Uv Filter? no UV filter? - DPChallenge Forums

06/22/2006 03:38:29 PM · #1

im thinking if i should still buy one or not, i know its cheap, but still, is it worth having one?

after reading this Article i was second guessing if i should buy one, or not.
I didn't fully understand the article truthfully, sometimes i have a hard time following things.

What do you guys think?

Olympus 12-45mm f/4.0 Pro

06/22/2006 03:47:44 PM · #2

bump...

OdysseyF22

Panasonic DC-G9

06/22/2006 04:13:14 PM · #3

I have UV filters on all my lenses. Honestly, I didn't notice a real difference in the image quality after mounting the filters. I use them as an extra form of protection - something I picked up from the pro who mentored me this past year. When the cap is off, the filter is a safety net against scratches, raindrops, lens damage, etc.

The way it was described to me, "Would you rather have something happen and replace a $25 filter, or a $400 lens?"

Some photogs don't like the filter-safety idea, as they say it's another layer of glass between the sensor and the image (true, but negligable, in my experience) and because if it does break, it could scratch the lens anyway (and if it wasn't there, the lens would likey have been damaged to begin with, so what's the beef, IMO).

Hope this was helpful.

Tamron SP AF 24-135mm f/3.5-5.6 AD Aspherical IF for Canon

06/22/2006 04:20:15 PM · #4

I'm one of those anti-UV filter people. Placing a piece of glass in front of my lens (without a specific purpose) just isn't a good idea. Lens flare, distortions and color aberations are all concerns.

REAL UV filters have a purpose and the effects can be seen especially at long distances during the summer months. The UV protection filters don't do anything.

If you are going to buy a UV filter, buy a good filter that actually blocks UV light and use it appropriately. Don't place it on your lens like a permanent condom. Just be careful whee you stick your lens.

nards656

Canon EOS-300D Rebel

06/22/2006 05:04:15 PM · #5

If the advertisement for a lens said "We weld a $20 piece of glass to the front of the lens. It's not anywhere near as high quality as the lens you are paying $400 for, but we want you to protect the good glass." Would you still buy that lens? I think not.

If the difference is negligible, why does the lens manufacturer go to such trouble to make good glass?

No UV filter. JMO.

06/22/2006 05:05:00 PM · #6

what would be a good filter?, could i get a hood to get rid of the flare?

kosmikkreeper

Nikon D300s

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 ED

06/22/2006 05:09:17 PM · #7

I actually had UV filters on ALL my lenses and removed them about 6 months ago.... I did some test shots and there is a difference. And I bought expensive B&W UV filters not the cheepees.

Flare is the main reason why I don't use them but it does slightly affect image quality by dulling the contrasts.

Lens protection? Keep your lens cap on. :-)

BeeCee

Nikon D40

06/22/2006 05:11:24 PM · #8

I recently tested out a UV filter on a sunny day at the beach, shooting across the water to the lighthouse. Exactly the same shots, with and without filter. WithOUT was definitely better! I found NO difference in the things the UV filter is supposed to help with, but sharpness and clarity were definitely compromised with the addition of the extra glass.

Sigma 70-300mm f/4-5.6 APO Macro Super for Canon

06/22/2006 05:12:53 PM · #9

Originally posted by Elmakias:

what would be a good filter?, could i get a hood to get rid of the flare?

Keep the cap on the lens when you aren't using it. Put the hood on it when you are using it.

But, if you really want a UV filter that does something, go with one like this:
B&W Haze 010 MCR UV Filter.

or this
B&W Strong 415 UV Haze Filter

Message edited by author 2006-06-22 17:14:09.

nemesise1977

Canon EOS-300D Rebel

06/22/2006 05:16:33 PM · #10

I say use one, you should not see a diffrence in close up shots but it will help haze on long distance shots or high humidity days, I have minimal problems with abv or flare and it does help protect the front glass from stuff like lil kids fingers (I have a 14mth old) ect

marbo

Nikon D5000

06/22/2006 05:19:32 PM · #11

I wish i had my uv filter on when i took this.

But the holes burnt into my 18-55 kit lens didn`t effect it`s quality.
It was still crap, lol.

06/22/2006 05:30:23 PM · #12

Originally posted by marbo:

I wish i had my uv filter on when i took this.

But the holes burnt into my 18-55 kit lens didn`t effect it`s quality.
It was still crap, lol.

My coolpix 8700 got put into a similar cirumstance and got a few nicks with this: Industrial Bronze - Nudity warning

That might be a circumstance when I would reccomend a $10 UV filter :-)

marbo

Nikon D5000

06/22/2006 05:35:54 PM · #13

Except i had no naked babe on the end of my sparkler :)

Mick

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM

06/22/2006 05:40:20 PM · #14

IMHO, there are times when a â��sacrificialâ�� piece of glass on the front of the lens is a good idea, just to protect an expensive lens. However, every piece of glass the light has to pass through before it reaches the sensor adds some amount of refraction.

06/23/2006 01:37:35 AM · #15

Originally posted by marbo:

I wish i had my uv filter on when i took this.

But the holes burnt into my 18-55 kit lens didn`t effect it`s quality.
It was still crap, lol.

all i have is the 18-55, its crap? what makes it worse then other ones, truthfully its done me well..i just dont have enough money for anything better

what do most people use as a basic lens?
or is there no such thing?

Nikon AF-S Zoom-Nikkor 28-70mm f/2.8D IF-ED

06/23/2006 01:48:52 AM · #16

Originally posted by Elmakias:

Listen, if it gets the job done, it works. There is a lot of equipment envy around here. But, work with what you have. Know your needs before you go out and buy stuff you don't need.

I've got a 50mm f/1.8 - a tack sharp lens. Really nice lens and cheap too. It's the only lens that I'd say EVERY photographer needs to have. For no other reason than to be able to see the difference between tack-sharp and soft.

Gringo

Nikon D2X

06/23/2006 01:53:49 AM · #17

Definitely UV filters.

I guess for some it would depend on the environment they shoot.

I shoot in some pretty harsh conditions. I hike the mountains and work my way through the brush to get the perfect angle. I spend a lot of time in the desert where the sand blows and on the ocean where the salt water splashes on everything. I would have ruined every lens I have by now if I didnâ��t keep a protective filter on my lens. The lens glass is very soft and will scratch easy.

The only time you will catch me removing the filter to shoot, is indoors in very low light conditions where I wonâ��t have a high risk of things making contact with the front of the camera.

colda

Nikon D800

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8G ED

06/23/2006 03:03:18 AM · #18

I fully accept both side of the argument (image quality vs protection) and the approach I have taken is this - I use UV protection filters on my zooms (who cares, I'm already compromising optimum quality by using a zoom in the first place) but I don't use them on my primes.

06/23/2006 03:06:12 AM · #19

That's an interesting compromise :-)

crayon

Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra

06/23/2006 03:07:04 AM · #20

I use a Hoya UV filter, but only when I'm shooting at "high risk" environments - mainly for protection, and not for UV filtering purposes.

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8G ED

06/23/2006 03:10:11 AM · #21

Originally posted by crayon:

I use a Hoya UV filter, but only when I'm shooting at "high risk" environments - mainly for protection, and not for UV filtering purposes.

Like so?

crayon

Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra

06/23/2006 03:11:47 AM · #22

Originally posted by fotomann_forever:

Like so?

Uh... not THAT kinda protection, but close LOL

thegrandwazoo

Nikon D750

06/23/2006 03:12:17 AM · #23

Originally posted by fotomann_forever:

Originally posted by crayon:
I use a Hoya UV filter, but only when I'm shooting at "high risk" environments - mainly for protection, and not for UV filtering purposes.

Like so?

Oh dude your killing me ... must say ... can't ... not here

LMAO

marbo

Nikon D5000