| Author | Thread |
|
|
09/04/2006 12:35:07 AM · #1 |
Do you use protective UV filters on your lenses? I have read tons of places where they recommend using them. They protect your lens from getting scratched, dirty, blah blah blah blah blah. I have also read some articles on why not to use them. Manufacturers put plenty of money in to the research that goes in to developing their lenses. The placement and shape of the glass, etc. To me, it almost seems like an amatuer would tell you "You're crazy to not use one", whereas maybe a professional might say "You're crazy if you do use one". So, what do you do? Do you use one or not? Can you notice a difference in quality? Do you use them for some situations, and not for others? Does it really destroy a photo if you are taking a picture in the direction of the sun? If you reply, please also include whether you shoot amatuer or professional, or maybe you have a money tree outside and so it doesn't matter if you use a protective filter or not.
Thanks in advance! |
|
|
|
09/04/2006 12:37:01 AM · #2 |
My theory - and I'm sure its just me, though I heard it from a fellow photographer ages ago:
If you pay hundreds of dollars for quality glass, do you really want to cover the front end with a bit of $20 glass?
|
|
|
|
09/04/2006 12:37:31 AM · #3 |
Nope don't believe in putting anything in front of my glass unless it has a specific reason for being there.
Message edited by author 2006-09-04 00:39:00.
|
|
|
|
09/04/2006 12:37:55 AM · #4 |
Originally posted by idnic:
My theory - and I'm sure its just me, though I heard it from a fellow photographer ages ago:
If you pay hundreds of dollars for quality glass, do you really want to cover the front end with a bit of $20 glass? |
couldn't agree with this more. |
|
|
|
09/04/2006 12:38:28 AM · #5 |
I never use them. Amateur, and in about 40 years with (D)SLRs I've never scratched a lens. But I do use the lens cap and hood.
|
|
|
|
09/04/2006 12:41:51 AM · #6 |
Well, the voting is so far unanimous, and I'm sure the replies will continue coming in the same. I have only been shooting for a year or so now, and was sold them when I bought my camera. I have never had the opportunity to converse one on one with a professional photographer, so it never really hit me until my wife read the article saying not to use them and told me about it. I appreciate all of you comments so far.
Message edited by author 2006-09-04 00:43:13. |
|
|
|
09/04/2006 12:47:48 AM · #7 |
Originally posted by traquino98:
I have only been shooting for a year or so now, and was sold them when I bought my camera. |
Quoting Thom Hogan at his website, "There's a tendency amongst amateur photographers to put UV or Skylight filters on the front of every lens they own. This tendency is encouraged by photo dealers, who, as they ring up your expensive new toy add "and you want a skylight filter to protect that lens, right?"
"The reason the dealer asks this is simple: it's a way to increase their profit. Mail order outfits such as B&H and Adorama have made it difficult for local dealers to charge list price on lenses (though some still manage). For example, the markup on a 24-85mm AF-S lens is quite small, meaning that the dealer might make only $50 on your purchase. The markup on a $30 filter can be as high as 80%. By selling you that filter, the dealer can make another $24 on the sale, increasing his profit by 50%." |
|
|
|
09/04/2006 12:52:14 AM · #8 |
Interestingly, the filters on my camera go behind the lens. But it's a little point and shoot, not DSLR or anything normal.
|
|
|
|
09/04/2006 12:54:30 AM · #9 |
On my Nikkor 18-70mm - yes, I do use a filter. I have almost no money, and protecting my lens matters a lot. Photography is much more the photographer than the camera or lens- I don't believe that the UV filter makes a noticeable difference whatsoever in a photo; unless, maybe, if it's being printed in the several foot dimension range. My question is: If you spend hundreds/thousands on a lens, why wouldn't you drop at least $20 for that added insurance? The UV filter has another useful purpose: I can clean it with my T-shirt. I shoot often in the rain (I love weathersealing :-) ) and despite using a hood, water sometimes lands on the glass. If it were the front element exposed, I would need a special cloth or lens paper to clean it from water/dust, which I often must do.
The filter has saved my lens once already, when a persons hand with a ring gave it quite a hard tap. My friend  fatLouie has already placed a nice, permenant circle on the front element of his 18-70mm. You can barely see it, which is quite fortunate, and more importantly, fatLouie is a great photographer. The resale value of his lens is greatly hurt, however, if he ever decides to move up to the fancier lenses and sell his 18-70.
The only lens I have on which I routinely remove the filter is my Micro-Nikkor 60mm f/2.8D. The reason being that the main element is severely recessed, as you can see in the picture, into the lens body. When focusing very close, the main element emerges almost all the way out, but during normal shooting the UV filter only causes glare.
If I had a very expensive lens, I would look into very expensive filters. I would not, unless I had lots of cash, however, wander around without a filter at all.
That's just me, a young ameteur speaking. |
|
|
|
09/04/2006 01:05:05 AM · #10 |
yes, i use filters on all of my lenses, and i am glad. two weeks ago, my camera slipped out of my hand when i was taking it off of y tripod, and fell to the floor, shattering the uv filter i had screwed on. if i had not had it on, the rim of the lens would have taken the impact, taking the replacement cost from $10 to $200.
|
|
|
|
09/04/2006 01:08:13 AM · #11 |
Interestingly - when I read the manual for the nikkor 70-200/2.8 it recommended putting a filter on the front.
|
|
|
|
09/04/2006 01:10:27 AM · #12 |
| Yup. On all my lenses... And I'm glad that I do, becuase I've had to replace scratched filters before... |
|
|
|
09/04/2006 01:23:18 AM · #13 |
| At the least I would put one on for times I'm shooting where salt water spray or sand could hit the front element. I may consider removing a uv filter if I were shooting in a controlled situation. |
|
|
|
09/04/2006 01:37:27 AM · #14 |
Originally posted by idnic:
If you pay hundreds of dollars for quality glass, do you really want to cover the front end with a bit of $20 glass? |
This is one of the usually quoted reasons as to why some people don't use filters. While it might sound logical, I think a filter is priced at only a tiny fraction of the lens, not because the glass is poor, but because it doesn't involve extra production/design costs as beared by a normal lens - things like AF, aperture, IS.... many things that goes into a construction of a lens.
My take is, a good quality filter do not degrade the quality of your image. I do, however, agree that cheap filters MAY degrade quality. |
|
|
|
09/04/2006 01:41:44 AM · #15 |
Originally posted by crayon:
My take is, a good quality filter do not degrade the quality of your image. I do, however, agree that cheap filters MAY degrade quality. |
Problem is: Good quality UV filters don't cost $20. The cost more like $80 and up.
|
|
|
|
09/04/2006 01:45:33 AM · #16 |
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
Originally posted by crayon:
My take is, a good quality filter do not degrade the quality of your image. I do, however, agree that cheap filters MAY degrade quality. |
Problem is: Good quality UV filters don't cost $20. The cost more like $80 and up. |
Yup, so the win-win solution is to go out and invest in a good quality filter :) |
|
|
|
09/04/2006 02:07:01 AM · #17 |
lol... not quite win win... $100 lens with $80 filter? hmmmz... something's not quite right :P obviously this would make sense with the more expensive lenses...
might have to do some test shots and actually compare the quality difference in the kit lens with, without UV filter... anybody wanna send me one :P |
|
|
|
09/04/2006 02:25:31 AM · #18 |
speaking of protection of knocks/non-fatal drops...
I broke my UV filter long ago, and instead of throwing it away (I'm sentimental) I removed the glass and kept the "ring" over my lens. I think that does provide some small level of protection, doesn't it? Maybe if I put enough of those there, I don't need a lens hood too! |
|
|
|
09/04/2006 03:06:57 AM · #19 |
I did a little test with my 28-75 with and without the UV filter at different apertures, and haven't used the UV filter since. Anything I can do to help my pictures without really endangering my stuff, why not. It doesn't really make a huge difference, but it sucks up a little light and some sharpness you can see at 100%.
//jonbuder.com/temp/filtertest/
I've never dropped any of my SLR lenses/bodies, but I threw my point and shoots around a lot with no adverse effects, and I don't treat any of my stuff like it was made out of porcelian or anything. It's just equipment, if anything breaks it won't be the end of the world. |
|
|
|
09/04/2006 03:24:52 AM · #20 |
Originally posted by MadMan2k:
I did a little test with my 28-75 with and without the UV filter at different apertures, and haven't used the UV filter since. Anything I can do to help my pictures without really endangering my stuff, why not. It doesn't really make a huge difference, but it sucks up a little light and some sharpness you can see at 100%.
//jonbuder.com/temp/filtertest/
I've never dropped any of my SLR lenses/bodies, but I threw my point and shoots around a lot with no adverse effects, and I don't treat any of my stuff like it was made out of porcelian or anything. It's just equipment, if anything breaks it won't be the end of the world. |
No offense, but in your examples the pictures look identical in quality. The only difference is how the white balance metered out. The sharpness is identical. I have seen tests however that show degraded quality caused by UV filters, but I can't seem to remember any links. |
|
|
|
09/04/2006 03:49:17 AM · #21 |
as someone has pointed out and i tend to agree, a filter is a planner glass, not much goes into its manufacturing where the lens is made of many elements each with expensive manufacturing process and design.
so it would make sense that a filter is only a fraction of a price of a lens.... whether it effects quality i have yet to see a proof of that..
i think its all psychological... i've also notice a sort of a trend amongst photographers.. they tend to seek what the "PRO"'s do and follow...
|
|
|
|
09/04/2006 03:50:37 AM · #22 |
| MadMan2k thanx for posting that... to me and i might be wrong they look identical.. |
|
|
|
09/04/2006 04:29:50 AM · #23 |
| I did an intro to photography course recently and we were told to put uv filters on as permanent because of the light in South Africa. The course was run by a professional still and TV camera man. I did drop the camera once and was glad only the filter shattered! |
|
|
|
09/04/2006 04:45:52 AM · #24 |
madman2k: could you post up some 100% crops of those pics? curious to see if their is a sharpness difference, as the pics you supplied look pretty similar.
thanks |
|
|
|
09/04/2006 05:06:44 AM · #25 |
Originally posted by diablo2097:
madman2k: could you post up some 100% crops of those pics? curious to see if their is a sharpness difference, as the pics you supplied look pretty similar.
thanks |
we all could easily do our own tests.
I cant just yet coz like I said earlier, I broke mine during a drop. |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Prints! -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/24/2024 04:15:50 AM EDT.
