Are you using a filter on your 40mm
- Thread starter J.R.
- Start date
- Status
Nope, haven't bothered.
- like Neuro said, wanna keep it small
- the front element is very small and seems to be well protected by the rest of the lens. I might get the hood for it if I find one cheap somewhere (or like someone suggested, a 52mm step up ring). So far I've gotten one fingerprint on it...
- Unlike, say, my 135L, it's cheap so I won't be heartbroken if I scratch it, I'll just go buy another one & put the scratched one on eBay.
Upvote
0
funkboy said:
Just got back from the shop around the corner. A 52mm-62mm step-up ring fits flush with the front of the focus ring & really looks very natural on it. It would cost you $4 if you got one from B&H. I might have a decent 62mm UV filter in my photo junk box too, just in case I need one at some point.
I think I've got some matte black aerosol grill paint or stove paint in the garage. That stuff is & designed to withstand abuse & should make it a lot less shiny. I should probably tape up the threads to keep them from getting gunked up with paint if I go that route...
Upvote
0
J.R. said:
i didnt bother with a uv
I did get a CPL a 10 stop ND and a IR filter for it though and the best part is the filters can all be shared with my 20mm voigtlander pancake
I got a nice little tiffen case that holds up to 58mm filters so it hold all three is small and compact and there is room for it to hold a couple of spare AAA eneloops for the EX90 flash
all up its a reall nice compact little kit if I wanna go light
Upvote
0
I mean, 200 bucks is 200 bucks. I use a sliding strap with my camera to keep it low and discreet (not bouncing off my belly with the kit strap).
Because it hangs lower, it's more prone to get splashed or splattered. I put a filter on every lens that's not a rental. Doesn't seem worth the risk not to spend $5, plus I can roughly clean it in a pinch or just take it off if it gets trashed.
The cost of repairing a damaged front element in that lens would probably be higher than the lens itself.
I for one don't consider $200 disposable.
Because it hangs lower, it's more prone to get splashed or splattered. I put a filter on every lens that's not a rental. Doesn't seem worth the risk not to spend $5, plus I can roughly clean it in a pinch or just take it off if it gets trashed.
The cost of repairing a damaged front element in that lens would probably be higher than the lens itself.
I for one don't consider $200 disposable.
Upvote
0
Ryan_W said:
have you seen the IQ hit a cheap $5 gives?
i have one around here somewhwere that i got with a second hand lens I'll have to find it and compare it to a high end hoya or B&W and those even in 52mm are still 20 bucks or so I think the B&W ND10 was about $50
Upvote
0
I just got a 40mm two weeks ago and left any UV filter off it. There were a couple threads in this forum at the time discussing image quality loss from UV filters. I did some simple tests and discovered that even my B+W filters were noticeably darker and less resolved than naked lenses. So the best of the best filter, which still degrades IQ, would cost close to half what I paid for the lens on sale. Seems like a good decision so far. Lens is great for stitching.
Upvote
0
I had an old rubber hood that was peeling of the metal thread ring. I peeled it completely off and use just the thread ring on the lens (same concept as using a 52mm step up ring). It isn't much, but I think it will help deflect the front element from most things that the camera might bump into.
I'm leery of a filter on this lens. I had a good filter on my 35 f2.0 until I discovered strange flares from candles and Christmas lights. It would seem that these light sources were reflecting off the front element onto the back of the filter causing the flare. I think this is more likely to happen on lenses with smaller, more deeply recessed front elements like the 35 f2.0 and maybe the 40.
I'm leery of a filter on this lens. I had a good filter on my 35 f2.0 until I discovered strange flares from candles and Christmas lights. It would seem that these light sources were reflecting off the front element onto the back of the filter causing the flare. I think this is more likely to happen on lenses with smaller, more deeply recessed front elements like the 35 f2.0 and maybe the 40.
Attachments
Upvote
0
Dylan777 said:I have B&W Clear filter on all my lenses, no exception for shorty
Sorry, I have to ask. Why? The cost of a decent filter is about half that of the lens. And the front end doesn't seem too vulnerable. I know the hood is ridiculous for the shorty but does it need protection?
Upvote
0
Zv said:Dylan777 said:I have B&W Clear filter on all my lenses, no exception for shorty
Sorry, I have to ask. Why? The cost of a decent filter is about half that of the lens. And the front end doesn't seem too vulnerable. I know the hood is ridiculous for the shorty but does it need protection?
I have a B&W MRC clear filter on all of my L-Glass, Zeiss and even my Sigma 50mm...
I may take them off in certain shooting conditions (especially the super-wide lenses))...but generally they are pretty much permanently on my lenses.
I know this is a personal thing and most shooters have their own take on it...
...But for the $149-Shorty-McForty I think I would get the hood and forget the filter. I would be able to feel the pure EXHILARATION, as though I was running thru a cold, mountain stream naked....aaaaaahhhhhhh FREEDOM! Who cares if it gets scratched!!!! (Wow, that felt good)
.
Upvote
0
I have a B+W filter on every single lens ... why? I shoot a lot in the desert and where I live dust is flying around everywhere ... all lenses need protection, the question is not about money but about not being able to make an image because of broken and/or scratched up lens front element ... BTW a decent filter does NOT "cost half that of the lens" ... one of the best filters out there is B+W XS Pro costs only $33 ... B+W UV filter costs only $20 ... Tiffin UV Protector filter costs only $5. So I am not sure what decent filter you are talking about that costs half of the lens.Zv said:Dylan777 said:I have B&W Clear filter on all my lenses, no exception for shorty
Sorry, I have to ask. Why? The cost of a decent filter is about half that of the lens. And the front end doesn't seem too vulnerable. I know the hood is ridiculous for the shorty but does it need protection?
Upvote
0
Rienzphotoz said:I have a B+W filter on every single lens ... why? I shoot a lot in the desert and where I live dust is flying around everywhere ... all lenses need protection, the question is not about money but about not being able to make an image because of broken and/or scratched up lens front element ... BTW a decent filter does NOT "cost half that of the lens" ... one of the best filters out there is B+W XS Pro costs only $33 ... B+W UV filter costs only $20 ... Tiffin UV Protector filter costs only $5. So I am not sure what decent filter you are talking about that costs half of the lens.Zv said:Dylan777 said:I have B&W Clear filter on all my lenses, no exception for shorty
Sorry, I have to ask. Why? The cost of a decent filter is about half that of the lens. And the front end doesn't seem too vulnerable. I know the hood is ridiculous for the shorty but does it need protection?
Ok fair enough, you use a filter to keep out the dirt. But my point is why does a person who is not running around the desert and is just out doing basic street photography need a filter on their shorty?
Upvote
0
Lens Rentals proved it (once again):
http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2011/06/good-times-with-bad-filters
Nice UV filter = close enough IQ to no filter that it's worth it if you need the protection
Cheap UV filter = don't bother
http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2011/06/good-times-with-bad-filters
Nice UV filter = close enough IQ to no filter that it's worth it if you need the protection
Cheap UV filter = don't bother
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
