Home · Register · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username  

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | General Gear-talk | Join Upload & Sell

1       2      
3
       end
  

Archive 2009 · UV filters, what do they do?

  
 
wordfool
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #1 · p.3 #1 · UV filters, what do they do?


JohnJ80 wrote:
I've also heard that replacing the last lens in most lenses is not very expensive - like $75; I'd like to confirm this. J.


I have no direct experience, but I highly doubt you could get a front element replaced on a profession lens for $75. Heck, Canon charges a minimim of about $150 to even look at an L lens

More importantly IMO is the time needed to replace a front element. Drop your lens and send of to Canon/Nikon for new front element and you have no lens for a week.



May 20, 2009 at 01:57 PM
billsamuels
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #2 · p.3 #2 · UV filters, what do they do?


I used to use only Hoya's until I got one B&W just to see what the fuss is about and they're worth every penny and then some. However, $300 for a UV, I don't know about that. I just bought several of the B&W UV MRC Pro w/ Nano's for about $50-$60 each, 77mm sizes.

The same filters in a circular polarizer with the nano are about $160. I got a few of those as well. B&H is having a - get 3 or more and get 10% off sale now.

I decided to cover all of my Canon L lenses and my new Zeiss with B&W UV filters and leave them on all the time, and get B&W circular polarizers for them as well, stacking the polarizer on the UV just to keep the dust off the lens once and for all.

By the way, I broke my rule and also got a Hoya Moose Circular Polarizer. Anyone use this before? Good, bad, indifferent?

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/195614-REG/Hoya_B77CIRPLW_77mm_Moose_Warm_Circular.html



Dec 24, 2014 at 09:22 PM
dcains
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #3 · p.3 #3 · UV filters, what do they do?


Be sure to add another UV for each lens to protect the polarizer, too. Can't have too much protection.


Dec 25, 2014 at 06:09 PM
Paul Mo
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #4 · p.3 #4 · UV filters, what do they do?


AJ Nadershahi wrote:
What does that mean? If a lens is built and labeled as weather resistant, it comes out of the box weather resistant. Otherwise there would be a disclaimer or warning to "purchase and install an additional filter".



Back to Reading Comprehension 101 you go.



Dec 26, 2014 at 02:47 AM
15Bit
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #5 · p.3 #5 · UV filters, what do they do?


I think in the consideration of whether to use a filter you need to carefully look at the application, the risks to the lens and the properties of the components. Things to consider here:

- The front element of the lens generally has much higher ultimate strength than a filter (with respect to cracking)
- The front element of the lens generally has slightly better scratch resistance than a filter (but not much)
- A filter and a front lens element have similar chemical resistances
- The front element of the lens is probably a fair bit more expensive than a new filter, but for some cheaper lenses the price difference might not be so great
- Lens hoods are usually plastic, and can deform and break to absorb a lot of energy without damaging the lens (they just snap off at the bayonet mount). They also provide protection against objects approaching the lens from oblique angles. Replacement lens hoods are generally of a similar price to a protective filter or less.

Thus for some sorts of risk a filter is a bad choice, as it will break under conditions which the front lens element would survive fine, producing sharp and hard glass shards which cause damage that would have been avoided if the lens was bare. Examples of this sort of circumstance would be impacting objects that are soft but possess a lot of kinetic energy. The paintballs are an excellent example, as would be a number of children's toys.

In contrast, objects with sharp edges and low impact energy (i.e. those that will tend to scratch rather than break) favour the use of a filter, as it has similar scratch resistance to the lens element and is cheaper to replace. Nice examples of this would sandy or gritty conditions on a windy day. Cold fine snow is also a surprisingly good abrasive, and i tend to use protective filters when skiing in very cold weather. For sandy and gritty conditions a filter is also easier to clean - you can rinse it off under the tap when you get home and thus reduce the risk of incurring scratches when cleaning.

For hard and sharp objects with significant kinetic energy (flying stones etc) you are probably screwed whether you have a filter or not, but there is a kinetic energy window where a filter doesn't break, but damage to the lens element would have occurred in it's absence. Using a filter makes sense in these conditions, as even if it does break some damage to the front element would have occurred anyway. Not using your camera at all in such conditions makes even more sense to me though

In cases where there is the possibility of chemical damage (i work in a research lab), a filter makes a lot of sense.

In all cases a lens hood will provide improved protection, whether a filter is fitted or not. It will also provide protection in the event that you drop the camera.

I would comment that i rarely use protective filters, but do use the lenshoods a lot. I have had flare problems with filters, and i tend towards the opinion that i didn't spend a lot of money on a high grade lens in order to degrade the image by adding extra bits of glass in front. Also, for most of my use i just don't need the extra protection: The only front element damage i have experienced was when i dropped my 70-200mm f/2.8 in a carpark (in a padded lowe-pro bag, with camera attached) about 12 inches with the front element landing flat on the asphalt. No scratches (it was in a lowe-pro bag), but the energy was enough to dislodge the front element from it's mount (and crush the lens cap) and cost me half the price of a new lens to get fixed (new element + norwegian labour prices). A filter would not have helped, it would just have made the accident even more expensive by breaking the filter in addition. For this kind of impact a lens hood is what i needed, but i was just getting everything out the car so it wasn't fitted.



Dec 26, 2014 at 06:40 AM
nrferguson
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #6 · p.3 #6 · UV filters, what do they do?


pipspeak wrote:
on film cameras they served a purpose other than physical protection (UV can affect film). On Digital cameras they serve only to protect the front element of the lens. Useful for some, pointless for others, opinions vary. As for image quality thay can have some effects but it can be impossible to tell the difference between a UV filtered image and a non-filtered image, especially when high-quality (expensive) multi-coated filters are used (B+W MRC, Hoya S-HMC and up).

I'm in the "I wish I could do without but am too scared that I'll ding my front ring/element" camp


+1



Jan 11, 2015 at 10:15 AM
1       2      
3
       end




FM Forums | General Gear-talk | Join Upload & Sell

1       2      
3
       end
    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username       Or Reset password



This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.