On 24/04/07, Jack Davis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I use coated filters, but my cleaning warning, as I'm sure you
understood, was for those who would do harm to the lens element
coatings.
I suspect that you severely underestimate the robustness of modern
lens coatings.
--
Rob Studdert
Doug Franklin wrote:
Digital Image Studio wrote:
I suspect that you severely underestimate the robustness
of modern lens coatings.
I quit worrying so much about the robustness of the front element
coatings when I saw the Pentax demonstration of crushing out a cigarette
on the
Digital Image Studio wrote:
I suspect that you severely underestimate the robustness
of modern lens coatings.
I quit worrying so much about the robustness of the front element
coatings when I saw the Pentax demonstration of crushing out a cigarette
on the front element like it was an ashtray.
I can only hope. ;)
Jack
--- Digital Image Studio [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 24/04/07, Jack Davis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I use coated filters, but my cleaning warning, as I'm sure you
understood, was for those who would do harm to the lens element
coatings.
I suspect that you
On 24/04/07, Jack Davis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I can only hope. ;)
Lifted directly from a post I made re lens cleaning Nov 2000:
In an except from the Leica Fotographie International magazine 6/99 page 37
the following can be found:
The resistance and adhesive power of the outer layer is so
Rob,
A few years ago I did something like that using a damaged SMC filter. I
couldn't see any scratches or abrasions, even when using a magnifier.
However, I did ruin a 20mm Super Tak by cleaning it with Kodak lens tissue.
although I couldn't see the scratches. When I brought the lens in for a
No, I don't care to run the test. (LoL)
Well, this gives me even more hope.
Jack
--- Digital Image Studio [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 24/04/07, Jack Davis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I can only hope. ;)
Lifted directly from a post I made re lens cleaning Nov 2000:
In an except from the
On 24/04/07, Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Rob,
A few years ago I did something like that using a damaged SMC filter. I
couldn't see any scratches or abrasions, even when using a magnifier.
However, I did ruin a 20mm Super Tak by cleaning it with Kodak lens tissue.
although I
On 24/04/07, Jack Davis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
No, I don't care to run the test. (LoL)
Well, this gives me even more hope.
Nearly 20 years of regular cleaning the front element of my A16/2.8
fisheye and later my A15/3.5 (both of which can't be protected using
a screw on filter) with all and
So far as you can tell.(?)
Jack
--- Digital Image Studio [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 24/04/07, Jack Davis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
No, I don't care to run the test. (LoL)
Well, this gives me even more hope.
Nearly 20 years of regular cleaning the front element of my A16/2.8
fisheye and
I'm sorry, I don't hate any of my lenses that much...
Digital Image Studio wrote:
On 24/04/07, Jack Davis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I can only hope. ;)
Lifted directly from a post I made re lens cleaning Nov 2000:
In an except from the Leica Fotographie International magazine 6/99
On 25/04/07, Jack Davis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So far as you can tell.(?)
You can either see the damage on a lens or you can't, that's the nice
thing about optics ;-)
--
Rob Studdert
HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA
Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 4/21/07, Amita Guha [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
People tend to get into religious wars about this sort of thing. I'm a
firm believer in filtering my lenses, but I think I'm the only person
on the list who's ever dropped a camera on its front and had the UV
filter shatter and the lens remain
When the FA70-200 fell , with camera still in hand, filter or not, it
would not have helped in this case, as the focus barrell bent.
I generally do not use filters, but have on on my Nikon 70-200VR
Dave
On 4/23/07, wendy beard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 4/21/07, Amita Guha [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I find that to.
Dave
On 4/22/07, Godfrey DiGiorgi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The curious thing I discovered was that, with a filter in place, I
needed to remove it frequently to clean the lens and the backside of
the filter. Without a filter in place, cleaning my lenses is required
far less
That certainly is a curious thing. I'm overly speck vigilant and
rarely need to remove a filter to puff one away. If I do see a speck on
the lens, I assume it drifted in while I was changing filters.
I try to be quick about changing filters and now, in changing lenses on
the K10D.
Jack
--- David
The thing is, Jack, that a couple of bits of dust on the front
element of a lens does *nothing* to affect image quality in any
significant way. (Those same specs on the *rear* element can have an
impact, depending upon the lens.)
A fine layer of dust between the front element and the back
To eliminate that possibility, I ALWAYS thoroughly clean both the front
and back of each filter before placing or replacing it on the lens.
Thus virtually eliminating the problem. Additionally, because I used
the word speck, don't assume I'm not including any offending debris
such as dust...etc,
Dust is speck for me too.
Sounds to me like you're posing a greater risk to the glass surfaces
with all that cleaning, Jack.
I haven't needed to clean a lens more than a couple of times in the
past year at most. I give them a puff with a hand blower to get the
dust off if I see any, and I
You're making some erroneous assumptions, Godders. All that cleaning,
for example. Lightly flicking or puffing on either side of a filter
(unless an oily smear is seen) may be described as a thorough
cleaning. My filter changing is very infrequent at that.
In any case, if one is aggressive enough
On Apr 23, 2007, at 11:42 AM, Jack Davis wrote:
BTW, in my world dust cannot migrate to the area between the filter
and
the lens unless the filter is removed. :)
lol ... Do you have them sealed somehow? ;-)
I always thought that too, which is why I found the consistent build
up of
Yeah, me too.
Jack
--- Godfrey DiGiorgi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Apr 23, 2007, at 11:42 AM, Jack Davis wrote:
BTW, in my world dust cannot migrate to the area between the filter
and
the lens unless the filter is removed. :)
lol ... Do you have them sealed somehow? ;-)
I
- Original Message -
From: Godfrey DiGiorgi
Subject: Re: Protection glass / filters, especially consumer glass
On Apr 23, 2007, at 11:42 AM, Jack Davis wrote:
BTW, in my world dust cannot migrate to the area between the filter
and
the lens unless the filter is removed. :)
lol
Subject: Re: Protection glass / filters, especially consumer glass
On Apr 23, 2007, at 11:42 AM, Jack Davis wrote:
BTW, in my world dust cannot
migrate to the area between the filter
and the lens unless the filter is removed. :)
lol ... Do you have them sealed somehow
- Original Message -
From: Godfrey DiGiorgi
Subject: Re: Protection glass / filters, especially consumer glass
On Apr 23, 2007, at 11:42 AM, Jack Davis wrote:
BTW, in my world dust cannot
migrate to the area between the filter
and the lens unless the filter
Must have leaky filter/lens threads. ;)
Jack
--- William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Godfrey DiGiorgi
Subject: Re: Protection glass / filters, especially consumer glass
On Apr 23, 2007, at 11:42 AM, Jack Davis wrote:
BTW, in my world dust
:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Shel Belinkoff
Sent: 23 April 2007 21:00
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: Protection glass / filters, especially consumer glass
In my case it was more than dust, but something more akin to
a haze or a
film. Yeah, there was a little dust
On Apr 23, 2007, at 3:05 PM, John Francis wrote:
That looks like the sort of explanation Calvin's dad would provide :-)
I always liked Calvin's dad.
G
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
- Original Message -
From: Jack Davis
Subject: Re: Protection glass / filters, especially consumer glass
Must have leaky filter/lens threads. ;)
It was a Nikkor lens, after all.
William Robb
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo
Belinkoff
Sent: 23 April 2007 21:00
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: Protection glass / filters, especially consumer
glass
In my case it was more than dust, but something more akin to
a haze or a
film. Yeah, there was a little dust in there as well.
Apart from
@pdml.net
Subject: Re: Protection glass / filters, especially consumer glass
Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2007 16:24:24 -0700 (PDT)
All right!! That's got to be the answer and explains why some images
are more prone to this phenomenon than others. I think maybe cat fur
may be the worst offender. Photo fur balls
the photonic residue, you'll be offsetting that reduced
mass by
some amount.
Tom C.
From: Jack Davis [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net
Subject: Re: Protection glass / filters, especially consumer glass
Date: Mon, 23 Apr
If no filter in place, use restraint in aggressive lens cleaning. I
tend to do more frequent, if casual, cleaning when I have a filter on.
Proper methods and cleaners should only be used.
Jack
--- Godfrey DiGiorgi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I stopped using protection filters 25 years ago when I
Godfrey, do you still have one of those shots? It would be interesting
to see the effect of a filter on a real shot.
2007/4/22, Godfrey DiGiorgi [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I stopped using protection filters 25 years ago when I saw how much
they cut image quality. I've only dropped a lens once, a
The curious thing I discovered was that, with a filter in place, I
needed to remove it frequently to clean the lens and the backside of
the filter. Without a filter in place, cleaning my lenses is required
far less frequently and most of the time all that's required is a
quick puff with a
I'll see if I can find the particular two rolls of film that
convinced me once and for all. Don't hold your breath waiting ... it
was 25 years ago and I'll have to search and see if I didn't just
shred the nasty one in disgust. ;-)
G
On Apr 22, 2007, at 7:16 AM, Thibouille wrote:
I learn something new every day on this list, it seems. I'm probably
still a youngin' compared to most of you (rolling over to 27 in about a
month), and just started getting serious about photography late last
year when I picked up a *ist-DL. Wonderful camera, only complaint of
sorts is the
I generally leave my UV filter on my lens. My (aging) eyes don't see any
difference in image quality with or without the filter, but there are those
who disagree.
Maris
eric wrote:
I learn something new every day on this list, it seems. I'm probably
still a youngin' compared to most of you
People tend to get into religious wars about this sort of thing. I'm a
firm believer in filtering my lenses, but I think I'm the only person
on the list who's ever dropped a camera on its front and had the UV
filter shatter and the lens remain ok. :) I've never noticed a
difference in quality, but
Amita Guha wrote:
People tend to get into religious wars about this sort of thing. I'm a
firm believer in filtering my lenses, but I think I'm the only person
on the list who's ever dropped a camera on its front and had the UV
filter shatter and the lens remain ok. :) I've never noticed a
I stopped using protection filters 25 years ago when I saw how much
they cut image quality. I've only dropped a lens once, a Nikkor 20mm
f/3.5 AI-S that was two weeks old, and no filter or hood would have
prevented the damage to the lens' optical alignment that was caused
(both filter
From: Doug Franklin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 2007/04/10 Tue PM 11:24:38 GMT
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net
Subject: Re: Protection glass / filters
Cotty wrote:
Well, here's a combo that works for me: a 6X7 hood on a 35mm lens. PH-SB
on the A*85mm 1.4. Looks like
On 11/4/07, mike wilson, discombobulated, unleashed:
OK, added. Here's the beginnings of the page
http://NutDriver.org/hoodxref.html
Might be worth adding this link to your page.
http://www.lenshoods.co.uk/pentax.php
Doug, also - this page is a superb reference:
at 24mm it did not.
Greetings
Markus
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Doug
Franklin
Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2007 1:25 AM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: Protection glass / filters
Cotty wrote:
Well, here's a combo
For the FA 43, I use a Takumar 1:2.8/105 -- 1:4/100 hood.
Just happen to have that hood have no further need for it.
Anyone interested?
Kenneth Waller
- Original Message -
From: Mike Hamilton [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Protection glass / filters
On 4/10/07, Doug Franklin
mike wilson wrote:
Might be worth adding this link to your page.
http://www.lenshoods.co.uk/pentax.php
Cotty wrote:
Doug, also - this page is a superb reference:
http://www.vanwalree.com/optics/lenshood.html
Thanks guys, added both of them. I'll be uploading an updated copy of
the cross ref
Markus Maurer wrote:
Are you interested in all Pentax lenses/hood combinations or only
for the newest DA lenses?
I'll put information in there for any Pentax K mount lens, regardless of
manufacturer. I may need to adjust the table a little to accommodate
non-Pentax brand lenses, though.
On Apr 10, 2007, at 4:58 AM, Bob W wrote:
you can also move up to better filters you know.
What a waste of good lens money :)
- Dave
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
On Apr 10, 2007, at 3:49 AM, Mark Erickson wrote:
I think it's been said before, but you might try using lens hoods for
protection. They create no optical degradation and sometimes even
reduce
lens flare!
Yes that's true, but metal, plastic or rubber?
- Someone who should know better
Hey, folks,
While reading this thread, it occurred to me that there have been some
messages over the years about which hoods fit which lenses, even using
the wrong hood on the wrong lens or using some other manufacturer's
hood on a lens. If the group thinks there is utility in doing so, I
could
Cool idea - although you may get some strange-sounding responses from me
LOL
Shel
[Original Message]
From: Doug Franklin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net
Date: 4/10/2007 5:36:40 AM
Subject: Re: Protection glass / filters
Hey, folks,
While reading
On Apr 10, 2007, at 1:14 AM, David Mann wrote:
I think it's been said before, but you might try using lens hoods for
protection. They create no optical degradation and sometimes even
reduce lens flare!
Yes that's true, but metal, plastic or rubber?
I prefer a rigid lens hood ... metal,
On 10/04/07, Nick Wright [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Personally I rely on filters for protection. Because I feel much
better cleaning a $40 filter than the front element of a $300+ lens.
It's just like insurance, you really have to assess if it's warranted.
Looking at it another way I could say
I think it's been said before, but you might try using lens
hoods for
protection. They create no optical degradation and sometimes even
reduce
lens flare!
Yes that's true, but metal, plastic or rubber?
- Someone who should know better than to make such inflammatory
posts
I
On 10/4/07, Doug Franklin, discombobulated, unleashed:
While reading this thread, it occurred to me that there have been some
messages over the years about which hoods fit which lenses, even using
the wrong hood on the wrong lens or using some other manufacturer's
hood on a lens. If the group
Cotty wrote:
Well, here's a combo that works for me: a 6X7 hood on a 35mm lens. PH-SB
on the A*85mm 1.4. Looks like this:
http://www.cottysnaps.com/snaps/mods/a85ineos.html
OK, added. Here's the beginnings of the page
http://NutDriver.org/hoodxref.html
--
Thanks,
DougF (KG4LMZ)
--
On Apr 10, 2007, at 4:24 PM, Doug Franklin wrote:
Well, here's a combo that works for me: a 6X7 hood on a 35mm lens.
PH-SB
on the A*85mm 1.4. Looks like this:
http://www.cottysnaps.com/snaps/mods/a85ineos.html
That's good lookin', Cotty!
OK, added. Here's the beginnings of the page
On 4/10/07, Doug Franklin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Cotty wrote:
Well, here's a combo that works for me: a 6X7 hood on a 35mm lens. PH-SB
on the A*85mm 1.4. Looks like this:
http://www.cottysnaps.com/snaps/mods/a85ineos.html
OK, added. Here's the beginnings of the page
Mike Hamilton wrote:
For the DA 70, I use a Takumar 1:3.5/135 -- 1:5.6/200 hood.
For the FA 43, I use a Takumar 1:2.8/105 -- 1:4/100 hood.
Any part numberish things stamped/printed on them?
--
Thanks,
DougF (KG4LMZ)
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
On 4/10/07, Doug Franklin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Mike Hamilton wrote:
For the DA 70, I use a Takumar 1:3.5/135 -- 1:5.6/200 hood.
For the FA 43, I use a Takumar 1:2.8/105 -- 1:4/100 hood.
Any part numberish things stamped/printed on them?
The data that's listed above is stamped in the
My favorite hood swap is the Pentax Super Tak 135/3.5 metal hood on
the FA 50/1.4. No vignetting on APS-C digital and superb protection.
Paul
On Apr 10, 2007, at 8:52 PM, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
On Apr 10, 2007, at 4:24 PM, Doug Franklin wrote:
Well, here's a combo that works for me: a 6X7
Paul Stenquist wrote:
Updated
http://NutDriver.org/hoodxref.html
--
Thanks,
DougF (KG4LMZ)
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
What protecting glass / UV filter brands do you use on DSLR.
I've good experience with Sigma UV EX DG (for digital). Hoya UV Pro1
Digital I recently purchased had hard dirt stuck to the glass from the
inner side that has been contacting with porolone in the filter case, so
cleaned it with
On 09/04/07, Roman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What protecting glass / UV filter brands do you use on DSLR.
I've good experience with Sigma UV EX DG (for digital). Hoya UV Pro1
Digital I recently purchased had hard dirt stuck to the glass from the
inner side that has been contacting with porolone
On film, I mostly used Hoya 1B filters. On digital I've become most
demanding on image quality, hence no more filters on my lenses.
Dario
- Original Message -
From: Roman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: pdml@pdml.net
Sent: Monday, April 09, 2007 10:10 AM
Subject: Protection glass / filters
I don't use protective filters.
Cheers,
Dave
On 4/9/07, Roman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What protecting glass / UV filter brands do you use on DSLR.
I've good experience with Sigma UV EX DG (for digital). Hoya UV Pro1
Digital I recently purchased had hard dirt stuck to the glass from the
I have never used filters for protection in
over 30 years and have never had an incident
where a filter would have made a protective
difference..Just lucky I guess, I do use caps
cases at all times except shooting though...
jco
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
I have a Hoya plain glass thing on one lens, and a Contax skylight
filter on the other.
--
Bob
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Roman
Sent: 09 April 2007 09:11
To: pdml@pdml.net
Subject: Protection glass / filters
What
Roman, my limited lenses have Pentax SMC UV protective filters on them
at all times. I notice no deterioration of image quality but I feel
slightly better having invested *a lot* of money into these three lenses.
My other lenses are protected by Pentax UV protective filters (probably
not SMC
Thanks for posting your question, Roman. It is helping me a lot
too...am in this debate with myself to filter or not to filter...? My
hunch is to take off all the filters in shooting digital, but have not
gotten over the protection issue. Somehow wanting to be ready in
case Murphy strikes. My
I use filters only for image modification. And with digital that is
only rarely necessary. I don't use them for lens protection. They
just add another opportunity for flare.
On Apr 9, 2007, at 4:10 AM, Roman wrote:
What protecting glass / UV filter brands do you use on DSLR.
I've good
- Original Message -
From: Roman
Subject: Protection glass / filters
What protecting glass / UV filter brands do you use on DSLR.
None of my lenses have protective filters on them.
William Robb
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo
None of my lenses has a protective filter on it except the
FA*80-200/2.8, and that's mainly because the lens's own filter threads
are damaged to the extent that it's really difficult to put a filter on
it (and particularly so with a polarizer, which is my most-used
filter). So the SMC Pentax
Why would a DSLR require different filters than used on a film camera?
Personally, I think the use of DSLR filters is hype and just a marketing
ploy.
I stopped using protective filters a long time ago, and have stuck with
using good, deep lens hoods. In fact, I've sold most of my protective
Same here.
If you must use a lens condom, B+W multicoated clear optical glass
filters are what I'd recommend.
G
On Apr 9, 2007, at 5:25 AM, Paul Stenquist wrote:
I use filters only for image modification. And with digital that is
only rarely necessary. I don't use them for lens
Subject: Re: Protection glass / filters
None of my lenses has a protective filter on it except the
FA*80-200/2.8, and that's mainly because the lens's own filter threads
are damaged to the extent that it's really difficult to put a filter on
it (and particularly so with a polarizer, which is my
I agree!
Jack
--- Godfrey DiGiorgi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Same here.
If you must use a lens condom, B+W multicoated clear optical glass
filters are what I'd recommend.
G
On Apr 9, 2007, at 5:25 AM, Paul Stenquist wrote:
I use filters only for image modification. And with
- Original Message -
From: Shel Belinkoff
Subject: Re: Protection glass / filters
Why would a DSLR require different filters than used on a film camera?
Personally, I think the use of DSLR filters is hype and just a marketing
ploy.
DSLRs seem less forgiving of optical defects than
I have one BW filter that I might use if needed. But nowadays, with
digital, I no longer use filters on my lenses. I stopped using them when I
realized
the quality of the glass in a filter was less than the quality of glass in my
lenses (after I moved up to better lenses).
It is also why
Digital Image Studio wrote:
On 09/04/07, Roman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What protecting glass / UV filter brands do you use on DSLR.
I've good experience with Sigma UV EX DG (for digital). Hoya UV Pro1
Digital I recently purchased had hard dirt stuck to the glass from the
inner side that has
BTW: http://www.robertstech.com/filters.htm
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Roman wrote:
What protecting glass / UV filter brands do you use on DSLR.
I've good experience with Sigma UV EX DG (for digital). Hoya UV Pro1
Digital I recently purchased had hard dirt stuck to the glass from the
inner side that has been contacting with porolone in the filter case, so
No filters except polariser.
--
Cheers,
Cotty
___/\__
|| (O) | People, Places, Pastiche
||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com
_
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Mark,
I took a quick scan of the filter size listing. If I may, a couple of
what may be exceptions.
My A*300 f2.8 ED(IF) takes a 49mm drop-in filter. My recently sold
28~80 f/3.5-4.5, a 58mm.
I realize that you may be only the publisher of this listing and take
no responsibility for its accuracy.
, 2007 11:33 AM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: Protection glass / filters
Thanks for posting your question, Roman. It is helping me a lot
too...am in this debate with myself to filter or not to filter...? My
hunch is to take off all the filters in shooting digital, but have not
gotten
I think it's been said before, but you might try using lens hoods for
protection. They create no optical degradation and sometimes even reduce
lens flare!
--Mark
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Bingo! But not just any hood. It really helps to get one that's truly
appropriate for the lens/camera combination, and don't be afraid to
experiment with lenses from different brand cameras or sources other than
Pentax.
Shel
[Original Message]
From: Mark Erickson
I think it's been said
Cotty wrote:
No filters except polariser.
me too
ann
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
glass / filters
BTW: http://www.robertstech.com/filters.htm
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
I use both! I never put lens caps on though, except when the lens is
stored in my safe.
--
Bob
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Mark Erickson
Sent: 09 April 2007 16:49
To: pdml
Subject: Try a hood (was: Protection glass / filters
Jack Davis wrote:
I took a quick scan of the filter size listing. If I may, a couple of
what may be exceptions.
My A*300 f2.8 ED(IF) takes a 49mm drop-in filter.
Thanks, I just posted an updated list that shows the drop-in filters
for the extreme telephotos.
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 09 April 2007 15:40
To: pdml@pdml.net
Subject: Re: Protection glass / filters
I have one BW filter that I might use if needed. But nowadays,
with
digital, I no longer use filters on my lenses. I stopped
using them when I realized
Digital sensors are much more prone to recording reflections bouncing
off a cheap filter than film.
I learned this first hand a couple years back when I purchased the
cheapest filters I could for protection and found an ugly ghosting
effect on any white highlights taken in bright sun.
I switched
Mark Roberts wrote:
BTW: http://www.robertstech.com/filters.htm
There seems to be a hiccup threequarters of the way down the A lenses
(35-80) and, following that, some of the numbers seem wrong. Assuming
the numbers should move up one, does the 50/2.8 macro really have a
145mm thread?
mike wilson wrote:
Mark Roberts wrote:
BTW: http://www.robertstech.com/filters.htm
There seems to be a hiccup threequarters of the way down the A lenses
(35-80) and, following that, some of the numbers seem wrong. Assuming
the numbers should move up one, does the 50/2.8 macro
I use a protective filter when the lens needs protection - particularly
with macro shooting. It's just too physical - crawling on the ground,
laying prone, twisting into odd positions - to not expect that sooner or
later the camera will take a hit in the front element. More than one
time I've
96 matches
Mail list logo
