Basic question - FM Forums

Moderated by: guardian

Visit the FM Store · Image Upload · Buy & Sell
FM Forum Rules

FM Forums | General Gear-talk | Join Image Upload
end

Treo
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.1 #1 · Basic question

Does everyone buy a UV filter for protection for every lens you own and never remove?

Edited on Nov 16, 2007 at 02:09 PM

Nov 15, 2007 at 06:39 PM

Evan Baines
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.1 #2 · Basic question

Not so basic.... Cue the never-ending debate! Almost everyone has a vehement opinion on this, from the "heck no never" crowd to the "of course, always" crowd and a few in between.

Bottom line is that its a trade off. It protects your lens, but there is a small cost in image quality. If you chose to use one, buy the best available (B+W MRC, or similar) to minimize IQ cost. Modern lens glass is a little more robust than in the olden-days, so many get by without filters and never damage their lenses.

Always use the lens hood in any case.

I have UV filters, but only use them for the beach or other conditions I know have a strong potential to cause damage.

Edited on Nov 16, 2007 at 02:09 PM

Nov 15, 2007 at 06:44 PM

Treo
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.1 #3 · Basic question

Thanks for your imput. Yeah I just bought my most exspensive lens to me anyway and I'm wanting to be careful of course but quality of the photo is important also. I now own the sporting lens 120 300 2.8 and looking at filters and they seem pretty high priced for this lens. Of course replacing the lens would cost more.

Edited on Nov 16, 2007 at 02:09 PM

Nov 15, 2007 at 06:48 PM

Jman13
Offline
Image Upload: On

p.1 #4 · Basic question

If you use the hood for that lens, you won't have to worry about damaging the front element unless you're shooting in blowing sand, shooting motorsports up close, or something like that. The hood will be deep enough to protect against almost anything.

Like Even, I only put on a UV if I'm shooting in hazardous conditions.

Edited on Nov 16, 2007 at 02:09 PM

Nov 15, 2007 at 07:45 PM

jbibler
Offline
Image Upload: On

p.1 #5 · Basic question

I thought that UV filters also helped reduce glare and haziness caused from the sun/water, etc.

True? I figure it's a small investment for the expensive glass. A friend of mine dropped his camera/lens from about 2 feet on the concrete. The UV filter cracked, but the lens was fine.

Josh B.

Edited on Nov 16, 2007 at 02:09 PM

Nov 15, 2007 at 07:59 PM

Daan B
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.1 #6 · Basic question

Difference in IQ with or without UV filter is negligble in real life shooting IMO (if using good filters like B+W MRC).

Edited on Nov 16, 2007 at 02:09 PM

Nov 15, 2007 at 08:01 PM

claudermilk
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.1 #7 · Basic question

The UV filters were more for cutting the blue at high altitudes and is mainly effective with film. Digital already has a UV filter built in to the camera, so these days they are simply clear protection filters. And the use thereof is one of the never-ending debates around here. Me? I'm on the fence now, usually don't have it on my lens any more but I keep it around for when it's called for (like situations Jordan mentioned).

Edited on Nov 16, 2007 at 02:09 PM

Nov 15, 2007 at 09:28 PM

jcolwell
Online
Image Upload: On

p.1 #8 · Basic question

I use B+W filters in harsh environments, but not otherwise.

jbibler wrote:
I thought that UV filters also helped reduce glare ... from the sun/water, etc.

True?
Josh B.

Nope. It's the Circular Polarizer filter that controls glare from reflected light.

Edited on Nov 16, 2007 at 02:09 PM

Nov 15, 2007 at 09:36 PM

danmitchell
Online
Image Upload: Off

p.1 #9 · Basic question

I never put a UV filter on my lenses. Adding an additional layer of glass can't help and in some cases it seems to produce flare or some loss of contrast.

I use a lens cap and lens hoods.

I understand that some people use them to protect the front element of their lenses, but I feel that this "need" has largely been invented by dealers/manufacturers who would like to sell everyone an extra filter or two or three.

Edited on Nov 16, 2007 at 02:09 PM

Nov 15, 2007 at 09:51 PM

Treo
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.1 #10 · Basic question

Yeah I'm leaning torwads keeping the hood on when out on a dusty field and just cleaning the lens if it gets dirty. An extra 160.00 dollars for a UV filter is not in my budget right now and it seems to me if it's bad weather I wont be out shooting anyway. All thanks for helping me save a little $$ right now!

Edited on Nov 16, 2007 at 02:09 PM

Nov 15, 2007 at 11:02 PM

khiromu
Offline
Buy and Sell: On

p.1 #11 · Basic question

I use UV filters on most of my lenses. But that's only because I have a 16 month old who loves to touch and try to bite anything he can reach...

Otherwise, I wouldn't use filters...

Edited on Nov 16, 2007 at 02:09 PM

Nov 16, 2007 at 01:43 AM

PetKal
Online
Image Upload: On

p.1 #12 · Basic question

Treo wrote:
Does everyone buy a UV filter for protection for every lens you own and never remove?

Yes I do, except the 15mm FE, and supertelephotos. :
OK, my input to the weekly "filters n' hoods" topic is done.

Edited on Nov 16, 2007 at 02:09 PM

Nov 16, 2007 at 02:05 AM

GeneO
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.1 #13 · Basic question

No.

They can cause ghosting and bad bokeh under the right conditons (the image reflects off of the sensor onto the flat surface of the filter). That is why the protective miniscous glass on the front of the supertelephotos is curved instead of flat. I would only use one under harsh conditions like woring around salt water spray, etc.

Gene

Edited on Nov 16, 2007 at 02:09 PM

Nov 16, 2007 at 02:15 AM

leewoolery
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.1 #14 · Basic question

Treo:

For on-location portraits, sports, events and action...always a filter and lens hood.

I lent out a lens for a team photo shoot...with no filter...and it came back with a chip in the corner of the front lens element...the guy who borrowed it commented that you should have had a filter on it. I'm still waiting for him to replace that lens or pay for the repair.

I shoot alot of rodeos and horse shows in very dusty or muddy conditions and it's easier to clean a filter than a front lens element. A hood alone doesn't protect your lens from dust ( or sand ) when the wind is blowing directly at you or a galloping horse steps in a mud puddle in front of you.

Many of the horse and rodeo facilities are now using a sand mix for the arena floor and it can scratch your eye glasses if it's dry and windy so imagine what that would do to lens element if you try to wipe that off.

Also, I've had near misses with hockey pucks, baseballs and horses sneezing at me so that filter saved me. I dropped a lens one time and it landed on the corner of a metal fence and the filter took the hit.

Lee Woolery
Speedshot Action Photography
www.speedshotphoto.com

Edited on Nov 16, 2007 at 02:09 PM

Nov 16, 2007 at 03:36 AM

Treo
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.1 #15 · Basic question

Leewoolery

Have you had the filter alter your quailty of your photos shooting sports?

Edited on Nov 16, 2007 at 02:09 PM

Nov 16, 2007 at 01:44 PM

PascalT
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.1 #16 · Basic question

I always use a filter (high quality B+W MRC) and to franck the difference in IQ seems marginal to me (that's my opinion though). I prefer investing a bit more in buying this filter it helps me ease my mind. I always shoot with a hood and a filter on

Nov 16, 2007 at 02:09 PM


FM Forums \| General Gear-talk \| Join Image Upload end