| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/16/2010 05:04:41 PM · #1 |
| So I have a few lenses right now with NO filters on them. I understand that many keep a UV filter on the lenses to protect them against the same thing a protector filter was 'designed' for. So what is the real difference between these two filters in the field? |
|
|
|
02/16/2010 05:24:19 PM · #2 |
On a digital camera the answer that I've been able to find is this:
Digicams don't pick up UV like film did
however, there may be some minor improvement in haze,
but, this is usually more than lost due to the extra air/glass interface, which introduces more distortion into the whole affair.
Yeah, I think that's it...
Oh, there's also a healthy debate regarding the real value of protecting your lens at all with a filter, except for those lens that need a filter to be weathersealed.. That's of course, when there's not an active glass-hazard like blowing sand or something of that nature... Basically the argument is that the front element is much tougher than any filter... And the filter, when broken, could scratch your pretty little lens...
Personally I keep a filter on the lens unless I'm really going for stupid-sharpness, and don't want any interference... Also, consider a polarizer, they're heaven if you shoot landscapes, or water... |
|
|
|
02/16/2010 06:03:55 PM · #3 |
| A lens hood will protect your lens better than a filter in most cases. (IMO anyway) |
|
|
|
02/16/2010 07:57:19 PM · #4 |
I agree, I am what they call one of them purist when it comes to that. Only filters I use are ND and CP if the shot requires it. UV filters are useless unless as Cory mentioned you are in a sand storm or someplace where your lens stands a chance of coming in contact with abrasives like sand, pebbles, sparks, children or maybe a tree branch etc..
Originally posted by cpanaioti:
A lens hood will protect your lens better than a filter in most cases. (IMO anyway) |
Message edited by author 2010-02-16 19:57:55. |
|
|
|
02/16/2010 09:35:21 PM · #5 |
Last year an expensive lens dropped from my bag at waist height barrel down on to asphalt. Because it was in my bag, the hood was reverse mounted. Upon impact, the lens cap popped off and the filter bore the brunt shattering and the rim of it bending. Most importantly, no damage to the lens whatsoever.
I'm a believer. |
|
|
|
02/16/2010 11:06:18 PM · #6 |
Originally posted by photodude:
Last year an expensive lens dropped from my bag at waist height barrel down on to asphalt. Because it was in my bag, the hood was reverse mounted. Upon impact, the lens cap popped off and the filter bore the brunt shattering and the rim of it bending. Most importantly, no damage to the lens whatsoever.
|
I had a similar experience. The filter glass broke and the filter rim bent. I replaced the filter. |
|
|
|
02/17/2010 02:00:55 AM · #7 |
Originally posted by citymars:
Originally posted by photodude:
Last year an expensive lens dropped from my bag at waist height barrel down on to asphalt. Because it was in my bag, the hood was reverse mounted. Upon impact, the lens cap popped off and the filter bore the brunt shattering and the rim of it bending. Most importantly, no damage to the lens whatsoever.
|
I had a similar experience. The filter glass broke and the filter rim bent. I replaced the filter. |
Lesson here: Don't be clumsy with expensive lenses. |
|
|
|
02/17/2010 02:44:09 AM · #8 |
but being clumsy with cheap (?) lenses is fine?
The lesson here is that filters save you replacing a lens.
I'm wondering if anyone who objects to the usage of filters has done A/B comparisons with and without filtration on the same image?
I have. The difference is zero (to my eyes and to the histogram). But maybe it's because I have good filters... |
|
|
|
02/17/2010 02:56:57 AM · #9 |
|
|
|
02/17/2010 03:03:40 AM · #10 |
| If you want to protect the filter threads, you're better off buying a cheap UV filter, taking the glass out and mounting the ring to your lens. |
|
|
|
02/17/2010 09:07:48 AM · #11 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Lesson here: Don't be clumsy with expensive lenses. |
Actually, a passerby banged into me on the sidewalk -- the camera was in a shoulder bag. I was amazed at the damage. But yes, clumsy is bad. |
|
|
|
02/17/2010 11:01:28 AM · #12 |
As the author himself says, "This is, of course, one of those perpetual nit-picky arguments photographers indulge in." |
|
|
|
02/17/2010 11:26:21 AM · #13 |
| If you are not picky about your image quality, you will probably never notice the effect of a good UV filter. If you are even moderately picky and you look and compare with/without, however, you will see the difference. No filter is the best filter. Use the lens hood. And yes, there are better ways to protect the filter threads than putting more glass in the light path. |
|
|
|
02/17/2010 12:13:52 PM · #14 |
Originally posted by citymars:
As the author himself says, "This is, of course, one of those perpetual nit-picky arguments photographers indulge in." |
Exactly, but the flare from the filter is there. |
|
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: 12/25/2025 02:24:20 PM EST.
