[R2D2]

^^^
Hoods provide protection from flare and do offer some level of protection but not from airborne dust, residue or fingerprints. And if you do plonk UV/protector filters on the front of the lens make sure that they are not the cheap plain glass filters. Multicoated filters have far higher resistance to flare.

I live in a dry and dusty city (Pune, a Class 1 dust-bowl!) and do not cherish the thought of my lenses' front elements being cleaned either by me or by the Nikon service centre. Sometimes even a rocket blower can't get rid of the all the dust/residue that literally sticks on.

All my lenses have filters (except 2 because their design precludes their use) and I have not noticed any impact on image quality. In this world of PP we can always compensate if required.

PS - removing filters evertime you need to take a photograph is not practical. A mistake during frequent removal/fitting could damaged the delicate threads.

[clevermax]

Originally Posted by R2D2

^^^
Hoods provide protection from flare and do offer some level of protection but not from airborne dust, residue or fingerprints. And if you do plonk UV/protector filters on the front of the lens make sure that they are not the cheap plain glass filters. Multicoated filters have far higher resistance to flare.

I live in a dry and dusty city (Pune, a Class 1 dust-bowl!) and do not cherish the thought of my lenses' front elements being cleaned either by me or by the Nikon service centre. Sometimes even a rocket blower can't get rid of the all the dust/residue that literally sticks on.

All my lenses have filters (except 2 because their design precludes their use) and I have not noticed any impact on image quality. In this world of PP we can always compensate if required.

PS - removing filters evertime you need to take a photograph is not practical. A mistake during frequent removal/fitting could damaged the delicate threads.

You guys never intend to clean the lens's outer glass surface to get rid of dust or fingerprints? Just asking out of my ignorance because I have a fingerprint on my new 18-55mm lens surface which I have not cleaned so far. If significant amount of fungus growth in most of the glass elements is not affecting the image quality much, I don't think a fingerprint will.

[R2D2]

Originally Posted by clevermax

You guys never intend to clean the lens's outer glass surface to get rid of dust or fingerprints? Just asking out of my ignorance because I have a fingerprint on my new 18-55mm lens surface which I have not cleaned so far. If significant amount of fungus growth in most of the glass elements is not affecting the image quality much, I don't think a fingerprint will.

A fingerprint on the front element won't impact the image neither will specks of dust. Infact it is fungus/markings on the lens' rear element that has an impact on the image. In fact even very badly scratched front elements don't have a noticeable impact image quality.

It is just some persons (like me) are a bit particular about keeping lenses squeaky clean and free of abrasions/scratches. I have never had to clean a front element due to the uv/protector filters. Thinking of a scratch on one of my lenses is an unpleasant or even horrifying thought.

Canon/Nikon 'exotics' (the large expensive zooms and teles) have a 'meniscus' front element that protects the glass inside. Important to remember that this element is a part of the optical formula not a screw on filter. Replacing a meniscus is far less expensive than replacing one of the ED/flourite elements within. Also, using a hood with these lenses is a must.

For all the brouhaha about filters impacting image quality do keep in mind most of these exotics use 52mm a drop-in neutral/clear filter at the rear. It prevents dust from getting into the barrel. This NC filter MUST be installed at all times. So there goes the "filter-impacts-image-quality" argument right outa the window!

Regards,

[C300]

Originally Posted by R2D2

For all the brouhaha about filters impacting image quality do keep in mind most of these exotics use 52mm a drop-in neutral/clear filter at the rear. It prevents dust from getting into the barrel. This NC filter MUST be installed at all times. So there goes the "filter-impacts-image-quality" argument right outa the window!

Regards,

I am using a Hoya HD UV on my 31mm and yet to make my mind around UV/protection filter for 300mm. Lens hood looks adequate for the time being. What are you using for the optimus prime?

[R2D2]

Originally Posted by C300

I am using a Hoya HD UV on my 31mm and yet to make my mind around UV/protection filter for 300mm. Lens hood looks adequate for the time being. What are you using for the optimus prime?

I believe the Pentax 300mm F/4 can take filters, but you may want to check again. If yes I would use a Hoya HD/SHMC/HMC or similar good quality UV/protector. Using a hood + a UV/protector just adds to the level of protection.

OP cannot take filters. While I can treat the hood as optional with other lenses due to the uv/protector screw-on filters, with OP the hood is a must and Nikon mentions this in the manual. It takes 52mm filters (NC) or CPL of the drop-in type.

[clevermax]

Originally Posted by R2D2

A fingerprint on the front element won't impact the image neither will specks of dust. Infact it is fungus/markings on the lens' rear element that has an impact on the image. In fact even very badly scratched front elements don't have a noticeable impact image quality.

Even fungus on rear elements are not affecting sharpness. I think they will only affect the contrast of the image because some light may get diffused off from such obstructions.

Took this picture today with my Minolta 70-210 which has a bad fungus growth in its most rear element, along with fungus growth in most of the other glass elements!

[R2D2]

Originally Posted by clevermax

Even fungus on rear elements are not affecting sharpness. I think they will only affect the contrast of the image because some light may get diffused off from such obstructions.

Took this picture today with my Minolta 70-210 which has a bad fungus growth in its most rear element, along with fungus growth in most of the other glass elements!

That's a nice photo. BTW how do you get the zoom effect..you know the crop/enlargement tracing itself or zooming back onto the original photo?

Yes, you are absolutely right, how much it affects IQ will depend on how much the fungus has spread (severity) over the element and where. Goes without saying that fungus, in the centre will have the max impact on colour, sharpness and contrast.

But the point I am trying to make is that contrary to popular belief it's the rear element that affects the image not the front. I was one of those misguided persons till I did a bit of detailed reading about lenses on the 'net. Well, live and learn!

I continue to use filters simply because I am absolutely particular about maintaining all my lenses and cameras in a pristine condition. My nearly decade old F100 film SLR looks as if it were freshly unboxed. My Bawa (Parsi) neighbour regularly asks me if I have some Bawa ancestry because of the way I maintain my car. But that's just me.

Cheers!

[shajufx]

Originally Posted by R2D2

.........it's the rear element that affects the image not the front.....I continue to use filters simply because I am absolutely particular about maintaining all my lenses and cameras in a pristine condition.....

You are absolutely correct there. Its the rear element that can spoil an image due to fungus, dust etc. technically speaking the portion that's closest to the camera sensor. UV Filters are meant for dust protection, and atleast for me, nothing else. I should be getting my filters by tomorrow, my order is processed and authorized.

We can go on debating on the real necessity of a filter, but end of the day its a personal choice. I would never spend for it on a cheaper lens (even for a 40k Sigma 70-200 2.8, I was not bothered). Right now I have 4 top range/rated Nikon glasses, I care for them as babies, if not infants

[R2D2]

Originally Posted by shajufx

UV Filters are meant for dust protection, and atleast for me, nothing else...but end of the day its a personal choice. I care for them as babies, if not infants

LOL! That's the thing Shaju once you invest in serious lenses your point of view about equipment care changes. I must add that in the past even my ordinary kit lenses had filters. The UV filters are only for protection against dust and fingerprints. As for impact on image quality - well, I for one haven't noticed it.

I waited for many, many, years to build up a good kit and strongly believe it merits good care.

[Aroy]

UV filters were originally designed to filter out the UV which would fog some films. Today this filter is used for

. Protect the lense front element from scratches
. Protect the lense from dust and fingerprints. Some times accumulated dirt requires vigorous cleaning which may destroy the front element coating
. In case your lense is dropped on hard surface, the filter may save the front lense element from breaking. Of course a lense hood will also prevent breaking the front element, unless you drop the lense front down on a sharp projection.

On the whole a good filter is an added insurance for an expensive lense.

A good filter will be made from top class glass which will be optically as good as top of the line lenses. Further the glass will be flat, free of distortions and in many cases multicoated. The coating reduces flare and increases transmission of light (though slightly, still every photon matters).

Fungus does not affect the image quality, but introduces distortion and reduced transmission of light. As the fungus is not uniform, the intensity variation is blotchy, impossible to correct, unless you take a "white balance" shot. As fungus may also eat away the lense coating the apparent "brightness" of the lense is also affected.

[shajufx]

Originally Posted by R2D2

....What is that anti humidity gadget called? I have a substantial investment in lenses and would like to use one of them over and above my silica gel pouches.

Really sorry for missing this point. I somehow forgot about this small thing in the bag that came with my lenses. Here it is. This was picked up from Singapore by my friend, you should find them in Ebay or accessory shops that sell camera stuff (never seen in India so far). It has a pull out plug for AC power charging. Dry stage shows blue gels, needs charging when it becomes pink. You put it in a bag that's highly moist, the blue becomes pink within few hours

[clevermax]

Originally Posted by shajufx

Really sorry for missing this point. I somehow forgot about this small thing in the bag that came with my lenses. Here it is. This was picked up from Singapore by my friend, you should find them in Ebay or accessory shops that sell camera stuff (never seen in India so far). It has a pull out plug for AC power charging. Dry stage shows blue gels, needs charging when it becomes pink. You put it in a bag that's highly moist, the blue becomes pink within few hours
Attachment 859069

I think one should use this along with an airtight box otherwise eventually the absorber will become saturated with moisture and it will stop absorbing any more water - as good as keeping the camera in the bag without one of these.

That reminds me of my pending Action Item - buying a dry box

[ajay_satpute]

Masters

Which are the best rechargeable batteries for a P&S type camera? I have 4 of them and they dont last more than 1-2 hrs, even if charged for more than 7-8 hrs.

[mm403]

Ajay, I had the same problem for a SONY P&S. Sony world folks recommended Sony NI-MH Rechargeables. So far giving good results

[Jaguar]

Originally Posted by ajay_satpute

Masters

Which are the best rechargeable batteries for a P&S type camera? I have 4 of them and they dont last more than 1-2 hrs, even if charged for more than 7-8 hrs.

Nothing beats Sanyo Eneloop.