UV Filter
Sep 29, 2012 10:41:58 #
Cheap filters are not a value. Expect to pay, at least, 80 dollars for a double coated digital filter.
Sep 29, 2012 11:58:41 #
I have always put a good (B+W usually) UV filter on, after reading the back & forth here I went outside and took a few shots with & without the filter. I only used one lens. I could not tell any difference. Guess I'll keep my filters on if only for the protection they provide. Agree with Jer, don't get cheap filters.
Sep 29, 2012 13:29:51 #
In actual testing, I found that a cheap non-multi coated UV filter does show a noticeable deterioration in quality around the edges. I can see no difference at all between a bare lens and my new multi-coated Hoya UV filter. Because of the type of photography I do, where the lens is susceptible to rain and dust, I always keep the UV filter on for protection of the lens.
Sep 29, 2012 13:33:52 #
i have another 77mm BW professional uv filter that i paid $90 for (considered the best).......anybody interested in buying it for $30 + shipping?
Sep 29, 2012 13:38:15 #
Wahawk wrote:
That is essentially the function of the lens-cap.
nolte1964 wrote:
Put the UV lens on won't hurt anything, just take it off when your ready to shoot!
That is essentially the function of the lens-cap.
Not necessarily the only function of a filter.
Case in point: I was recently trying to photograph a waterfall with blowing mist. So, I set up with a filter in place, focused, framed, set lighting etc. Quickly, removed the filter and took the shot before the mist made it impossible
Sep 29, 2012 13:41:23 #
Sep 29, 2012 13:46:48 #
Using quality filters of any type is the key to getting quality results. Look for multi-coated UV and CPL filters. Remember you will pay more these.
Sep 29, 2012 14:11:12 #
jimberton wrote:
i have another 77mm BW professional uv filter that i paid $90 for (considered the best).......anybody interested in buying it for $30 + shipping?
Is it in excelent condition? I'm interested, I'll PM you later today to make arrangements.
Pappy
Sep 29, 2012 14:25:23 #
At night with a cheap filter you will get reflections off of the UV from the sensor. I had that problem until I bought a better filter. Now, in fairness, the scenes I was photographing were almost totally black except for the bridge I wanted.
Sep 29, 2012 15:15:30 #
pettigkr wrote:
If very minor sharpness is lost using a B&W UV filter, I'll accept that. I'm gaining removal of UV for better color outdoors, as well as peace of mind that I'm not overtly exposing expensive lens glass to possible danger.
UV filters make no difference to digital as the sensor already has UV and IR filtration built in - they were used with film to prevent UV light over exposing the blue emulsion and causing an overexposed image with a blue cast.
Sep 29, 2012 15:32:05 #
Emelen wrote:
What is the latest wisdom concerning placing a clear or UV filter on a lens for protection ? Some say that you are putting cheap glass over good glass and some feel that it is good protection with no harmful effects.
I've never been on to abuse a camera/lens. However, I've not been shy to take one out and use it. In the course of doing that, some of the adventures have been more strenuous than others. I've a handful of shattered UV filters, but have never damaged a lens.
Purchase UV filters from a reputable source. The latest purchases have been B+W. Good German quality glass and overall product. I've somewhat sworn off Hoya, as I've found too many with optical defects.
Sep 29, 2012 16:36:49 #
Macbadger wrote:
What about using a clear glass filter for protection instead?
I just bought a used 80-200 F/2.8 AF-S lens. I went with a new Nikon NC clear glass filter for protection. I have read several posts here and elsewhere that argue that modern multi-coated lenses do not need UV filtering, and i buy that argument.
Incidentally, I found the filter on eBay, about $10 less than B&H.
Sep 29, 2012 16:42:56 #
Sep 29, 2012 16:43:20 #
bdo wrote:
I just bought a used 80-200 F/2.8 AF-S lens. I went with a new Nikon NC clear glass filter for protection. I have read several posts here and elsewhere that argue that modern multi-coated lenses do not need UV filtering, and i buy that argument.
Incidentally, I found the filter on eBay, about $10 less than B&H.
Macbadger wrote:
What about using a clear glass filter for protection instead?
I just bought a used 80-200 F/2.8 AF-S lens. I went with a new Nikon NC clear glass filter for protection. I have read several posts here and elsewhere that argue that modern multi-coated lenses do not need UV filtering, and i buy that argument.
Incidentally, I found the filter on eBay, about $10 less than B&H.
The 80-200 is amongst the best there is. Enjoy!!!
Sep 29, 2012 17:15:22 #
poluto
Loc: lacey, wa
I used to have the same problem then.. Now as then I keep a medium priced uv on my camera for protection.. If the shot is very important and I need the best quality I can obtain with my equipment I place the camera on a tripod, hook up the remote shutter, and remove the filter for the shot and check the lens for smuges etc and take the shot with the miror up and a 10 sec delay...I am new to the forum and am looking forward to learning and shaing...
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.