I have a brand new canon 24-105L lens and want to protect it with a uv filter. I'll probably buy a B&W since forum members seem to give that brand high marks.
Here are my questions:
Some uv filters are listed as "multi coated" while others aren't. What are the advantages/disadvantages of each?
If I leave the filter on all the time will I experience any problems when shooting with a flash?
Multi coated filters reduce flare and improve transmission of light through the glass, just as coatings do on lenses. You don't want to compromise nice glass with a cheap filter.
Whether or not you really want to use a filter solely for lens protection is another often discussed and debated issue.
what are you protecting it from with the filter that the hood wouldn't do ?
Also given the expensive cost of a B+W filter, you might want to worry about protecting that filter with another cheaper filter to make sure nothing happens to your expensive filter
Flash won't really pose any more or less problems than any other light source with a filter though, and as long as its on camera even less as the direction of your light source is coming from behind the lens. Filters usually have problems with light sources off to the sides or above below as it can cause some internal reflection off the glass or lower contrast. Also for bright direct sources like the sun, you may see more issues with flare. Usually with a good multi coated modern filters its not a big factor anymore
I've come to think that the only thing a UV filter "protect" are camera dealer profits. I have several of Nikons' most expensive f2.8 zooms but don't use UV filters on any of them. First, they have caused me problems with flare & ghosting in the past, particularly with flash shots. (I do a lot of mega-flash shots with both monolights and up to x10 Nikon SB flash.) Second, I've figured out that if I were to place a filter on all my lenses, the cost would be about twice what a repair would be! Use the lens cap. This is much tougher than a flimsy piece of glass. It was designed to protect the lens. Also use your lens hood. That's actually even better protection than a filter could ever be. I photo almost exclusively outdoors, in some of the most extreme conditions (that's when the best photo opportunities seem to occur! ) My lenses are perfect. Never had a single mark on a lens with one exception. The one exception was when I had my Nikon 80-400mm VR lens + camera mounted on tripod and wind blew it over, "face" first. The polarizer I had on the lens smashed and the shards scratched up my lens badly. I not only had to repair the lens, I also lost an expensive filter. If I had put the lens cap on, the lens would have been undamaged. Filters are just a scam, 90% of the time.
In my experience as a mega-flash photographer, filters actually can cause problems often enough that it becomes very frustrating.
. . . On the exact flip side, I've seen photographers who've purchased a UV filter, dropped the camera or fell, and the impact was on the filter and not the front lens elements. I've seen photogs come into the local camera shop happy that all they have to do is replace a cracked UV filter, and I've seen crying photographers walk in with a cracked front element on expensive glass. You really can't predict when an accident will happen.
In those instances, I'd say invest in a nice UV filter.
Two23 wrote:
I've come to think that the only thing a UV filter "protect" are camera dealer profits. I have several of Nikons' most expensive f2.8 zooms but don't use UV filters on any of them. First, they have caused me problems with flare & ghosting in the past, particularly with flash shots. (I do a lot of mega-flash shots with both monolights and up to x10 Nikon SB flash.) Second, I've figured out that if I were to place a filter on all my lenses, the cost would be about twice what a repair would be! Use the lens cap. This is much tougher than a flimsy piece of glass. It was designed to protect the lens. Also use your lens hood. That's actually even better protection than a filter could ever be.. If I had put the lens cap on, the lens would have been undamaged. Filters are just a scam, 90% of the time.
Kent in SD...Show more →
+1, not to mention the image degradation by forcing the light to travel through 2 additional glass surfaces. Do a controlled test with and without even the best UV filter and compare your results, it's a law of physics that's at work, not just subjective opinions.
My experience is exactly like Two23's, never had a mark on any glass I've owned and I'll use lens hoods 95% of the time. The only filter I have in my bag is a CirPol. If you're shooting anywhere there's dust and grit flying around, then obviously use a filter. But I agree this is a photographic industry that plays on people's fears and paranoia, but do the test yourself and if you can live with the image degradation, more power to you.
Nickle S. wrote:
Do a controlled test with and without even the best UV filter and compare your results...
I did and you're wrong.
It's certainly conceivable that there would be times when a filter could cause problems when shooting with flash... just as there may be times when a protective filter is needed (on a beach in blowing sand shooting fill flash comes to mind). In the end, common sense would be the most important tool.
It's certainly conceivable that there would be times when a filter could cause problems when shooting with flash... just as there may be times when a protective filter is needed (on a beach in blowing sand shooting fill flash comes to mind). In the end, common sense would be the most important tool.
Greg
My test showed definite loss of detail with a filter, countless others have seen the same results.
Are you saying that your filter has defied and shattered the laws of optics-physics or that you just can't see the difference? If it's the latter, then that's fine. But it can't be the former and you are wrong to say otherwise.
Like so many others, you are approaching the discussion from an absolute perspective. Again, common sense needs to be applied. Like lenses, cameras, and most things in life there are good filters and not so good. And there are times when a filter is needed and when a filter is more trouble than it's worth.
About your "laws of physics"... I have a 70-200 that resolves better with a L37C mount to it than without. Carefully tested on 1325/BH-55 using solid testing methods (MLU w/MC-30, high contrast target, etc.). Please post proof of how that's not possible in a lens/filter combo.
internal filters are part of the optical design. external ones usually aren't but sometimes are. when they are required, they come with the lens.
Herb...
bitmaker wrote:
About your "laws of physics"... I have a 70-200 that resolves better with a L37C mount to it than without. Carefully tested on 1325/BH-55 using solid testing methods (MLU w/MC-30, high contrast target, etc.). Please post proof of how that's not possible in a lens/filter combo.
bitmaker wrote:
Like so many others, you are approaching the discussion from an absolute perspective. Again, common sense needs to be applied. Like lenses, cameras, and most things in life there are good filters and not so good. And there are times when a filter is needed and when a filter is more trouble than it's worth.
About your "laws of physics"... I have a 70-200 that resolves better with a L37C mount to it than without. Carefully tested on 1325/BH-55 using solid testing methods (MLU w/MC-30, high contrast target, etc.). Please post proof of how that's not possible in a lens/filter combo.
Greg
This topic has been forumed to death over at dpreview, P.O.T.N, Nikonians, Luminous Landscape and others. Believe me, you are the first person to proclaim better resolution with a filter, thereby shattering centuries-old laws of optics. Well done.
From the owner/administrator of www.cambridgeincolour.com : "From a strictly technical perspective, a UV filter certainly cannot increase image quality, since it introduces two additional layers of glass and one of air between your camera's sensor and the subject."
In all of these threads, and there are thousands more on this topic, cheaper filters will degrade image quality without a doubt. Top-of-the-line filters do degrade images mainly toward the edges, but to a much lesser degree. If you are a certified pixel-peeper (like me), then don't use them. If you're not a pixel-peeper, then use them.
Sid Ceaser wrote:
. . . On the exact flip side, I've seen photographers who've purchased a UV filter, dropped the camera or fell, and the impact was on the filter and not the front lens elements. I've seen photogs come into the local camera shop happy that all they have to do is replace a cracked UV filter, and I've seen crying photographers walk in with a cracked front element on expensive glass. You really can't predict when an accident will happen.
In those instances, I'd say invest in a nice UV filter.
And a good quality filter is going to run as much as the repair on the front element in most cases.
Additionally, the front elements are far tougher than the filter so an impact that will destroy the filter actually might not have damaged the front element.
Plus, generally if your drop a lens from 3 or 4 feet onto a hard surface, filter or not, you'd probably want to get it checked out anyways as you might have decentered an element.
A thin filter ring just is not a very good form of shock absorption.
Nickle S. wrote:
...cheaper filters will degrade image quality without a doubt.
Agreed. Cheap filters are just... cheap. Sadly, that's what the camera sales people Kent mentioned earlier will sell the newbs. Alot of junk filters out there that did nothing but make the retailer richer.
Nickle S. wrote:
Top-of-the-line filters do degrade images, but to a much lesser degree.
Again, my tests on certain lens/camera combos have proven otherwise. It's not a simple back/white issue. My 17-55 performs best nekked at all FL's and apertures, my 70-200 likes its L37C.
millsart wrote:
And a good quality filter is going to run as much as the repair on the front element in most cases.
Additionally, the front elements are far tougher than the filter so an impact that will destroy the filter actually might not have damaged the front element.
Plus, generally if your drop a lens from 3 or 4 feet onto a hard surface, filter or not, you'd probably want to get it checked out anyways as you might have decentered an element.
A thin filter ring just is not a very good form of shock absorption.
Your points are correct, but not everyone shares your definition of "protection". I'm not so naive as to hope a filter would protect a front element from high impact damage (bent ring, shattered glass being forced into the front element... yuck!). My definition of a protective filter is one that prevents the front element from being exposed to ugly stuff like blowing sand, salt spray, etc. For impact protection certainly a hood can be expected to do more (fingers crossed... I don't want to test this) than a filter.
Anyone considering buying a filter should be willing to:
1) Spend the money on top quality. Today's DSLRs and lenses are capable of delivering wonderful performance. Cheap filters will only degrade what they offer us.
2) Buy then test. If a new filter isn't acceptable then return it.
3) Accept that a filter offers virtually zero impact "protection". In fact, quite the opposite.
Sid Ceaser wrote:
. . . On the exact flip side, I've seen photographers who've purchased a UV filter, dropped the camera or fell, and the impact was on the filter and not the front lens elements. .
A few years ago I had a NIkon 80-400mm VR lens on F100 camera, mounted on tripod. I was working on uneven ground. No lens hood or lens cap on lens, but did have a B+W polarizer on it. A 60 mph gust of wind caught the camera and blew it over, and it landed "face down" on the lens. The filter shattered, and shards of glass scratched the heck out of my lens. The camera mount also broke off. Lens was sent in for repair, and it turns out that the cost to replace the front element was $85. Cost to replace the B+W mrc polarizer was $120. The filter cost more than the lens element! If I had put the lens cap on, I have no doubt there would have been no damage to the glass at all.
Oddly, the result I get from my Tamron 90/2.5 lens has less flare/ghosting when I have a Contax 1A MC filter on it compared to going without any filter at all. I was not expecting this at all.
