Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main Photography Discussion
Different take on UV filters.
Page 1 of 3 next> last>>
Jan 10, 2018 12:49:37   #
Rusty Lens
 
There has been much discussion here over time about use of UV filters. The following probably won't change any minds but I think may be of interest.
In the "dark ages" of film photography I took an advanced course in general photography at "The Winona International School of Photography" in Winona, IN. It was intense and the instructors were outstanding. In one class about using filters the instructor presented a series of identical pairs of photos and asked us to find the difference in each pair. He also explained that each pair was taken with one of two identical lens at the same setting on the same camera and processed in the same way. No difference was visible to anyone in the class. After a few minutes of guessing at the differences he showed us the two identical lenses. The instructor had his name engraved in the front of one lens. His point was; "use a protective filter or don't, your choice. The elements inside the lens are the critical glass for a good photo and filters can enhance or they can hurt a photo. The front glass is not all that important."

I have been a photographer for forty plus years and have never used a "protective filter." I do ALWAYS use a lens shade which has saved me a few times. Use a protective filter or don't, your choice.

Reply
Jan 10, 2018 13:00:01   #
BebuLamar
 
Use a protective filter or don't I have no comment on this. But as far as UV filter it's not needed as sensor is not sensitive to UV unlike film.

Reply
Jan 10, 2018 13:02:36   #
JohnFrim Loc: Somewhere in the Great White North.
 
This reference has appeared before but is worth repeating... often:

http://kurtmunger.com/dirty_lens_articleid35.html

While I do prefer to use a "protective" filter myself I have had incidents where the loss in sharpness has been very noticeable. The important point is to know the facts, understand the issues, and make an informed decision.

Reply
 
 
Jan 10, 2018 13:48:15   #
Rusty Lens
 
Totally agree. I think the unsaid point here is if you take proper care of your lens then the UV or protective filter is totally up to the user.

Reply
Jan 10, 2018 15:11:53   #
Bill_de Loc: US
 
I don't see what the "different" take is. What am I missing?

--

Reply
Jan 10, 2018 15:48:40   #
mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey
 
Bill_de wrote:
I don't see what the "different" take is. What am I missing?

--


Same take, different anecdote.

Reply
Jan 10, 2018 15:54:29   #
Rusty Lens
 
Different is perhaps not the best choice of words in the title. I would say that to etch your name in the front of a lens to prove a point is a bit different.

Reply
 
 
Jan 10, 2018 15:57:24   #
Bill_de Loc: US
 
Rusty Lens wrote:
Different is perhaps not the best choice of words in the title. I would say that to etch your name in the front of a lens to prove a point is a bit different.


That is for sure!

--

Reply
Jan 10, 2018 18:05:16   #
TucsonCoyote Loc: Tucson AZ
 
I think you should buy the most expensive lenses you can for your camera
and then stack filters (up to 3) in front of them just to be safe !

Reply
Jan 10, 2018 18:45:24   #
rgrenaderphoto Loc: Hollywood, CA
 
First off, UV filter construction has changed dramatically since film days. I venture to say that the class might have been intense, but all the information does not apply today. A high quality coated UV filter like Breakthrough's or B+W will not alter your image.

I have several plus thousand dollar lenses, and this it is the height of foolishness to use a lens in the field without some sort of protective filter. I was shooting in Death Valley last year during the tail end of a sandstorm. My UV filter on a 70-200 lens was scratched by sand, but the front lens element was untouched.

Reply
Jan 10, 2018 19:17:07   #
BebuLamar
 
Why don't they just make a protective filter instead of UV as with digital cameras we don't need to filter out UV.

Reply
 
 
Jan 10, 2018 19:30:21   #
mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey
 
BebuLamar wrote:
Why don't they just make a protective filter instead of UV as with digital cameras we don't need to filter out UV.


There are clear non-UV protective filters. Here is the strongest one available. Its almost unbreakable. Its the Sigma Ceramic protection filter line. They are pricey but worth it. Watch this dropped ball test:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ax9NU8lbvYQ

I like them so much that I own 3 of them, and prior to their purchase I avoided using filters for protection. But these actually protect!

Reply
Jan 10, 2018 19:31:27   #
Jim Bob
 
Bill_de wrote:
I don't see what the "different" take is. What am I missing?

--


You’re not missing a damn thing.

Reply
Jan 10, 2018 19:43:58   #
mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey
 
Jim Bob wrote:
You’re not missing a damn thing.


There are only two takes. Either you're for them or your're against them. Well, maybe a third if you're clueless about their effectiveness either way. I was against their use for years for some of the usual reasons that others suggest, but since coming across the Sigma ceramics, I have seen the light (pun intended) and am now a believer. See, I can change, I can grow!

Reply
Jan 10, 2018 20:14:43   #
cameraf4 Loc: Delaware
 
mwsilvers, thank-you for the info on the Sigma filters. Very, very impressive.

Reply
Page 1 of 3 next> last>>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main Photography Discussion
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.