DSLR and Mirrorless - Filter ?

[Geoff]

Certainly a protection against particulates onto the front element, but
is a UV (or whatever) filter of any optical benefit these days ?

Or a potential liability with essentially an additional element, and
potential flare from the surface being closer to the front of a lens-hood ?

geoff

[Abandoned Trolley]

Post by Geoff
Certainly a protection against particulates onto the front element, but
is a UV (or whatever) filter of any optical benefit these days ?
Or a potential liability with essentially an additional element, and
potential flare from the surface being closer to the front of a lens-hood ?
geoff

Or maybe consider the lens hood as a bit of a liability ?

I owned at least one telephoto lens which suffered from vignetting
caused by the supplied lens hood

[Geoff]

Post by Abandoned Trolley

Post by Geoff
Certainly a protection against particulates onto the front element,
but is a UV (or whatever) filter of any optical benefit these days ?
Or a potential liability with essentially an additional element, and
potential flare from the surface being closer to the front of a lens-
hood ?
geoff

Or maybe consider the lens hood as a bit of a liability ?
I owned at least one telephoto lens which suffered from vignetting
caused by the supplied lens hood

I think it would be a bit of a scandal if a Nikon piece did that ....

geoff

[Abandoned Trolley]

Post by Geoff

Post by Abandoned Trolley
I owned at least one telephoto lens which suffered from vignetting
caused by the supplied lens hood

I think it would be a bit of a scandal if a Nikon piece did that ....
geoff

Perhaps - although I have been told that "they have all done it" at some
time or other, and apparently it doesnt even need a telehoto lens.

My example was an Olympus OM lens with the supplied lens hood.

[Geoff]

Post by Abandoned Trolley

Post by Geoff

Post by Abandoned Trolley
I owned at least one telephoto lens which suffered from vignetting
caused by the supplied lens hood

I think it would be a bit of a scandal if a Nikon piece did that ....
geoff

Perhaps - although I have been told that "they have all done it" at some
time or other, and apparently it doesnt even need a telehoto lens.
My example was an Olympus OM lens with the supplied lens hood.

Well a wide-angle lens would like be more susceptible that a tele,
spanning a, um, wider angle ....

geoff

[Alan Browne]

Post by Geoff
Certainly a protection against particulates onto the front element, but
is a UV (or whatever) filter of any optical benefit these days ?
Or a potential liability with essentially an additional element, and
potential flare from the surface being closer to the front of a lens-hood ?

I suggest you look at what UV filter is in front of the sensor on your
camera. It's probably more than adequate for the UV purpose.

Depending on the lens, I use ND 0 filters for protection or no filter at
all. High end B+W filters often have thin bezels (but may not be
stackable).

(For the avoidance of confusion, B+W is a brand).

[Geoff]

Post by Alan Browne

Post by Geoff
Certainly a protection against particulates onto the front element,
but is a UV (or whatever) filter of any optical benefit these days ?
Or a potential liability with essentially an additional element, and
potential flare from the surface being closer to the front of a lens-
hood ?

I suggest you look at what UV filter is in front of the sensor on your
camera.  It's probably more than adequate for the UV purpose.
Depending on the lens, I use ND 0 filters for protection or no filter at
all.  High end B+W filters often have thin bezels (but may not be
stackable).
(For the avoidance of confusion, B+W is a brand).

Bowers & Wilkins :-) (ha ha)

geoff