to UV or not UV
May 11, 2016 10:42:40 #
I have seen a lot of discussions regarding use of UV and other filters.
Some folks say why bother, advances in lenses already filter UV light.
Others say Always.
I am here to say ALWAYS!
I have been making pictures for a looooooooooong time. Think Kodak Instamatic.
Today I took a pretty hard fall with my longest lens hanging from my neck.
I had one hand holding my dog on a leash
and another keeping me from planting my face in the mud.
As a result, my nice long lens took a hit. Not a big one, but it hit the soft mud at an angle just
right to scoop up some dirt. cant see it on the black but you can def see it and the scratches on the filter.
Ya better to trash a 20buck filter than a $900 lens
Some folks say why bother, advances in lenses already filter UV light.
Others say Always.
I am here to say ALWAYS!
I have been making pictures for a looooooooooong time. Think Kodak Instamatic.
Today I took a pretty hard fall with my longest lens hanging from my neck.
I had one hand holding my dog on a leash
and another keeping me from planting my face in the mud.
As a result, my nice long lens took a hit. Not a big one, but it hit the soft mud at an angle just
right to scoop up some dirt. cant see it on the black but you can def see it and the scratches on the filter.
Ya better to trash a 20buck filter than a $900 lens
May 11, 2016 10:48:37 #
RiverNan wrote:
Ya better to trash a 20buck filter than a $900 lens
Definitely!
May 11, 2016 10:54:11 #
I don't use them any longer. I do use the lens hood that usually keeps the lens protected from impact damage. It's easier to screw on a CP or ND filter if there isn't already a UV on there and UV's seem to cause more flare than no UV.
RiverNan wrote:
I have seen a lot of discussions regarding use of ... (show quote)
May 11, 2016 11:18:05 #
UV or not UV:
It depends on the lens structure. In high altitudes a good UV (ultraviolet) filter might be a necessity because the ultraviolet light has a shorter focal point and could make a double image.
More complex lenses - zooms in particular with 18 plus elements and even more glass (coated) surfaces might already absorb the UV light.
To make sure, for the use in high altitudes I would make a test, contact the manufacturer or optical glass experts.
It depends on the lens structure. In high altitudes a good UV (ultraviolet) filter might be a necessity because the ultraviolet light has a shorter focal point and could make a double image.
More complex lenses - zooms in particular with 18 plus elements and even more glass (coated) surfaces might already absorb the UV light.
To make sure, for the use in high altitudes I would make a test, contact the manufacturer or optical glass experts.
May 11, 2016 11:21:55 #
That's my feeling. In addition, I clean my filter surfaces regularly, the actual lenses about 3 times a year. The less a lens surface is touched, the better.
--Bob
--Bob
RiverNan wrote:
I have seen a lot of discussions regarding use of ... (show quote)
May 11, 2016 11:24:58 #
Why would you put a $20 filter on a $900 lens is the argument... If any filter, why not the finest / clearest? BTW - if you use only digital cameras, a 'clear' filter rather than UV is a filter option to consider ...
May 11, 2016 11:31:53 #
RiverNan wrote:
I have seen a lot of discussions regarding use of ... (show quote)
If you're going to walk a dog AND carry a camera & lens worth well over $900.00 bucks you couldn't have ENOUGH filters.
May 11, 2016 11:34:33 #
I don't generally use them, but do always use a lens hood and keep the lens cap on when not in use. The exception would be if I was at an event where there might be lots of debris flying, like a dirt bike race. But for normal day-to-day use, no, I don't use UV filters (and it is my understanding that the need to "filter" UV is a throwback to film days when UV light affected the film. Not an issue with todays digital sensors. See: http://www.dpreview.com/articles/7333331953/should-you-use-a-uv-filter-on-your-lens
Sigma has a new "ceramic" filter (not really a filter since it doesn't filter anything) that they claim is much stronger than normal chemically strengthened glass found in UV filters. This "filters" only purpose is to protect the lens. If someone were interested just in protecting the lens (which is understandable give the cost of some of today's lenses) you might want to check it out: http://www.sigmaphoto.com/77mm-wr-ceramic
Sigma has a new "ceramic" filter (not really a filter since it doesn't filter anything) that they claim is much stronger than normal chemically strengthened glass found in UV filters. This "filters" only purpose is to protect the lens. If someone were interested just in protecting the lens (which is understandable give the cost of some of today's lenses) you might want to check it out: http://www.sigmaphoto.com/77mm-wr-ceramic
May 11, 2016 12:47:48 #
I wouldn't spend any money on a UV filter w/o looking at the spectrum absorption curve. Glass absorbs most of the UV spectrum so the lens itself is a UV filter. A simple plane glass filter (high quality) is all that's needed to protect the front surface of the lens excepting anything other than a catastrophe.
May 11, 2016 12:49:39 #
suterjo wrote:
I wouldn't spend any money on a UV filter w/o looking at the spectrum absorption curve. Glass absorbs most of the UV spectrum so the lens itself is a UV filter. A simple plane glass filter (high quality) is all that's needed to protect the front surface of the lens excepting anything other than a catastrophe.
Or maybe a much harder clear ceramic filter like the new Sigma protector I posted about above. (Would be interested in hearing if anyone here has any experience or thoughts on these - think I'll start a separate thread)
May 11, 2016 14:15:04 #
RiverNan wrote:
I have seen a lot of discussions regarding use of ... (show quote)
Why are we starting this stale subject again? Either you use a filter or you don't. Those who say it adds no protection (I call them idiots) and say it degrades the image don't use them. Those who believe they add a measure of protection with little or no sacrifice in image quality do use them. Anecdotes, practical experience, science and facts don't seem to matter to either camp.
May 11, 2016 15:26:53 #
I don't like hoods due to bulk. I rarely use additional filters. I'm not expert to care or notice the with or without in terms of how it effects the images, I have always tried to protect my lens with UV or just glass filters. It is only the second time in my life that I have dropped or fell down with the camera and I can just say I am glad I had it on and now I need a new one.
Foathog that was hilarious and if you knew Marabella you would know how true that is.
Foathog that was hilarious and if you knew Marabella you would know how true that is.
May 11, 2016 15:45:42 #
RiverNan wrote:
I have seen a lot of discussions regarding use of ... (show quote)
So sorry about your mishap and hope you didn't get hurt. I just can not understand why I would put a $15.00 filter over my most expensive glass? I do use my hood and shoot in a studio mostly. My concern is not scratches but damage to my camera & lens when dropped. Obviously a filter would not prevent damage. I don't shoot outdoors a lot or on windy days, so lens scratch is not a biggie. I wonder how often lenses are damaged without using a UV filter? I have had lenses for decades with out any scratching. I wonder what the odds are of a lens being scratched?
May 11, 2016 18:39:13 #
They are like an insurance policy. You used it...
All of my lenses have a UV or 1A on them for that reason.
All of my lenses have a UV or 1A on them for that reason.
May 11, 2016 18:59:42 #
I always use a UV filter mainly for prorection and easier to clean than the element of a lens.
RiverNan wrote:
I have seen a lot of discussions regarding use of ... (show quote)
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.