|
Forums >
Photography Talk >
Can we talk UV filters, or even clear filters
I use UV filters on all my cameras. I have read that digital cameras are not subject to US problems like film cameras are. I've also read that US filters can lead to less sharp images. I have not experimented to see if this holds true on my cameras, I'm not sure if I have the eyesight to tell the difference. I use a UV filter only because I'm worried about breaking a camera lens. The truth is I have never even bumped one of my lenses, I'm super cautious. So I thought I would put this out to the experts: 1) how do we feel about UV filters on digital cameras 2) How do we feel about using any filter in order to protect the lens. Cheers! Jan 11 13 07:25 am Link No. Jan 11 13 07:27 am Link i would leave the house without a UV filter on all my glass, to protect the coating of the lens i have never heard any convincing argument about them affecting the quality of the image Jan 11 13 07:29 am Link Caveman Creations wrote: Don't make me kick your ass. With a UV filter to boot! Jan 11 13 07:30 am Link Murvelous wrote: Ahhh protecting the actual coating of the lens, and I was only worried about breaking or scratching the lens but this makes perfect sense. Jan 11 13 07:31 am Link UV filters are a thin piece of plate glass sandwiched in a metal ring. Lens elements are a thick piece of optical glass securely mounted in the lens. Which do you think will break? UV filters offer no impact protection and can/will lead to unwanted lens flare. There are tons of posts on this subject here, you can search and find many on both sides of the fence. I'm on the no UV filter side, even on the beach or anywhere else... Jan 11 13 07:31 am Link Untitled Photographer wrote:
Jan 11 13 07:33 am Link Murvelous wrote: I have seen it and when the photographer next to me took the UV filter off the flare went away... Just recently at one of my son's hockey games I was shooting one of the parents asked me for help, we took off his UV filter and the lens flare ceased... Jan 11 13 07:33 am Link Untitled Photographer wrote: 1. I view the UV filter like my glasses (no pun intended). The filter is so close to the eye that yes, there is less sharpness but its VERY negligible. Jan 11 13 07:34 am Link ACPhotography wrote: Noted, and thanks. What about the notion of protecting the lens coating that was just mentioned? Jan 11 13 07:38 am Link Ok, fine. You talked me into it. As far as protection is concerned, I've never seen where it would benefit more than a lens hood. The coatings on lenses are quite a bit harder than one might think. The glass is quite a bit thicker than one might think. AND, most of the time, a front element replacement is quite a bit cheaper than one might think. Now, I've done shoots and the lens itself just wasn't giving me the flare I wanted! (Those damned coatings!) Slap a UV on the front, and BAM! Fine art, hipster, something or another. Get great flare in the shot. It would be beneficial to state, that the only reason I have a UV filter period, is because it came free with the CP!  I do not in anyway treat them like a piece of jewelry, I have smeared Vaseline on them, stuck glitter to them, sprayed them with water, and use Dawn dish soap and Windex to clean them. I fully intend on taking one to the shop and sanding around the outside edges of the glass on one, and cracking another one, just to see what happens, what it may do for a shot. Thank goodness, they're cheap. If someone wants to use it for protection, by all means, go right ahead. If it clears up the UV haze in your landscapes, go for it! Me personally, it just gives me a piece of glass to mess up, and not cost me 300+ dollars to do so! Jan 11 13 07:55 am Link Farenell Photography wrote: This is probably the best reason, imho. And if you're a klutz, I'd add keep the lens hood on as well at all times. Jan 11 13 07:55 am Link I'm horrible about losing things, so around half my lenses don't have caps. I've seen what small children and dogs can do to a lens while you're not paying attention. With a UV filter, I'll have something protecting the lens. But I only use multi coated optical glass filters. (Hoya S-HMC). No cheapies. Jan 11 13 07:55 am Link no glove, no love ... Jan 11 13 07:59 am Link fascinating responses. You guys scare me with your brilliance sometimes. I'm going to experiment with the filter off and on and see what kind of results I get. I'm also going to check the brand and quality of the filters I have, not doubt a cheapie is in my kit somewhere. Might be worth noting I don't generally use a lens hood. Perhaps I should do that and leave the filters at home, or like my fellow Texan spray them with wet concrete for that modern, edgy look. Jan 11 13 08:04 am Link IMO if the lenses needed all this protection, the manufacturers would have put one on before you bought the lens. It's just another way for camera salesmen to make another buck. Jan 11 13 08:17 am Link If they provided any benefit at all, the engineers at your manufacturer of choice would design them into every lens. They are a high markup accessory. Try a lens hood instead. Prevents lens flare rather than creating it. Shields your glass against bumping. Will even keep a certain amount of rain drops off your lens. Edit: see also above. I was typing while he was posting. Jan 11 13 08:33 am Link Very good points made in this thread. Thanks very much. Jan 11 13 08:35 am Link That extra piece of glass has some impact on the image quality. There's no point in spending hundreds or thousands on a lens and putting a cheap UV filter on it. It is a great way to protect your expensive lens, but now I just go with a lens hood and trust it to be the first thing that hits if I swing my camera into something. Jan 11 13 08:49 am Link I mainly use filters to complete weather seals or for lenses that have an interesting front design such that cleaning it directly is more annoying than just leaving a filter. An example for me is the canon 50mm f/1.2 . Hoods offer more protection against physical impacts. Especially the tele lenses. So if all you care about is scratches and whatnot I think using a lens hood is better. Jan 11 13 08:57 am Link i have one lens that is naked and it's the one with a scratch. i use b&w MRCs. if you are shooting wide with on-camera flash you may not want to use a hood. and some lenses don't come with hoods. Jan 11 13 09:08 am Link Caveman Creations wrote: I have cracked and painted up UV filters (hooray bargain bin of used filters at my camera store!) Jan 11 13 09:17 am Link I've always been more afraid if I did do something that at UV filter would hit, I'd just end up with sharp pieces of shitty glass flying into my good glass and damaging it all the same, or worse. Jan 11 13 09:35 am Link I encourage aspiring photographers to use UV filters. Us professional photographers need all the advantage we can get in this dog eat dog world. Please use them and encourage others to do so. Jan 11 13 09:51 am Link always use a lens hood, unless you want flare. keep your lenses capped as much as possible. if you've got sea spray, mud, sand, gravel, paint, sparks, etc. coming at you, use a decent protective filter, unless you've already got a polarizer or nd or something on there. Jan 11 13 10:16 am Link DougBPhoto wrote: tricky guy, you. Jan 11 13 10:57 am Link TheScarletLetterSeries wrote: Yep. Same here. Jan 11 13 11:07 am Link There is absolutely no logical reason to put a POS $20 piece of glass in front of a lens that cost $2000. (unless for effect) Every piece of glass you shoot through degrades an image. Believe it or not. Glass is not pure, not even the costly glass in the best lenses in the world. Masters of the art of making a lens, back in the old days they were considered tools of the trade, and had to be perfect. I love older lenses and use them often. Today, greed and profits run the market. BUT, No, don't use a UV filter. IT helps NOT. Jan 11 13 11:09 am Link Untitled Photographer wrote: I have B+W UV MRC filter on all my lenses.. Shooting outdoor where high wind, on top of mountain, at the beach, etc can cause issues with front elements. Also it is easier for me to clean the filter and not have to worry about sand/dirt, etc getting the front element scratch. Lens hood won't do much (except for blocking the other light source) for me because of the way I abuse some of the lenses.. Jan 11 13 11:12 am Link Shane Noir wrote: Prove it! I want to see! I suppose, I'll have to do it myself, then. Jan 11 13 12:51 pm Link Gaze at Photography wrote: +1 Jan 11 13 01:01 pm Link Erik Ballew wrote: Why would they put one in? This way when you scratch the front element you need to pay the manufacturer for a repair! Jan 11 13 01:04 pm Link Skip the filters unless you are planning to go into a dust storm or to sea spray. If you are shooting in the rain, look for one of those that shed water to keep you from wiping the front as often. Other than that, forget them unless you are shooting a Leica M8 which needs an IR cut filter. If you use high value ND filters which often block almost nothing in the IR range and are planning long exposures, then get the type that has ir filtration included such as some of the Tiffens. ok, so you drop your camera and it falls face down. you might ding the filter thread on your lens or you might shred the whole damn thing depending on how far you drop it. Before a filter, if you are concerned with "protection" use a hood. Jan 11 13 01:12 pm Link It's up to the individual. The movie industry routinely use filters in front of camera for colour balancing when shooting multi-million dollar movies. I know landscape photographers who use a polariser, neutral density and grey grad filter at the same time and get pin sharp results. A UV filter wont make or break an image the composition will. If you accept the position that a UV filter will noticeably degrade your image then there would be no reason to use any filter, polariser, grey grad or anything else. So I understand those who reject UV filters wont use any filter on grounds of quality issues. Jan 11 13 01:38 pm Link There is no clear YES or NO answer. There are times when the UV filter is highly recommended to be attached. There are times when the UV filter is highly recommended to be off. Only by experience, and not from internet advice, should you decide when to use or not use the filters. Ask yourself why you should do it. You have to discover yourself why so. If you have not, then keep it permanently on or off, according to your persuasion. People who argue to keep it just on or off only see the one side of the pizza pie. ...or the apple pecan with whipped cream on top. . Jan 11 13 01:53 pm Link yeah, if your sitting your rump in a cushy studio ... leave it off get out in the world and shoot sports or events outdoors ... see how much protection you want on the front of that glass ... Jan 11 13 02:04 pm Link Hero Foto wrote: I've shot sports for 20 years, including cars spitting gravel at my lens element. Jan 11 13 02:13 pm Link DougBPhoto wrote: I've had those little rubber balls and other crap on the sides of the tracks hit me and both my 70-200 and 400mm have taken direct hits... Jan 11 13 02:16 pm Link turn your back for a moment and some knuckle-dragging, mouth-breathing neanderthal/llama herder/boyfriend/idiot will put a taco stain - fingerprint on the front of your "L" glass...IF you are smart you will have an answer to two questions Jan 11 13 02:18 pm Link DougBPhoto wrote: going bareback is a little foolish ... guess that separates the pro from the gwc's Jan 11 13 02:20 pm Link |
