Courts selling NEX-5ND at $1299
- Thread starter Africangrey
- Start date
snowc
Senior Member
Thank you. I got it...I screw the wrong side...hehe
I got kenko UV digital Filter from HN....any idea how is the grade of this filter?
I suspect that the kenko UV filter you got from HN is the low-end type. Personally for me, i only take the kenko zeta or b+w mrc. Both are very easy to clean esp for the B+W. As i mentioned earlier, using an inferior filter will only degrade your IQ. So I rather get a high-quality filter or not use any filter at all.
Not to mention that they are not cheap so I only placed them on certain lenses.
I suggest you don spend too much on filter. Any kind of filter used
will experience flare to some certain degree. I use them as a protection to lens..its just a protection thats all..
It doesnt affect too much on pics IQ unless u are a professional..and a serious professional wont use a filter for the lens..
Kenko is a good brand n its made in japan..to any extend, the QC is still there. Just don buy unknown brands...
You shld look into buying CPL or various ND filters etc if you decide to spend on it..definitely not an uv filter.
An uv filter will not improve de pic IQ to something better than what the lens is capable of. Lens without filter will flare at times too.
will experience flare to some certain degree. I use them as a protection to lens..its just a protection thats all..
It doesnt affect too much on pics IQ unless u are a professional..and a serious professional wont use a filter for the lens..
Kenko is a good brand n its made in japan..to any extend, the QC is still there. Just don buy unknown brands...
You shld look into buying CPL or various ND filters etc if you decide to spend on it..definitely not an uv filter.
An uv filter will not improve de pic IQ to something better than what the lens is capable of. Lens without filter will flare at times too.
Last edited:
snowc
Senior Member
The price of the filter varies a lot based on the brand, model and size. I strongly suggest you read the below link which is very useful.
http://www.clubsnap.com/forums/threads/803029-Newbie-Guide-to-Filters
Frankly, I don't use UV or protection filter on the kit lenses. I only used them on the lenses which are expensive. I rather clean the filter than the front element of an expensive CZ lens.
snowc
Senior Member
UV filters served a larger purpose in the past during the film era. They reduced the level of UV light reaching the film which caused haziness. Now with digital cameras, they are used mainly as a form of protection.
They do not alter the image unlike CPL and ND grads.
ageha
Senior Member
I never tested them. I don't know if they have any effect coz I never owned one. At least the makers of those UV filters claim they do even on digital cameras. So absorbing UV light has no effect on a digital camera? If they have no effect why buying them instead of a protector?
Last edited:
Nowadays the filter manufacturers relabel Uv filters as "protection filters" but realistically they're the same thing.
If they have no effect why buying them instead of a protector?
Same thing, different branding. And many n00bs will buy a protector AND a UV filter because a salesman tells them the protector is for normal use, the UV is for bright daylight, etc etc etc.
snowc
Senior Member
I never tested them. I don't know if they have any effect coz I never owned one. At least the makers of those UV filters claim they do even on digital cameras. So absorbing UV light has no effect on a digital camera? If they have no effect why buying them instead of a protector?
In the context of a digital sensor, UV rays had no effect on image quality. Thus, I don't believe that using an UV filter will help as the makers claimed. In fact, stacking an extra piece of glass in front of your lens will only degrade your image. Using a high quality filter will reduce the degrading but the best is not to use a filter at all.
You can get a protector instead of an UV filter. Frankly to me, it doesn't make a difference. What matter more to me is the ease of cleaning and extent of image degrading.
ageha
Senior Member
As far as I remember makers always sold both, at least for the last 15 years and they still do. It's a bit hard to believe there is no difference between the two below:
http://www.kenkoglobal.com/zeta-uv.html
[URL]http://www.kenkoglobal.com/zeta-protector.html[/URL]
Yes, there is basically no difference. UV-Cut glass was mainly used in the automotive industry, mainly by Asahi glass corp. However, all glass cuts UV to an extent, as do the lens coatings, and the UV filter in front of your sensor.
Yes, it's possible they are using different glass for these 2 - but you will not notice anything in terms of image quality.
I remember there was a massive online test of various filters, and they could not find a noticeable difference in the UV transmittance between the "protective" and the "UV" filters.
Last edited:
ageha
Senior Member
I'm not sure what you want to say.
The sharpness is certainly not related to the UV filter anyway.
Last edited:
ageha
Senior Member
I disagree.
Loads of cheap filters show certainly more ghosting than without filter because they have a cheap coating. Of course that depends on your lighting condition.
Last edited:
ageha said:I disagree.
I am not comparing with or without uv filters.
I am saying if you want to put, a $10 and $100 uv filters dont make any difference.
We are just consumers, unless u make money out of your photos.
Last edited:
ageha
Senior Member
I know what you said and that's the reason I disagree.
Similar threads
