Graflex.org

[happyheathen]

Hi -

I've been shooting for 40+ years now (all small format until recently).

My impression is that, with the exception of center filters for super wide-angle, few LF lenses are outfitted with a permanent protective filter.

Is this observation correct, and, if so, why eschew the obvious "insurance" value of a decent filter?

If you do use a permanantly install UV/Skylight, what brands do you recommend?
I've been using Cokin P for years, but I now have a WA lens with center filter - which has an 86mm accessory thread. Any ideas?

At $200 for a Cokin X-Pro ring, holder, and CP, I'm thinking I should investigate before extending the Cokin collection.

Thanks for your help

Dave

[Henry]

I suspect that the reason some (many? most?) of us don't use a UV or Skylight filter for lens protection with our Graphics is that the lenses we use, as a rule, don't have threaded front elements. You'd have to keep a series slip ring with filter mounted at all times, and this may be inconvenient; besides, closing the camera would seem to provide the desired protection anyway. I suppose there's always the danger of the tripod falling over and the front element striking something, but the possibility seems remote.

If you do go the slip-ring-series-filter route, you should be able to pick up what you need for considerably less than $200! Of course, it will have to be scrounged from camera shows and dealer "junk" drawers, but finding this out-of-production stuff is half the fun!

[ This Message was edited by: Henry on 2005-11-23 12:18 ]

[t.r.sanford]

There is some difference of opinion about the value of a filter for protection. It has been argued that anything that hits the front of the lens hard enough to damage it is likely to shatter the filter and drive the shards back against the front element of the lens, so you don't really gain anything.

On that view, a deep lens hood offers a better defense. One of the modern rubber kind might be best suited for that purpose.

A filter is valuable in keeping one's lunch off the front element of the lens, but it is only marginally more difficult to clean the lens than to clean the filter.

There also is the view, once expressed cogently by a Nikon executive, that it is not a very good idea to attach a filter unless you need it for some specific photographic purpose. "The only thing you really want between the lens and the subject is air," he observed.

[djon43]

My Century's main lens is an 80 2.8 Heligon...it's got threads and wears the strange B+H rubber hood/UV filter combo (intended for video camera I think). I've not removed the filter and kept the hood because it wouldn't make any difference...the lens has resolution to spare. The drawbridge provides plenty of protection by itself, and it does close nicely over the rubber hood.

My rangefinder 35 lenses wear UV filters because from experience they do provide protection from sweat, dust etc. Large format lenses are inherently more safe from such harm.

[David A. Goldfarb]

I agree with the Nikon exec, and I don't use protective filters on any lens unless there is some obvious hazard, like sand, or sea spray, or if I'm shooting in a crowded area. I'll use a UV filter sometimes to filter UV.

[ This Message was edited by: David A. Goldfarb on 2005-11-23 15:06 ]

[disemjg]

I use skylights or UVs on everything except the LF stuff. I have not seen LF users leave filters on the lens unless they desired the effect that it would have; generally the lenses are used naked. I think that the way LF cameras are used is generally much more benign than the way a 35 or roll film camera is used; those suffer impacts much more often. And they ALWAYS seem to land on their lens. Thus they need more consideration of a protective barrier, the filter and a hood as well.

I recognize that introducing the "protective" filter into the optical path may degrade image quality, but regard this as more theoretical than anything that will really be noticed in actual practice in most cases. Also, the real threat that I consider the filters to be protection from is a bent/crushed filter ring on a lens. With a filter installed, for moderate impacts all you have to do is unscrew the filter and toss it if you want to. For serious impacts all bets are off, and the lens may suffer mechanical damage that nothing would have saved it from. Modern 35mm lenses with their synthetic construction are particularly intolerant of impact, and it may be argued that the benefit of a filter (from a protection point of view) is negligable.

Oh, and I am very fond of lens hoods and am unhappy without one, on any lens.

[Les]

I could dig out the math, but the bottom line is system resolution is not dependent on the weakest link/ element with the lowest resolution, but degrades as you add elements. Thus even if the filter was capable of higher resolution than the lens you'll still end up with a softer image.

Combine this with the fact that most LF lenses are used on a camera with a tripod in relatively controlled environments with a minimum chance of junk getting on the lens (even when we were shooting in Palm Desert CA we had all sorts of bags and trucks blocking the wind/sand) and there's no good reason to have a junk protective filter.

the Nikon rep said it well, In college we said the same thing has, "You just paid $800 for a great lens, why put a $12 piece of glass in front of it?"

[happyheathen]

Thanks for the thoughtful responses - as I said, I'm just starting LF, and this no-filter anytime practice is a complete reversal of everything I've heard for decades.

And, I'm a klutz and live in salt air (untreated mild steel rusts in about a month - and that's INSIDE the garage (downstairs, where the furnace is).

To expand - for those who hold that the only time to use a filter is if it is needed - do you ever use UV or polarizers? If shooting B&W, do you use red/green/yellow filters? (I'm quite fond of a #2 yellow for clouds).

Again, thanks

[David A. Goldfarb]

Yes, for color I often use a UV filter, and sometimes a polarizer, ND grad filters, warming filters when needed (shade, overcast, window light indoors), and infrequently (except for 80A for shooting daylight film in tungsten light) cooling filters.

For B&W I often use yellow (1 or 1.5 stops) or orange, infrequently red, very rarely green or blue. ND grads are also handy for B&W, and a good trick is to use a tobacco grad for B&W landscapes to reduce exposure and increase contrast in the sky without changing the foreground exposure. Polarizers also work for B&W.

[troublemaker]

I worry most about dropping a lens/board combo while changing far more than the whole kit taking a faceplant.
Occasionally I leave a 55mm hoya UV on a 55/44 adapted to a series VI slip ring on my 135, which closes nicely inside the Crown 4x5. The slip ring has to be firm enoug not to fall off during travel. However, after a summer of try to leave these type of things on, I found I didn't use , or needed to change most of the time anyway, so just leave everything in the filter wallets now unless I know ahead exactly what i will be doing...which is rare....
Stephen

[glennfromwy]

As Les pointed out, adding elements in front of a great lens just degrades the image, even if to an infinitesimal degree. I once received a new UV filter with a new lens that I knew to be of very high quality. I could not get a sharp image with that lens, try as I may. Really lousy. I was boiling over and called the manufacturer about sending it in. Then, just out of curiosity, I removed the UV filter and tried again. Voila! Tack sharp. Lesson learned - If you don't need it, don't put it on. There is a big difference in quality between filter makers, too.

_________________
Glenn

"Wyoming - Where everybody is somebody else's weirdo"

[troublemaker]

Well Said Glenn...

I am of the thought that one should get to know the particularities of the lenses they own, esspecially single and non-coated optics from yesteryear, without filters...
Color and B&W, if shooting both.
Adding more stuff in front does exactly that.
Just the other day I had stuff stacked three deep in front of an old Optar and got the desired result.
But on the other hand, one can not by a filter that does what some of these vintage optics can do standing alone. For example: I did a test on light shot through a piece of glass, and another on a shiny chrome fender with four different lenses and every one made diffrent effects. Some with nice stars at the sparkles and one did not do anything. On another test I recorded something that I would consider about a 35% difference in contrast between a coated and uncoated Ektar 105, both nice sharp optics. Which if taken into account, offers some adjustment on one roll of film. Something filters will not do. Of course, you have to have both optics along.
OK, enough out of me...
Stephen

[JBish130]

I'm with the Nikon rep. I don't keep any glass in front of my lens if it isn't going to enhance what I'm shooting.

This isn't to say I don't use filters. I have but don't use UV filters. I use the common filters for B&W (red/yellow/orange/green) a lot of the time. I will use polarizers and warming filters for landscapes. If complexion or age calls for it, I will use filters to soften, such as the Tiffen Soft FX/3.

Actually, I've had two cameras hit the ground with lenses on them. Both Nikons. Neither camera nor lens took any damage. These were metal cameras with metal lenses, though I figure I've just been lucky. Anything CAN happen.

_________________
Jeff Bishop

"It's light and nothing more."

[woodplane]

Looking at the difference in mechanics between 35mm SLR & LF, the 35mm puts the lens right out front and exposed. The LF has either a bed or monorail sticking out in front of the lens. In most cases, it would take a projectile to nail the lens on LF. On 35mm, all you have to do is drop it.

For effect, I use filters whenever they make the image look better. Usually, I set my digital on B&W, then shoot through filters to see which effect I like best.