clear or uv: hi all, bought the 7d m2 and the 16-35 2.8. I waited to buy a filter why i wated to get the filter beats me ,but anyway i just bought the b+w mrc nano "clear". I probibly...

wer224 Loc: Bergen county NewJersey

hi all, bought the 7d m2 and the 16-35 2.8. I waited to buy a filter why i wated to get the filter beats me ,but anyway i just bought the b+w mrc nano "clear". I probibly will be using this lens most of the time indoors, not to say i would not use it outdoors, with that said the question is should i have bought the uv instead of the clear filter ?.
I have read in different places that uv has no bering on digital it was a film issue is this correct? any thoughts will make my decision on the clear filter finalize my purchase. thanks again all !!!

blankmange Loc: down on the farm...

why do you need/want the filter?

wer224 Loc: Bergen county NewJersey

hi the basic reason is protection, the outer glass on this lens is so close to the edge i feel its so easy to get bumped or just finger prints on it, i'd rather buy another 130$ filter than a 1600$ lens if something happens.

bsprague Loc: Lacey, WA, USA

wer224 wrote:

.....I have read in different places that uv has no bering on digital it was a film issue is this correct? ....

Yes. At least none you will see.

rook2c4 Loc: Philadelphia, PA USA

wer224 wrote:

I have read in different places that uv has no bering on digital it was a film issue is this correct?

It is true uv light has no bearing on digital, but today's film isn't sensitive to uv either, and hasn't been sensitive to uv since the 1960's. For some photographers, old habits and notions never seem to go away, despite the facts.

Meganephron Loc: Fort Worth, TX

bsprague wrote:

Yes. At least none you will see.

I disagree. UV at altitude is quite strong and may cause haze. At sea level not such a problem. I have been at 18000 feet with and without UV on different cameras and it does make a difference there

DaveO Loc: Northeast CT

It's even worse at 100,000 feet.

bsprague Loc: Lacey, WA, USA

Meganephron wrote:

I disagree. UV at altitude is quite strong and may cause haze. At sea level not such a problem. I have been at 18000 feet with and without UV on different cameras and it does make a difference there

Most of us don't take a lot of pictures from 18000 feet. I'm a 5000 hour pilot and forgot that!

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

I use both clear and UV filters. You'll see a pleasing richer blue difference in a cloudless sky with a UV filter, even with a digital camera. Outside of a few situations, there is no difference on a digital camera. I share my EF lenses with film cameras and tend to have more UV filters than clear. All are for protection first.

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

Lens hood and lens cap will do a better job "protecting" the lens than any thin piece of glass ever could. That said, I use UV in certain situations, when there is some actual risk to the lens that the filter might mitigate, such as a sand storm (not that I shoot out in sand storms all that frequently).

I use high quality, multi-coated UV filters, precisely for the reason mentioned above. They also can help reduce atmospheric haze in some situations.

Not just high altitude either... UV was more of a problem at altitude with film, back in the day.... But with haze, there are times at any altitude when the UV filter might help, though it's a pretty subtle difference.

Rongnongno Loc: FL

Lenses are UV treated, this has nothing to do with digital or film. Read up about it.

The key question, why do you need a filter that does nothing? Protection? THAT is a joke.

Now if for whatever reason you still want a filter orient yourself toward a polarizing filter, at least you will have a benefit from it (but not always)...

Meganephron Loc: Fort Worth, TX

Rongnongno wrote:

Lenses are UV treated, this has nothing to do with digital or film. Read up about it.

The key question, why do you need a filter that does nothing? Protection? THAT is a joke.

Now if for whatever reason you still want a filter orient yourself toward a polarizing filter, at least you will have a benefit from it (but not always)...

Polarizers cost 1.5 - 2.0 f stops. They are useless if shooting towards or 180 degrees from sun. They do stop UV and in the right situation do wonders but are not universal.

Typical plane glass filters UV to a degree but the standard lens will not block as much as a designed UV filter. As for protecting the lens with a lens cap or hood.

When was the last time you took a picture with the lens cap on? Hoods offer minimal protection and if bumped hard will spring off. If you pay $2000 for a lens.

Protect it with a $50 UV filter. Nikon charges about $500 to fix a lens (a flat rate)

rook2c4 Loc: Philadelphia, PA USA

wer224 wrote:

hi the basic reason is protection, the outer glass on this lens is so close to the edge i feel its so easy to get bumped or just finger prints on it, i'd rather buy another 130$ filter than a 1600$ lens if something happens.

The only thing a filter could possibly protect is the front element, not the entire lens. Replacing the front element will cost far less than the lens as a whole. Of course if you drop your camera or lens, you may have problems far worse than a broken front element.

CHOLLY Loc: THE FLORIDA PANHANDLE!

wer224 wrote:

hi all, bought the 7d m2 and the 16-35 2.8. I wait... (show quote)

You don't need either for protection and UV is not going to be a problem unless as other have pointed out, you plan to shoot at altitude.

As for protection... as others have pointed out, that thin piece of glass is NOT as hard as the front element of your lens, meaning using a clear or uv filter for protection is like putting a piece of Saran Wrap on your windshield and expecting it to protect your car from rocks. Just a waste of money and it WILL degrade your image quality to boot!

Don't waste your time or money and don't let anyone here talk you into to doing so either....

SteveR Loc: Michigan

I would rather bang up the metal ring of a filter than my lens. It's as much for that as for the protection of the glass.