| Previous :: Next Topic |
| Author |
Message |
Tom
Admin
Joined: 15 Dec 2001
Posts: 17851 | TRs | Pics
|
|
Tom
Admin
|
 Mon Sep 15, 2003 11:07 am |
|
|
Newt, I'm pretty sure that's what a UV filter is - UV sounds better to the marketing guys.  It theoretically cuts haze, so it can't be a bad thing vs. clear glass.
Sore Feet, I haven't had any vignetting problems with my 52mm tube, even when stacking a UV and Polarizer. I haven't tried any wide angle lenses but I did have a $1 lens hood that vignetted (I think it had more to do with the $1 than the 52mm tube though). Check out the samples from lensmate. I'd probably get the Tiffen wide angle which doesn't vignette at all.
|
| Back to top |
  
|
|
Larry
Member
Joined: 22 Feb 2003
Posts: 1084 | TRs | Pics
Location: Kitsap |
|
Larry
Member
|
Mon Sep 15, 2003 4:57 pm |
|
|
There is probably some degradation of the image with UV filters. Maybe not so noticeable at lower resolution, but I imagine a large file might show the degradation. It's a shame to have to put another piece of glass in front of a Carl Zeiss or any premium proprietary lens. Here you have a group of lenses in a tube that are made work together to give an optimum image, and the UV filter is probably taking some of that away when it is the final piece of glass between the image and the precision-made lens group.
Maybe not enough to show a difference, I don't know...just spouting off here.
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tom
Admin
Joined: 15 Dec 2001
Posts: 17851 | TRs | Pics
|
|
Tom
Admin
|
Mon Sep 15, 2003 5:26 pm |
|
|
Larry, keep in mind we're not talking about pro glass here. As long as you don't skimp on the UV filter I doubt a non-DSLR sensor could resolve any image degredation.
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Newt
Short Timer
Joined: 21 Dec 2001
Posts: 3176 | TRs | Pics
Location: Down the road and around the corner |
|
Newt
Short Timer
|
Mon Sep 15, 2003 5:27 pm |
|
|
I would think your right Larry. I think the more you add, you then are getting a diminishing return. I'm sure the quality of the glass would make a large difference too.
Looking at the 2X teleconverters on Lensmate, how good is the Kenko line?
My eyes tell me that it's a touch better than the Tiffen. Actually, neither look all that good full size. I do like the idea of no step down ring + the fact that it is tad lighter and a touch smaller.
That's a nifty looking wide angle.
Thanks,
NN
It's pretty safe to say that if we take all of man kinds accumulated knowledge, we still don't know everything. So, I hope you understand why I don't believe you know everything. But then again, maybe you do.
It's pretty safe to say that if we take all of man kinds accumulated knowledge, we still don't know everything. So, I hope you understand why I don't believe you know everything. But then again, maybe you do.
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tom
Admin
Joined: 15 Dec 2001
Posts: 17851 | TRs | Pics
|
|
Tom
Admin
|
Mon Sep 15, 2003 5:50 pm |
|
|
I bought a teleconverter when I had my G2 and never used it. I find 99% of my shots are covered by the zoom range of my G3. However, if you need a teleconverter I would probably lean towards the Olympus TCON-17 (assuming you can find it somewhere in stock for a reasonable price, around $100).
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Larry
Member
Joined: 22 Feb 2003
Posts: 1084 | TRs | Pics
Location: Kitsap |
|
Larry
Member
|
Mon Sep 15, 2003 6:14 pm |
|
|
| Tom wrote: | | Larry, keep in mind we're not talking about pro glass here. As long as you don't skimp on the UV filter I doubt a non-DSLR sensor could resolve any image degredation. |
Good point. I really WAS thinking on the lines of high-end professional glass. Probably for a high percentage of shots, you just wouldn't see the difference on the non-DSLRs.
I do see the difference when shooting a 6x7cm image on an analog film camera, though. It's quite noticeable. I can put the UV filter in front of the lens and see the falloff.
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
