UV vs Haze (Page 2): I think they are too small for coasters. I bought The Godfather 3 DVD set. I watch 1 and 2 and use 3 for my coaster.

Rab-Eye Loc: Indiana

David Kay wrote:

Actually, I use both for coasters. They work well to protect my furniture.

I think they are too small for coasters. I bought The Godfather 3 DVD set. I watch 1 and 2 and use 3 for my coaster.

broncomaniac Loc: Lynchburg, VA

daldds wrote:

My filters are (too expensive) polarizing.

I just got a Hoya circular polarizer among many others things. I have high hopes for it.

dcampbell52 Loc: Clearwater Fl

broncomaniac wrote:

I searched here and on Google for reviews and comparisons before posting here because I didn't want to be redundant. Not much luck.

I have 42 filters, which I have assigned to various lenses. I normally keep a UV on each lens but Now I have UV/HAZE filters and I'd love to hear which, if any, other photography buffs use and why. I'd also like to read your thoughts on Tiffen, Hoya and Sunpak filters.

Thanks for looking.

Shooting digital, I only have or need a couple of filters and they are polarizers. Everything else can be worked in Lightroom.

ltcarizona

I myself use filters, UV, Clear and Polarize. I often find myself shooting into people going by. My lens in those situations has been saved by a filter. And no there are some excellent made filters out there. They are extremely strong contrary to others who have said otherwise. Hoya for example makes an extra tempered glass. I personally use only B&W filters on my Pro Nikons. If you are worried about your lens be affected by a filter go with the filters with Nano coating, etc., and then use only a clear photo. And yes there are different strengths of UV filters that do filter out the excess blue (called haze) in mountain areas, but sometimes you are better using photoshop to do the same thing depending on your ability using photoshop. UV(0) from top quality companies like B&W (German in this case) do not affect color quality of your photographs since they are no different from clear in most cases.

While it is true that depending on the quality of the filter it could affect you photo quality, use of the highest quality of filters reduce this to zero. After all those who promote the use of polarizing filters can also do the same in photoshop especially if they are shooting in raw.

mborn Loc: Massachusetts

I do not use UV or Haze filters I utilize Dehaze in ACR or LR

papakatz45 Loc: South Florida-West Palm Beach

billnikon wrote:

I use NiSi filters in graduated ND and ND filters for effect. Haze and UV filters have no business being on your lens. Lenses are manufactured without these filters attached, and the reason is that lenses are designed to work at their best WITHOUT a UV or HAZE filter. The newest from Nikon is a hardened outer lens coating that allows for easy cleaning. Any filter, regardless of manufacture, degrades IQ of the lens. End of story.

A high quality clear filter will NOT degrade picture quality to the point that you can see but they DO provide some protection. Cost differential? How much glass is in a filter vs how much glass and hardware in a lens? Of course the lens cost more.

bpulv Loc: Buena Park, CA

daldds wrote:

I have a great deal of difficulty with the idea of putting a two figure piece of glass in front of a four figure lens. If you need protection while traveling, there is the lens cap that came with the lens. Other than shooting in a sand storm or something of that nature, I can think of no reason with a digital camera. My photography is both travel and street. My filters are (too expensive) polarizing.

I agree. My philosophy is that the only time you should use a filter is when there is a photographic/artistic reason to do so. That being said, UV and Skylight (Kodak's Designation) filters were designed to cut some of the blue appearing haze caused by the ultraviolet sensitivity of color film. I personally never found them very effective and instead used polarizing filters which can really cut through haze.

For digital photography as has been said, a UV filter has no photographic/artistic purpose, therefore I do not use them. By the same token, I only use a clear filter for lens protection in sandstorms and, I can't remember the last time I was in one. The main protection for your glass should be your lens hood, which does serve a photographic purpose, and a lens cap.

mcveed Loc: Kelowna, British Columbia (between trips)

papakatz45 wrote:

A high quality clear filter will NOT degrade picture quality to the point that you can see but they DO provide some protection. Cost differential? How much glass is in a filter vs how much glass and hardware in a lens? Of course the lens cost more.

Any filter can increase flare when the camera is at certain angles to a light source.

2Much Loc: WA

broncomaniac wrote:

... UV/HAZE filters and I'd love to hear which, if any, other photography buffs use and why...

Someone posted this link a while back. It speaks to your question, and postulates why this subject might be "kicking the beehive".

https://digital-photography-school.com/clear-uv-filters-essential-waste-money/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=July-2017

Bill Munny Loc: Aurora, Colorado

rmalarz wrote:

I use a clear filter on every one of my lenses save one. The filters are placed on the back of that one. I leave them on 99$% of the time. My preference is B+W. They provide additional protection to the front element of the lens.
--Bob

Bob, you are right on with B&W glass. I would never stick a cheap piece of glass on a $2000 set up. I use B&W exclusively, mostly clear glass for protection against the wind (grandkids live in Wyo. and are one of my main pic sources) and live in Colorado where the wind and dirt can get rather testy. This also forces me to get a very sturdy tripod, Manfroto 055CX Pro. Very sturdy and medium in weight. Again, why risk shaking or worse to my camera and lens with a cheap tripod.

Some people cannot handle your bluntness but your expertise and knowledge cannot be refuted. Thanks for your candor, you have helped me on numerous occasions. And even if it doesn't take rocket science, I am a retired one and my optical physics background is priceless here.

broncomaniac Loc: Lynchburg, VA

daldds wrote:

I have a great deal of difficulty with the idea of putting a two figure piece of glass in front of a four figure lens. If you need protection while traveling, there is the lens cap that came with the lens. Other than shooting in a sand storm or something of that nature, I can think of no reason with a digital camera. My photography is both travel and street. My filters are (too expensive) polarizing.

I have a circular polarizer for each of my lenses. How do you employ yours?

Also, I'd appreciate any comments about Zomei filters/products.

broncomaniac Loc: Lynchburg, VA

Bill Munny wrote:

Bob, you are right on with B&W glass. I would... (show quote)

I too appreciate Bob's input and I thank him for taking time to post.

I have two Velbon DV7000n tripods. They have oversized legs, which I spread to 50". I've never had "shaking" and the tripods are rock solid in stability. I fitted them with PH-157Q "cradle ball heads." They are machined aluminum heads with amazingly smooth action.

speters Loc: Grangeville/Idaho

ltcarizona wrote:

I myself use filters, UV, Clear and Polarize. I o... (show quote)

Well contrary to your statement, the polarizing filter is the one filter you can not achieve to copy in Photoshop!

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

rmalarz wrote:

I use a clear filter on every one of my lenses save one. The filters are placed on the back of that one. I leave them on 99$% of the time. My preference is B+W. They provide additional protection to the front element of the lens.
--Bob

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

broncomaniac wrote:

I searched here and on Google for reviews and comparisons before posting here because I didn't want to be redundant. Not much luck.

I have 42 filters, which I have assigned to various lenses. I normally keep a UV on each lens but Now I have UV/HAZE filters and I'd love to hear which, if any, other photography buffs use and why. I'd also like to read your thoughts on Tiffen, Hoya and Sunpak filters.

Thanks for looking.

They have no meaningful use in digital photography other than for some small measure of protection. I recently dropped two lenses (in a camera bag) and the only thing that broke were the two filters I had on the lenses. Unfortunately one of my lenses was a Nikkor 80-200 F2.8 AF-D and some of the glass shards and dust got into the lens mechanism (these are not well-sealed), and mucked up the works a bit. Cost $300 to repair, but Nikon was able to fix a few other annoyances while they had it, so it was well worth it. The other was a 24-70 F2.8 and it came through unscathed.

Of the three Hoya HMC filters do the least to the image (a very good thing).

This is a great article that illustrates that the urban legend of spending more on a filter doesn't really get you any more optical quality. But that spending too little is generally a bad idea.

https://www.lenstip.com/113.1-article-UV_filters_test.html