| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/12/2004 02:43:25 PM · #1 |
Is it normal to keep a filter, such as a UV filter, on your camera when shooting, especially for outside photography? Do these provide extra protection from the elements?
Message edited by author 2004-11-12 14:44:20. |
|
|
|
11/12/2004 02:49:30 PM · #2 |
Yes.
I keep one on all of my lenses.
|
|
|
|
11/12/2004 02:50:39 PM · #3 |
What kind? Do all 62mm filters fit on an average lens (18-70, 70-300)?
Message edited by author 2004-11-12 14:52:16. |
|
|
|
11/12/2004 02:57:53 PM · #4 |
Originally posted by kidchico:
What kind? Do all 62mm filters fit on an average lens (18-70, 70-300)? |
Well yes I have one UV filter on each of all my different size lens, right up to my 62MM Each different lens size requires a different filter (at least the screw thread type):-) Just so much safer for me to take off the UV filter and make sure it is clean (in a nice safe environment). If I know I am going to be in really extermine conditions and still think I will want to switch lens I leave the 1.4 convert attached to the camera body. Which I grant is extreme, but at least no (less) water is getting into my 10D.
Message edited by author 2004-11-12 14:59:02. |
|
|
|
11/12/2004 03:01:17 PM · #5 |
Ben,
The filter size (62 mm) is the diamater of the filter. It fits any lens that has a 60 mm diameter of the business end of the lens. There are several different lens diamenters and each needs a different or matching size filter. I have 2 58mm lenses, 1 72 mm and 1 55 mm and four filters to match them.
I also keep a neutral density or UV filter on each lense mostly to protect them from damage. Filters are a lot cheaper to replace then lenses. |
|
|
|
11/12/2004 03:12:50 PM · #6 |
I do keep the UV filter on all the time. Just for protection. Sometimes when I am handling the camera, the filter does come in contact with even metal surfaces. I wouldn't want that to happen to the front element of the lens. Also, I am more comfortable cleaning a filter than a lens. If lenses were as cheap as the UV filters, I wouldn't really mind :)
I use 2 lenses and they are 52mm and 62mm thread size. I also keep the lens hood on in most cases, not just to avoid flare, but to protect glass too. |
|
|
|
11/12/2004 03:19:43 PM · #7 |
John Shaw doesn't recommend using them, but lots of other people do. There's no right or wrong answer, and lots of heated debate. Just for the record, I used to keep a promaster multicoated filter on my lenses on all times. I've had a few shots which I noticed were sharper with the filter off, and I've noticed the filter can cause artifacts in certain lighting.
Moral of the story is, if you're going to keep a filter on a nice piece of glass, make sure it's a high quality filter, or you're just down-grading your lens. B&H filters are highly regarded, as are others. You get what you pay for, and each image is as good as the wekest link in your chain.
If you're just beating around the woods, or you know you're going somewhere the lens will take on spray (like Niagara Falls - made a mess of mine!) then go ahead and use a sacrifical filter to protect the lens. If you're taking a critical shot in a clean environment, I'd let the lens breathe real air.
|
|
|
|
11/13/2004 12:07:30 PM · #8 |
| So what brand of filters do you all use? Does the 62mm fit on the 18-70 kit lens? And what size of filter for lens in this description: //tinyurl.com/4rwrw |
|
|
|
11/13/2004 12:18:04 PM · #9 |
The 18-70 uses a 67mm
the 70-300 uses a 62mm
I always use a filter. Cheaper to replace than a lens. Don't use cheap filters. Remember that that is the first part of your camera that light reaches. |
|
|
|
11/13/2004 12:21:29 PM · #10 |
| I have recently found that my pictures are much softer with the UV filter on than when off so now, even though I keep the filter on at all times when not shooting, I take it off and put the filter in it's protective case when I'm about to meter and take the picture. When I get a better camera I will certainly invest in high quality, double sides multi-coated UV filters to play it safe, but probably will take it off when I'm ready to take the picture anyway. This way, when I do want to take pictures in inclement weather or extreme conditions, I will have something on their to protect the front lens element but something that will provide minimal effect on the image. |
|
|
|
11/13/2004 01:11:32 PM · #11 |
| The only time that I use filters is when I am shooting motorsports and I am very close to the track. Every so often a car will kick up debris as it passes so I want to protect the front element. Other than that... it's rare that I shoot with one on. |
|
|
|
11/13/2004 01:14:32 PM · #12 |
If I'm in a windy/dusty environment I use a filter. Otherwise I leave the hood on for protection since I usually don't use a flash.
|
|
|
|
11/13/2004 01:25:11 PM · #13 |
Filters are a matter of choice and what you are shooting.
I was told when you can afford to replace a lens cause you scratched it then you can stop using a filter.
The one thing to keep in mind other than putting a uv or sky filter on each of your lenses, is all your other filters should be the size of your largest lens. You can alway use a step up ring and won't have to buy the same filter over and over for each of your lenses.
|
|
|
|
11/13/2004 02:02:48 PM · #14 |
I know of the general recommendation to get all the other filters the size of your largest lens. But I don't really understand it. I tend to have my hoods on all the time and you can't fit a filter that is larger than the hood. Perhaps I am the one who is so stupid to always shoot with lenshoods on.
|
|
|
|
11/13/2004 02:08:51 PM · #15 |
| Why add another glass surface to increase the chance of flare? Plus unless you spend quite a lot on the filter the quality of the filter doesn̢۪t even come close to the quality of the lens, and think of the weakest link in the chain mentality. Most are not even multi-coated, and almost all will lower contrast. Unless you are in harsh conditions, like at the beach in high wind, there is no need for the filter. Specifically for digital the UV filtering is not as critical as in film camera since most CCD filter packs have UV filters incorporated. Last but not least a good lens hood will better protect the lens from damage far better than the filter can. |
|
|
|
11/13/2004 02:34:22 PM · #16 |
From Schneider Optics (B + W Filters):
Most... filter manufacturers start with ordinary window glass that has been poured in thin sheets and cooled quickly, introducing internal flaws. B+W filters, on the other hand, start with a cylinder of Schott German optical glass from which the filters are diamond cut, precision ground, and then polished to ensure flatness on both surfaces and uniform thickness throughout. Every B+W filter is interferometrically tested for plane parallelism. This process is used routinely by the world̢۪s leading lens makers, but only rarely by filter manufacturers.
To reduce unwanted reflection and lens flare, which can seriously degrade the image contrast and resolution, we give our filters a coating on both sides. This guarantees that the high MTF performance of your lens is maintained exactly as the lens manufacturer intended it. You can also request filters with the new Multi Resistant Coating (MRC) developed by B+W which provides greater durability than the prior multi-coating process.
Finally, most B+W screw-in filters are mounted in a matte black, corrosion-free brass ring, further reducing surface reflections and minimizing distortion or binding of the filter to the lens, even during rapid temperature changes. All filters must pass manual as well as automated tests to insure that each and every one that leaves the factory meets our critical standards.
|
|
|
|
11/13/2004 03:48:28 PM · #17 |
Originally posted by OneSweetSin:
I was told when you can afford to replace a lens cause you scratched it then you can stop using a filter. |
This is the statement I think needs to be heeded the most.
Filters can be taken on and off as needed for conditions, but if the above applies to you...who cares, right. I personally want to keep my investment at the best possible condition possible, so I have the UV filter on them all. Depending on the conditions, they come off. I do a bunch of bushbashing, and off the beaten trail type of hiking, etc. NEEDED for then for sure.
B+W's on mine.
Message edited by author 2004-11-13 15:48:52.
|
|
|
|
11/13/2004 04:06:25 PM · #18 |
|
|
|
11/13/2004 04:13:29 PM · #19 |
Originally posted by jmlelii:
Does B+W have a website? |
See the link in my post below (or above, depending on your sorting order).
|
|
|
|
11/13/2004 04:49:58 PM · #20 |
Besides better insurance for protecting your lenses than a filter would be actual insurance. Most homeowner policies will protect you from loss due to theft or a variety of accidents. Also if your not a homeowner or just want more coverage there are many companies that will insure your equipment. Just check the back of a photo magazine such as Shutterbug for several vendors.
To me putting a filter on your lens is like driving a Ferrari without ever getting it out of first gear. Sure you might get where your going, but did you get ALL the performance you could out of it? No way.
|
|
|
|
11/13/2004 04:50:38 PM · #21 |
| I guess it all depends on your priorities. If I had two bags, one with my carry around camera equipment (about $4000 worth of stuff) or another bag with a days worth of shots (film or memory cards it doesn̢۪t matter), if I had to lose one it would be the equipment bag. You can replace equipment, but you can̢۪t replace your photographs. Sure you can sometimes reshoot, but that is NOT replacing them. |
|
|
|
11/13/2004 06:02:33 PM · #22 |
I borrowed the August 2004 Popular Photography mag from the library. One article is "4 filters every photographer should have (yes, even you digital shooters!)"
viz. Polarizer filter, 81A warming filter, Daylight flourescent filter, Skylight 1A filter.
The first three are for special shooting conditions. The last one is the one recommended for lens protection, with a UV Haze filter offered as an alternative. |
|
|
|
11/13/2004 09:12:04 PM · #23 |
Originally posted by hyperfocal:
Most homeowner policies will protect you from loss due to theft or a variety of accidents. |
Check you homeowner's policy. If your deductable is larger than your lens cost, you have a problem. In addition, do you really want to make a claim on homeowners for your $300 lens? Can you say "rate increase"?
Get a personal articles policy for your camera gear. Claims will not go against your homeowners.
Clara |
|
|
|
11/13/2004 09:32:41 PM · #24 |
Also I have heard many stories where people claimed a loss on their camera equipment with their home owners policy, only to find that they are denied renewal.
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 09/13/2025 09:43:11 AM EDT.
