Yeah. It is a religious issue. It should be a scientific issue, but many people adopt a postion on this for religious reasons rather than good technical reasons.

Personally, I'd put the new strap back in the cart before a UV(0) filter. Loooking cool is not as important as protecting your gear, and your stock strap won't be in danger of breaking for at least a few weeks, but if you are using the camera there is an immediate risk of scratching your lens. In fact, if you are new to SLRs, the highest risk is probably shortly after you start using it.

I admit that I lied when I said that every SLR owner should have a UV(0) filter on each lens. There are a number of classes of owner who don't need to have UV(0) filters on their lenses:

• Those who care so little about image quality that they are willing to live with whatever artifacts appear in their images when (not if) the lens gets scratched.
• Those who are so wealthy that the cost of replacing the lens when it gets scratched is not an issue.
• Those whose lenses are easily replaced and so cheap that the filter costs almost as much as the lens.
• Those who believe Murphy was always wrong.
• Those who refuse to put UV(0) filters on their lenses for purely religious reasons - they deserve to get scratched lenses.

There is one more class of user who doesn't necessarily have to put a UV(0) filter on every lens - somebody whose:

• lenses, and bodies are of such high quality
• skill is so advanced
• choice of subject matter and method of image production and display are so revealing

such that the tiny negative effect of a UV(0) filter in the light path will actually be noticeable in the image, and who

• has enough knowledge to know when it will be noticeable, and
• is always careful not to expose the lens to any danger.

Somebody who is reading this thread for advice on equipment choice is not that guy.

Don't they cut out like 10% of visible light? I know mine does. I forgot to take mine off for some night shots and regretted it later when I was processing.

Just as in poker, there are pros and then there are pros.

Was this somebody who makes a substantial part of his income conducting tours? If he's not making his income off his photographs it's more likely he doesn't know what he is talking about. If this was a commercially or artistically successful photographer that just happended to be conducting a one-off tour, then his opinions might carry some more weight.

Perhaps he meant that he personally doesn't use lens protectors on his pro equipment because he can notice the difference they make in his pictures. That's fine. Suggesting that amateurs using consumer equipment should avoid UV(0) filters because the impact of another layer of glass will be noticeable after the impact of their low skill and inferior equipment - that's just stupid.

As far as I know he makes his primary income from licensing his photos, calendars, etc. http://www.marcadamus.com/ I found him after I bought his calendar at Borders. He said he makes a lot of money licensing in Germany. They are fascinated with the American West. Sadly calendars only pay like $5k total. That was disappointing to find out.

The goal of everyone on that tour (6 of us) was to learn from a pro take the best nature photos possible. So he's not going to give us different advice on something like a UV filter than what he does.

No. A good UV(0) filter - the sort you use as a lens protector - will not cut 10% of visible light. It might reduce transmission in the visible spectrum by 3-5%. Maybe your UV filter is not very good.

You will note that I didn't advocate "a UV filter" but rather "a good UV(0) filter".

A UV filter cuts way more than 10% of light waves in the UV range and next to nothing in the visible range. They will often result in a slight warming effect. With a UV(0) less is filtered out than a filter with a higher number.

The bigger problems are aberration and flare. With a high quality filter, aberrations are minimised. Every layer of glass increases the risk of flare, but with the number of elements in a typical lens these days, the increased risk is not very high.

Rather than loss of light transmission, a more important reason to consider removing a UV filter at night is that night shooting is done in an environment with extreme contrast, so flare is more likely to occur, and the large amount of dark background makes flare more noticeable.

If you don't have a protective filter attached, please use a lens hood.

One of the advantages of using a protective filter is that you don't have to clean your lens as often. Nearly every time you clean your lens you degrade it a litle bit, and risk signficant damage.

Weight, compositional elements and lighting.

I'd like to see the top cropped slightly tighter to remove the light-colored triangle between the two buildings. The building on the right looks pretty trippy because of the lack of visual depth between the two buildings and cutting out that triangle enhances the effect. Could also even out the exposure between the two buildings to further blur the line between the two... dunno just thinking out loud

This would probably also make a great B&W.

It's ironic that I said it was a religious issue and then you went all jihad on it. You're not going to take better images with or without the filter. You may or may not protect your investment with them. Scaring beginners into thinking they need to put filters on all their lenses is unneeded.

FWIW I rented the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II USM and it came with a UV filter already on it

Of course a camera shop is going to encourage you to get more filters.

Impressive stuff. He definitely looks qualified to make a decision to not use a protective filter. Did he use a lens hood? How was he as a teacher?

That wasn't me going all jihad. It was just the usual DTM-running-off-at-the-mouth post. So's this one.

A UV(0) filter has two functions.

1. In certain situations it can improve the image quality. It can cut through haze, reduce blue tinge at high altitude and add a slight warming effect to images.
2. Most of the time it is there to act as an insurance policy.

Like most insurance policies, it has a cost. The cost includes the loss of about a sixteenth of a stop of exposure, an increase in the chance of flare that is less than the increase you get from selecting certain lenses over others, and in some conditions an unwanted slight colour shift. Other than flare, most photographers will never detect these effects.

Do camera stores scare people into buying filters? Probably. Do house insurance salesmen scare people into buying house insurance? Perhaps. If real estate agents were licenced to sell house insurance, you can be sure they'd be flogging the product to their house-buying clients. That doesn't mean it is unwise to buy insurance for your new house.

If Paul B. had written "just picked up a 2,600 sq.ft. split level and looking to buy some accessories.", I would have suggested he buy house insurance. He bought a D90. I suggested he buy lens insurance.

That's just the camera equipment store acting rationally (not religiously), by protecting its investment.

I've heard that some Canon lens manuals strongly advise using a filter, because the lens isn't weather-proof without it. I doubt that's the case for this particular lens though.

that was kind of my point - i assume the filter is on there on purpose (i.e. last renter didn't forget to take it off) and that it is on there for protection, not because they thought I might want a UV filter.

Yeah he used a lens hood if it was sunny I imagine. You don't want to block out any light in night or low light shots.

I think he's a pretty good teacher. But this was my first trip following around a pro photographer, so I have nothing to compare it to. All in all though it was an absolutely incredible trip. I got like 3 out of the 5 best pics I've ever taken out of that one trip, which is pretty incredible. Here's the TR I did about it: http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/79...s-pics-898317/

FYI if anybody makes it out to Death Valley a couple quick tips. At Mesquite Flat Dunes don't park in the parking lot or every dune you encounter will likely be footprint infested even at dawn. Coming from the east park on the side of the road just past the big rock formation before you get to the parking lot. Work your way into the dunes from the east and they arent quite as large but I didn't find any footprints in that section.

Also for badwater much shorter walk if you dont park in the lot and go further up the road to the curve where there is room on the shoulder. Though been a wet winter so all the polygon salt crystals have washed away. No idea how long it takes for them to form again.

wow never saw that TR. Stunning pics

Thanks that was a great trip. It really cemented my idea to keep pursuing this as much as possible and see where it goes.

Great collection of photographs from the BBC documentary "Human Planet", with audio commentary:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-12618167

this is amazing. thank you

I bought a D90 last week with a 50mm f/1.8, and since then bought an 18-200mm VR, filters, a bag and a strap. Some thoughts so far:

1) This hobby is getting a LOT more expensive than I expected.

2) This is my first real camera (not counting the SLR I used for my high school photography class) and I've read that it's a beast for noobs and even turns bad pictures into good pictures (wat). I don't think I fully appreciate it just yet.

3) I got the 18-200mm VR (over the 18-105mm or 18-55 and 55-200) after a shitton of research. Definitely a good decision imo. Carrying one lens is the nuts for a lazy person like me -- this alone makes it worth the extra money -- and I think the extra 105-200mm zoom will come in very handy. Thx DoTheMath.

4) I think I have to get a faster prime. I've been using the 50mm in low-light situations at f/1.8 and some pictures are not as sharp as I want them to be (and it's not due to shallow DOF or missed focus). Tried using the breath-holding technique to keep my hands as steady as possible but it's just not cutting it. Still been having a lot of fun with the lens though:

The D90 is awesome, and all of the toys can get expensive rather quickly

as far as a faster prime, there is only one affordable option that comes to mind, the 50 f/1.4, I highly recommend the AF-S 1.4g over the older AF-D model, faster focusing and it preforms much better when shooting wide open.

there are of course lens' that will be sharper than your 50 1.8, the 85 1.8 is an awesome lens, and much more affordable than the 1.4 version. the new 24, 35 and 85 f/1.4 lens' that Nikon has put out seem to be the sharpest primes available, but quite pricey

a lens that I think every DX nikon shooter should own is the 35 f/1.8 DX, it's the only DX prime Nikon makes, and is about $200 and converts to aprox a 51mm, to be a very standard lens

I have several things to consider before buying a new lens.

1. Are you having sharpness issues because even wide-open your shutter speed has to be too slow ( < 1/60?) and you're getting motion blur from moving the camera? If so:
   1. Consider a tripod or otherwise steadying the camera (against a post, door frame, etc.) Also, technique as you've mentioned, including making shutter release as smooth as possible.
   2. The D90 should have good high-ISO sensitivity. Try turning the ISO up to 1600 or even 3200 if needed; this may let you get your shutter speed down to a level where motion blur isn't an issue.
   3. Add light! Got a flash?
2. Most lenses are are not at their sharpest wide-open. This is lens is probably sharper at 2.2 or 2.8 (but do some googling). Of course that only helps if it's not a shutter speed issue.
3. You can do sharpness tests to find out if the lens is sharp (basically tack a page of newsprint or similar to a wall, put the camera on a tripod, etc. - google "lens sharpness test").

Consider posting some examples with details of shutter speed, aperture, ISO setting, etc.

Back from Costa Rica. Thanks, DoTheMath, for the advice on the lens. You were right I would not have liked the 24-105. The 17-55 I bought is very good although many times not wide enough so I'm VERY glad I didn't get the 24-105. The 70-200 f/2.8 I rented performed well, and again the 105mm wouldn't have been as useful as 200.

Here's a few shots from the trip... I haven't really done much processing in lightroom yet (still learning how), but I did add graduated filters to some or mess with saturation and such, just playing around. Some need more cropping.

Well guess I can't embed the photos from flickr (or can't figure out how) so here's a link to the set
http://www.flickr.com/photos/5981800...7626232274996/

You got some awesome shots! Lots to work with too

I *love* the nighttime lightning shot, but you might consider cropping out the foreground plants as they seem a bit distracting and are out of focus due to DOF. You could also try some noise reduction to clean up the image a bit. I assume you had to jack the ISO to freeze the lightning. How many tries did this one take?