Just Why
- Thread starter Q8-MC
- Start date
- Status
??
No lens (at least today) comes with a UV filter, you need to buy them yourselves. As for the super telephoto lenses, they do, it's just a filter that's dropped in close to the lens mount rather than all the way on the front of the lens like smaller lenses. I shudder to think of the cost for a filter that size.
No lens (at least today) comes with a UV filter, you need to buy them yourselves. As for the super telephoto lenses, they do, it's just a filter that's dropped in close to the lens mount rather than all the way on the front of the lens like smaller lenses. I shudder to think of the cost for a filter that size.
Upvote
0
L
Loswr
Guest
Just why do you think it needs one?
dSLR sensors are insensitive to UV light. If you really want one (maybe you're shooting film?), there's a drop-in holder for gelatin filters that comes with the lens, and a different one sold separately for screw-in 52mm filters.
If you mean a front filter for protection, the old superteles had a protective meniscus lens (thin, non-refracting, relatively cheap to replace). They removed it from the new MkII versions to save weight. The hoods for those lenses are very deep and offer substantial protection.
A screw-on filter of that size would be incredibly difficult to produce. Compare 82mm filter costs to 58mm filters - the difference in materials cost is minimal, you're paying for the precision to make the two surfaces perfectly flat (which is harder than making curves surfaces) and parallel - that need for precision goes up exponentially with diameter, and a 600/4 would need a >150mm front filter.
dSLR sensors are insensitive to UV light. If you really want one (maybe you're shooting film?), there's a drop-in holder for gelatin filters that comes with the lens, and a different one sold separately for screw-in 52mm filters.
If you mean a front filter for protection, the old superteles had a protective meniscus lens (thin, non-refracting, relatively cheap to replace). They removed it from the new MkII versions to save weight. The hoods for those lenses are very deep and offer substantial protection.
A screw-on filter of that size would be incredibly difficult to produce. Compare 82mm filter costs to 58mm filters - the difference in materials cost is minimal, you're paying for the precision to make the two surfaces perfectly flat (which is harder than making curves surfaces) and parallel - that need for precision goes up exponentially with diameter, and a 600/4 would need a >150mm front filter.
Upvote
0
neuroanatomist said:
Come on, Neuro, you don't want to throw B+W a $750 bone after paying $13k for that 600? ;-)
Upvote
0
neuroanatomist said:Too much vignetting. I'd need to be able to lift those shadows by at least 5 stops - anyone know of a camera with enough DR for that?? :??? :-X
Oh Oh, I hope the Guy that's named after the Cambodian Temple isn't reading this, the threads about to go to hell in a hand basket otherwise. I cant mention his name exactly, last time I did I received a warning.
Upvote
0
. Or not :- Status
