality. If you want to
> > protect the lens, make sure your filter is multi-coated; otherwise you're
> > adding a source of unwanted reflections.
>
> 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.
>
> Out of interest, what brand of filters does everybody use? I use Hoya but
> of there are better I'd change in a heartbeat.
>
> Angela

Hoya makes very good as well as very average filters so, without knowing
which Hoya you have, your statement doesn't tell us very much.

The best filters are the German ones from Heliopan and the other
supplier in Bad Kreuznach.

--
To reply no_ HPMarketing Corp.
Anonymous
December 9, 2004 3:18:01 PM

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

"Angela"
>
> "Michael A. Covington"

> > With modern films and lenses, neither your film camera nor your digital
> > camera needs a UV-blocking filter for picture quality. If you want to
> > protect the lens, make sure your filter is multi-coated; otherwise you're
> > adding a source of unwanted reflections.
>
> 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.
>
> Out of interest, what brand of filters does everybody use? I use Hoya but
> of there are better I'd change in a heartbeat.
>
> Angela


I use mostly Heliopan but have a couple of B+Ws. Heliopans seem just
as good optically and as well built and cost a little less. I seriously
doubt you could see any difference by adding a quality multicoated filter.
I hike around and trudge through brush, etc so it's a necessary insurance
policy for me.
Anonymous
December 9, 2004 5:39:25 PM

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

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/schutzfilt...

vm
December 9, 2004 5:39:26 PM

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

B+W is the only filter I use on all my lenses.
> http://www.schneider-kreuznach.com/neuheiten/schutzfilt...

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


<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/schutzfilt...
>
> vm
>
Anonymous
December 9, 2004 6:29:31 PM

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

Angela asks:

>
>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.
>
>Out of interest, what brand of filters does everybody use? I use Hoya but
>of there are better I'd change in a heartbeat.

I don't know if B+W is better, but they have a good reputation.

Charlie Self
"Cabbage: A familiar kitchen-garden vegetable about as large and wise as a
man's head." Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary
Anonymous
December 9, 2004 7:20:19 PM

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

"Bob Salomon" <bob_salomon@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:bob_salomon-886CB7.07290309122004@news.isp.giganews.com...
>
> Hoya makes very good as well as very average filters so, without knowing
> which Hoya you have, your statement doesn't tell us very much.

they are all Super HMC bar 1 which is just HMC
Anonymous
December 9, 2004 8:34:29 PM

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

> 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.
>
> Out of interest, what brand of filters does everybody use? I use Hoya but
> of there are better I'd change in a heartbeat.

Hoya and Nikon, multicoated. I don't think they are inferior pieces of
glass. But I avoid the cheaper ones.
Anonymous
December 9, 2004 10:18:06 PM

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

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?

Bob,

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

Hans-Georg

--
No mail, please.
Anonymous
December 9, 2004 10:18:06 PM

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

On Wed, 8 Dec 2004 18:13:22 -0500, "Marcel" <cosmar@rogers.com>
wrote:

>I was always told to use a Skylight. Is this wrong?

Marcel,

this is certainly wrong, unless you specifically want the color
effect of a skylight filter.

My advice was to use no filter at all, unless you have a very
good, overriding reason.

Hans-Georg

--
No mail, please.
Anonymous
December 9, 2004 10:18:07 PM

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

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?
>
> Bob,
>
> whatever you want to test. Even the best filters will add very
> visible reflections in a night shot.
>
> Hans-Georg

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

--
To reply no_ HPMarketing Corp.
Anonymous
December 10, 2004 12:05:22 AM

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

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

--
No mail, please.
Anonymous
December 10, 2004 12:05:23 AM

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
Anonymous
December 10, 2004 12:41:32 AM

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.
Anonymous
December 10, 2004 1:32:43 AM

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.
Anonymous
December 10, 2004 3:12:24 AM

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
Anonymous
December 10, 2004 7:42:37 AM

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.
Anonymous
December 10, 2004 11:23:37 AM

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

"Michael A. Covington" <look@www.covingtoninnovations.com.for.address&gt; 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
Anonymous
December 10, 2004 5:11:50 PM

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/schutzfilt...
>
>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/schutzfilt...
>>
>> vm
>>
>
!