|
Forums >
Photography Talk >
Uv filters.....
Ok, I have them on all my lenses but my telephoto.........when taking outdoor pictures, upon reviewing the images, I can;t see any evidence that they do anything at all, except protect the lens.....your thoughts? Jan 19 06 11:16 pm Link Well, they do prevent UV fogging, but as I've always had them on my lenses I'm not sure if UV fogging exists. But I'm not going to take them off for an outside shoot to find out either. Cheap lens protection, though some will say it's one more layer of glass to diffract or flare. I also use rubber lens hoods, especially when working into a light source. That said, most of the big guys don't use much of anything on their lenses. -Don Jan 19 06 11:21 pm Link There were 3 of these, all of which had responses...so I'll see if I can consolidate. Dave Krueger wrote: Gary Davis wrote: David Kolodny wrote: Jan 20 06 01:07 am Link Why on earth would I buy a $1500 lens to get the best optics I can, only to ruin it by covering it with a cheap useless UV filter? I own roughly $10,000 worth of Canon L glass, and I've never put a UV filter on any of them. I don't even own a UV filter. I have not scratched a lens in 20+ years, despite lack of "protection" from UV filters. Yes, I've shot at ocean beaches. Yes I've done travel photography in deserts and other harsh climates. Here is a little secret. Prices for cameras and lenses are very competitive. Especially nowadays with online retailers. So camera stores have to drastically cut their profit margins on cameras, or people buy them elsewhere (or online). So camera stores make almost nothing on the sale of a camera. However, if they can talk you into buying a filter or two, to "protect your lens", they are doing good. They have a 50% markup on filters, sometimes 100%. Sometimes they make more money off the filter than the camera. So be very skeptical of anything a mall photography store sale clerk tries to sell you. The only filter I have used in the last several years is a polarizing filter (which I use frequently when shooting outdoors). I used to use warming filters occasionally, or color filters when shooting black & white film. But now with digital, all that can be done in post-processing. Jan 20 06 01:14 am Link Um so get a very expensive UV filter..... if yer that worried about it would you rater shatter upto a 300$ UV filter, or the front of the glass of a 2,000$ lens?(but least do your research) By the way accessories have always been marked up to hell, hoods, camera straps, bags, cables, filters, its nothing new. Also circular polarizers cannot ( even with high difficulties ) be done for very event in Photoshop. Jan 20 06 01:17 am Link I have had a few over the years, but I never shoot with them on the lens. I protect the lens when I am dragging about my bag. Jan 20 06 01:23 am Link What Scott said. I don't bash my lenses around. In 55 years of playing photographer, I've never damaged a camera or lens. I don't internd to start now. Jan 20 06 08:49 am Link The fact that you've actually been fortunate enough not to damage the front element on your lens----is great. But it doesn't mean that the nice Canon L glass on your camera won't be scuffed up tomorrow. I've never damaged a lens element in my career either (knock on wood!), take great care of my equipment---but still use filters on all my lenses. I haven't noticed any image degradation from using a protective filter----so the relatively inexpensive addition of a filter does give some piece of mind to a professional photographer who is constantly exposing expensive lenses to the elements not to mention perhaps a careless assistant or bystander that comes his way.... Jan 20 06 08:58 am Link I have a uv filter on all my lenses. They were only a few dollars off ebay. I find it's worth the few dollars that was spent to protect an expensive lens. But like everything else everyone has their own opinions and dislikes. Jan 20 06 09:07 am Link Ken Doo Photo wrote: Don't misunderstand me. I often have a filter on my lens. I use polarizers, neutral density filters, warming filters, ad nauseum, I just don't own a UV filter. Using a filter unnecessarily seems kind of like wearing a condom to masturbate. Most of the pros I know feel the same way (unless they are selling filters). Jan 20 06 09:45 am Link 500mm F4, 200-400 VR F4 300mm F2.8 105mm F2.8 70-200mm VR F2.8 60mm F2.8, 28-105mm F3.5 18-35mm F3.5 12-24mm cept for the biggies which dont take em, all have uv filters. to each his own, i protect my shit, and i have separate insurance as well. Jan 20 06 10:08 am Link I have UV filters on all of my lenses. It's cheap insurance. When I'm fumbling around in the backseat of a T-6 looking for a lens or fishing for a lens from the bottom of a saddlebag on my motorcycle, I know the glass won't be scratched, just the filter. Jan 20 06 09:10 pm Link In real life they protect the lenses, for everything else...there is Mastercard. T Jan 20 06 09:18 pm Link Thanks for all the replies......I kinda suspected that all they really did was protect the lens......just wanted some other observations..... Jan 20 06 09:19 pm Link Jay Farrell wrote: Now seriously, they make a difference, but at a level of people who will use them in very specific photography, high mountain, etc, for daily work you won't notice , at least I haven't in the last 40 years. T Jan 20 06 09:23 pm Link I think most modern lenses have UV coating on the glass so you don't need a filter to keep out the UV. I had a cheap 500mm lens a few years ago that using a UV filter made a difference, the long range shots without it looked bluer. But I haven't seen any difference on other lenses. I use metal lens shades for generaal protection and if I need more protection I put the whole camera in a flexible underwater housing, like when I'm on the beach and wading in the surf, etc. Jan 20 06 09:51 pm Link |
