Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I used the B + W 72mm UV Protection Filter (010) for Camera Lens - Xtra Slim Mount (XS-PRO), MRC Nano, 16 Layers Multi-Resistant and Nano Coating, Photography Filter, 72 mm, Clear Protector with the A9 and 70-300 mm lens at 300 mm, f/8, and available ceiling LED lighting. See test below. It doesn't look like the filter affected the resolution. Perhaps the photo with the filter is slightly better. The photos were untouched. Only reduced file size for posting.

The photo on the left was with the filter. The photo on the right was without the filter.

JohnFilter-vs-No-Filter-small-2.png.50fcd0b7512393493854210006859a26.png

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

It's only "controversial" to people who want it to be controversial.  To people like yourself, and myself -- who have test results -- it's not.  That's like saying the COVID vaccine is controversial.  It only is to the people who choose to put their lives at risk!

I have UV filters on all of my lenses -- not just to reduce UV light (which is a bigger deal for film than digital sensors) but to protect my lens glass.

Thanks for your test results, anyway!

Edited by XKAES
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Posts

    • Hello, I do a lot of clothing photography (the clothes are laid flat and the camera is overhead facing the ground about 3.5-4 ft above) and I currently use a Sony A6000 with a sigma 16mm lens. It works pretty good. There is some barrel distortion which I guess is to be expected.  I am looking to upgrade to a FF (likely Sony AS iii) and I'm exploring lens choice. I'm considering the sigma 24mm-70mm F2.8 DG DN art lens because I'm hoping to buy one lens to not only satisfy my clothing photography needs, but also do portraits, video, ect. ect. Sigma also seems somewhat equivalent to the Sony G series and lot cheaper.  Would using a prime lens really be beneficial over a zoom one for my clothing photography? I'd like to avoid barrel distortion if possible but I'm also trying to avoid buying a bunch of costly equipment. Open to all ideas and advice. 
    • Olaf!!!!! I just did a test with my GH5 with 120fps and it has the same effect!! So i guess its the IKEA light 🙂 Tanks for your input again.  
    • Hi Olaf. Thanks for the input.  Its artificial light from IKEA 🙂   I just tested again and the effect is much more visible shooting in 60 or 120fps. By 24fps its moderate. But the footage would be unusable. I really don't know what to do. 
    • It was taken at 70mm on my A68 (so equivalent to 100mm)(24-70mm DT lens) The pinkish sky is common in the early months north of the Arctic (I have skies much more vivid than this taken further North in Finland, just after new year) I de-hased and sharpened the photo using Luminar 4.
    • Natural or artificial light conditions? Some electronic lamps cause such issues when using the electronic shutter.
  • Topics

×
×
  • Create New...