PDA

View Full Version : Filter for 12 -60


JackBenedict
11th April 2010, 01:05 PM
Hi Guys,

I have just purchased a 12 - 60 lens from a fellow forum member.
Can anyone advise on the best 72mm filter to slap on this lens for general protection. I assume that it would have to be of the slim fit type given the view on this lens.

All answers gratefully accepted.

Thanks

E-3
11th April 2010, 01:43 PM
Your better off leaving it as it is, UV protectors ruin the picture quality ;)

baldyb
11th April 2010, 02:11 PM
I know it is probably a red card offence to butt into a thread like this but I recently had to sell my 12-60 (with a pro1 uv attached):( - however I still have a 72mm pro1 circular polariser for sale in the small ads if you are interested!;)

forester
11th April 2010, 02:51 PM
If you must use a "filter" just have a lens protector like the Hoya pro1, plain top quality optical glass. they are not cheap but also do not spoil the optical quality of a good lens.*chr

knikki
11th April 2010, 04:37 PM
I use a B&W KR1.5 filter on virtually all my lens,does not alter the optical quality one bit

Wreckdiver
11th April 2010, 06:18 PM
I don't use filters for protection any more, as mentioned above, they degrade the image quality. Every lens comes with a cap to protect it, that's what it's for. I always leave the lens hood on when in use to help protect from any knocks.

Steve

DekHog
11th April 2010, 07:33 PM
I always use a UV filter on all my lenses - to the point that I leave all my lens caps (pain in the ass they are) in a bag at home at all times.

I've never found they degraded my images in any way at all, but on saying that, I am also not anal enough to pixel peep with/without images to see if there is perhaps a tiny something, somewhere, sometimes, due to using them...

Better using one than scratching the glass on a 700 lens... I also wouldn't think it necessary to use the ultra-slim type of filter on the 12-60mm, but maybe someone who actually has one will know better? I never had to use ultra-slim on my Sigma 10-20mm, so can't see your lens being a problem...

wanderer
11th April 2010, 09:43 PM
Yup I use the Hoya pro UV.
Its surprising how much muck gets onto a lens.
I also carry a Spudz cloth at all times for lenses including my specs.

E-3
12th April 2010, 01:10 PM
Better using one than scratching the glass on a 700 lens..

That`s just the point! why spend 700 on a bit of glass & then put a 50 bit of glass in front of it :confused: If Olympus intended people to use protectors, then I am sure they would manufacture them.

JackBenedict
12th April 2010, 01:36 PM
Thanks for your response James - however I am the camp that fits a filter.
I doesn't take much to scratch a lens at the best of times.

Replace cost = 700+ or replace cost = 50 - surely it's a no brainer in anyones books.

meach
12th April 2010, 02:04 PM
I'm of the view that lens caps and hoods are the best way to protect your lenses - that's what they're designed for after all - and filters are best for, well, filtering. Anything between the lens and the subject introduces a risk of lens flare, however minimal. There are also those who believe that if you do drop a lens with a glass filter attached then broken glass from said filter is more likely to scratch the lens than the fall. In thirty years of serious photography I've never used a filter (well, did once try a friend's polariser) and never had a scratched lens. But I ALWAYS have a lens hood attached when shooting.

meach
12th April 2010, 02:32 PM
Just to lighten things up I've just remembered reading this last year in a guide written by an "award winning wedding photographer" (his words, not mine):

A word on Skylight UV filters

I often hear people say ‘put a skylight (clear) filter on the lens
to protect it’. Well have you ever noticed all those beautiful
colours that swirl about on the lens’ surface when viewed
from an angle? Those rare earth coatings and the precision
with which the lens was ground make it as optically perfect as
possible. And when you buy a big name manufacturer’s lens,
that’s a large part of what you just forked out 350 or more
for. Seems daft to me to spend all that money then go and
plonk a bit of glass in front of it!


But also – what are you protecting it from exactly? Being raked
by tigers perhaps, or maybe you’re the kind of person to acciden-
tally leave it on the workshop bench whilst welding something?
Yeah I know I’m being sarcastic but honestly, protect it from
what? If you drop the thing onto the pavement then there’s not
much chance it’ll survive annihilation no matter how many protec-
tive filters you have, you’ll just have to go and get another one.

Quality lenses are surprisingly robust bits of kit and won’t scratch
easily if you use a bit of common sense ie if you’ve got sand on it
blow it off before rubbing it with a cloth. Just use a bit of care and
it’ll be completely safe.

And anyway – you’ve got a lens hood on all your lenses right?
Trust me, I’m the clumsiest most trip-over it sort of person you’ll
ever meet, and in 20 years I’ve never scratched a lens.

However, the day after writing this very paragraph, I was photographing a wedding and had a camera fall lens first from a tripod onto a gravel car park, and guess what? Not a scratch on the glass because the lens hood protected it. The focus ring was trashed, but because it’s a good quality N***on lens it’s completely repairable.

HughofBardfield
12th April 2010, 02:39 PM
If Olympus intended people to use protectors, then I am sure they would manufacture them.

They did at one time. I have some 49mm Olympus UV filters from 35mm days. It amazes me Oly don't still sell them. The fanboys would instantly conclude they enabled better colour rendering or somesuch and buy them in bulk...

Having said that, after nearly 40 years of religiously using a protective filter, I have come round to the view that UV or "lens protector" filters are only of use in limited circumstances and I no longer have them on all my lenses as default since I have seen evidence of flare with them on.

However, if I go near the sea, or out in fog or anywhere where there may be crud or wet stuff flying around, the filter goes back on.

As to filter depth, I don't have the 12-60, but a standard depth Hoya causes no vignetting on the 11-22 that I've seen.

Wreckdiver
12th April 2010, 03:04 PM
I'm of the view that lens caps and hoods are the best way to protect your lenses - that's what they're designed for after all - and filters are best for, well, filtering. Anything between the lens and the subject introduces a risk of lens flare, however minimal. There are also those who believe that if you do drop a lens with a glass filter attached then broken glass from said filter is more likely to scratch the lens than the fall. In thirty years of serious photography I've never used a filter (well, did once try a friend's polariser) and never had a scratched lens. But I ALWAYS have a lens hood attached when shooting.

Agree totally. I take the cap off, take a photo and put the cap back on. The cap is more likely to do a better job of protecting the lens than a glass filter that is going to shatter and possibly do more damage.

I just don't see how a filter protects a lens.

Steve

DekHog
12th April 2010, 03:11 PM
Well if one of the 'it destroys the quality' mob can post some with and without images showing me the damage it does to my pictures, I'll happily never use one again... I won't hold my breath waiting in case I die though... :D

E-3
12th April 2010, 03:15 PM
Thanks for your response James - however I am the camp that fits a filter.
I doesn't take much to scratch a lens at the best of times.

Replace cost = 700+ or replace cost = 50 - surely it's a no brainer in anyones books.

Maybe I`ve just been lucky, but I have never managed to scratch a lens, & I certainly would`nt dream of spending say 4500 on my 90-250mm & then sticking a bit of inferior glass in front of it, surely thats a no brainer! If I was going to do that then I would stick to the kit lenses, anyway each to their own I guess.:)

E-3
12th April 2010, 03:17 PM
Well if one of the 'it destroys the quality' mob can post some with and without images showing me the damage it does to my pictures, I'll happily never use one again... I won't hold my breath waiting in case I die though... :D

They cause lens flair!

DekHog
12th April 2010, 03:20 PM
Only if you're daft enough to shoot into the sun.... and nearly every bit of glass, expensive lenses included, will give lens flare under those very circumstances... *shrug

...but as you say, each to their own; no one is forcing us to use one or otherwise... :D

wanderer
12th April 2010, 11:09 PM
Goodness me, this sounds like its causing some nostril flare.
Why do Olympus put a screw thread on the front of the lens?:confused:
I also use Cokin Z filters on my 12-60 and can get a bit of vignetting at 12mm, particularly in portait view, but only at the top against the sky, why?:confused:

snaarman
13th April 2010, 07:33 AM
...but as you say, each to their own; no one is forcing us to use one or otherwise... :D

Quite right :-) I am a vote for the no filter camp.

I always use the lens cap, never use the hood, never use a filter. There are some times when this has bitten me on the bum but in general it works for me.

As to loss in quality, yes it might be emperors clothes syndrome these days. Although I have examples of Cokin A filters taking the edge off a picture from my long gone film days.

Pete

JackBenedict
13th April 2010, 08:10 AM
Goodness me, this sounds like its causing some nostril flare.

Everbody is entitled to their opinion - for me it is 'filter on' brigade and the lens cap stays in my pocket until I have finished shooting.

Thank you for all your opinions - it is good to see such a diversity of points of view.:)

E-3
13th April 2010, 11:46 AM
Why do Olympus put a screw thread on the front of the lens?:confused:[/QUOTE]

To attatch filter holders & ring flashes to :confused:

DanH56
19th May 2010, 06:09 AM
I see both sides of the argument laid out above, and I've not really settled into either camp - however, the earlier post that says: "But also what are you protecting it from exactly? Being raked by tigers perhaps....................." has left me with a firm image of two tigers in green wellies and gloves sorting out a vegetable patch. That's what reading these post early in the morning (and a love of old David Bowie songs) does to you.

Sorry for babbling on, I'll get back to work now.

DerekC
19th May 2010, 08:00 AM
Maybe I`ve just been lucky, but I have never managed to scratch a lens, & I certainly would`nt dream of spending say 4500 on my 90-250mm & then sticking a bit of inferior glass in front of it, surely thats a no brainer! If I was going to do that then I would stick to the kit lenses, anyway each to their own I guess.:)

I own a 90-250mm which incidentally is supplied by Olympus with a filter.

A Hoya Pro1 is used on my 12-60. I have used the lens with filter off and on and not noticed any difference in image quality.
The lens hoods are always used, as a scratched lens hood is preferable to scratched filter or front element. Also Olympus spend time developing lens hoods to do a job so why leave them at home?

Bikie John
19th May 2010, 08:44 AM
One case where filters can seriously degrade the image is shooting into the light. You can see it in a night townscape, where there are specular light sources in the frame - as well as the real ones you will sometimes get an extended family where the light has reflected off the front element and back in from the inside of the filter.

I don't understand why this should show up so clearly in these circumstances but not affect "normal" shooting, but that seems to be what happens.

FWIW I normally shoot with a hood but without a filter unless there is something that I want the filter to protect the lens from. Since I shoot a lot of rugby, that is usually rain. Which all too often is horizontal :(

Ciao ... John

E-3
19th May 2010, 10:24 AM
I own a 90-250mm which incidentally is supplied by Olympus with a filter.

Yes, you are correct. What I meant is that I would not put another make filter in front of it. :)