Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register ☰
Check out Advice from the Pros section of our forum.
Main Photography Discussion
UV Filters
Page <<first <prev 5 of 6 next>
Feb 6, 2019 18:51:40   #
lancewit Loc: Gold Coast Australia
 
Thank you all for your imput
Regards Lance

Reply
Feb 6, 2019 20:03:15   #
Weldinp69 Loc: Port Orchard, Washington
 
Since this filter forum came up any opinions on Breakthrough Photography's filters? Good/bad?

Regards, Pat

Reply
Feb 6, 2019 23:28:34   #
copladocus
 
Weldinp69 wrote:
Since this filter forum came up any opinions on Breakthrough Photography's filters? Good/bad?

Regards, Pat


do not have any of my own but previous comments on this site are very favorable. Do a keyword search of the archives to get the previous threads.

Reply
 
 
Feb 7, 2019 01:13:16   #
Weldinp69 Loc: Port Orchard, Washington
 
Thanks!

Reply
Feb 7, 2019 01:24:11   #
User ID
 
billnikon wrote:
1. Their has not been a UV filter manufactured yet that IMPROVES image quality.
2. 99.9% of the lenses made do not come with UV filters, I wonder why lens manufactures don't include one, maybe they know something you should.
3. A lens hood provides the best protection for a lens and front element.
4. A UV filter does not prevent dust from reaching the front element of your lens, if you leave that front filter on and just clean the filter, dust WILL get on the front element and WILL degrade your images, and a residue will also form on the front element. You must take the UV filter off from time to time to clean your front element, so what is the point of putting it on.
5. In the winter when you go from a warm house to the cold outdoors, you will have to clean that filter cause condensation will form on it, but also, a little will form under the filter on your front element, how ever slight it will still degrade your images.
1. Their has not been a UV filter manufactured yet... (show quote)


I find all 5 points false.

If they are true in your universe,
I'm just glad I live in this one.

.

Reply
Feb 7, 2019 03:31:43   #
rmorrison1116 Loc: Near Valley Forge, Pennsylvania
 
LWW wrote:
Seriously?


Yes, seriously, but then you presented my words out of context.

The point, as subtle as it may be is, good lenses are well manufactured with high quality, hard glass and high tech coatings. They are solidly mounted into high quality materials and are designed and built to take a certain level of abuse. This is one reason I own a lot of Canon L series lenses.

Cheap lenses are made with cheaper materials and have cheaper coatings, or none at all, and are not built to the high standards of high quality lenses.

The only filter I ever use on my L series lenses, excluding solar, is a CPL. I always use a hood and when not in use, a cap.
When not in use my lenses are in either a case or a cabinet, thus protecting them from foreign matter. I clean my lenses with proper lens cleaning fluid and a soft clean lens cleaning cloth and I never drop the fluid on the lens surface, only on the cloth.
In all the years I've been participating in photography I've never damaged a lens from cleaning.

Reply
Feb 7, 2019 03:42:33   #
rmorrison1116 Loc: Near Valley Forge, Pennsylvania
 
After having read this conversation in its entirety, I've come to the conclusion there are many people who don't know how to properly clean a lens and there are people who believe their lenses are a lot more fragile than they are.

Bottom line, if you feel you need to use UV filters then use them. Like several folks said, it's totally your money and your choice.

Reply
Check out Panorama section of our forum.
Feb 7, 2019 16:03:34   #
danbir1 Loc: North Potomac, MD
 
The main reason to use the UV filter is to protect the lens.
In my 50+ years of using a lot of different cameras and lenses, I have yet to see ANY dirt going past the filter.
A lens hood provides only marginal protection against debris of any kind (try dust on a windy day).
Yes you'll have condensation on the filter in winter when you go warm to cold, but the same holds true for the lens.
I have never noticed any degradation of the image quality when using either an UV or a SKYLIGHT filter.
So, what to do? Get a filter, put it on and see the IQ results.
Not happy? toss the filter and risk your $800 lens.

Reply
Feb 7, 2019 17:31:17   #
billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont
 
danbir1 wrote:
The main reason to use the UV filter is to protect the lens.
In my 50+ years of using a lot of different cameras and lenses, I have yet to see ANY dirt going past the filter.
A lens hood provides only marginal protection against debris of any kind (try dust on a windy day).
Yes you'll have condensation on the filter in winter when you go warm to cold, but the same holds true for the lens.
I have never noticed any degradation of the image quality when using either an UV or a SKYLIGHT filter.
So, what to do? Get a filter, put it on and see the IQ results.
Not happy? toss the filter and risk your $800 lens.
The main reason to use the UV filter is to protect... (show quote)


In my 45 years of professional photography I have never had to use a UV filter. I used a lens hood to protect my lenses. Photographed over 500 weddings without damaging any front element on any lens.
Never advertised, my work sold itself. Saved a lot of money never having to waste any buying filters I never needed.

Reply
Feb 7, 2019 17:37:23   #
danbir1 Loc: North Potomac, MD
 
I understand.
People are split about this subject.
It is pretty much in the experience and belief of the beholder.

Reply
Feb 7, 2019 17:41:51   #
burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC
 
danbir1 wrote:
I understand.
People are split about this subject.
It is pretty much in the experience and belief of the beholder.


The UV filter issue is a lot like religion or politics... You can't prove you're correct. Just hope that your beliefs are right for you.

Reply
Check out Commercial and Industrial Photography section of our forum.
Feb 7, 2019 18:07:48   #
scooter1 Loc: Yacolt, Wa.
 
burkphoto wrote:
The UV filter issue is a lot like religion or politics... You can't prove you're correct. Just hope that your beliefs are right for you.



Reply
Feb 8, 2019 04:02:52   #
Bipod
 
lamiaceae wrote:
Actually we are not far apart on this. I have been talking about what I do and have. Yes, you may have older and non-ideal conditions for such gentle care. I guess I'm a neat-nick, 35+ "35mm-type" film & digital lenses, not including four Large Format lenses, and cameras with attached lenses. Nearly all of my lenses are from say 1970 and newer. One camera is from the late 1940s, and others and lenses to 1969. I keep the lens glass clean. I also keep filters on them all to protect the front elements. A few of the used ones did come with smudges that I cleaned off and then kept clean and only have filters to clean. I have been replacing O, 1A, 1B UV filters with newer multicoated B+W, Heliopan, and keeping other higher quality such filters I already had. Sometimes when shooting close-ups or macros indoors I will take all filters off the lens I'm using.
Actually we are not far apart on this. I have bee... (show quote)

Money is always best spent where it does the most good.

There is no reward for keeping up with the Jones, or having the latest anything.

"Single element is good enough for what I do." Edward Weston to Ansel Adams.
Adams was trying to get him to use a triplet! Adams was right: he should
of bought the Cook triplet or a Tessar (later, he did). But beyond that....

On of Edward Weston's nudes sold in July at Christie's for $1.2 mn.

I try to ask myself: "what's preventing me from making the print I want to make?"
Everything else is irrelevant.

Reply
Feb 8, 2019 12:30:51   #
kymarto Loc: Portland OR and Milan Italy
 
billnikon wrote:
In my 45 years of professional photography I have never had to use a UV filter. I used a lens hood to protect my lenses. Photographed over 500 weddings without damaging any front element on any lens.
Never advertised, my work sold itself. Saved a lot of money never having to waste any buying filters I never needed.


Wedding are different than filming in the desert or near the sea or working machinery or fires, for instance.

Reply
Feb 8, 2019 13:18:06   #
wdross Loc: Castle Rock, Colorado
 
kymarto wrote:
Wedding are different than filming in the desert or near the sea or working machinery or fires, for instance.



There are appropriate times for a filter and there are inappropriate times for a filter. The real debate here is everyone has a different opinion as to when it is appropriate and when it is not appropriate.

Reply
Page <<first <prev 5 of 6 next>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Check out Astronomical Photography Forum section of our forum.
Main Photography Discussion
Home | Latest Digest | Back to Top | All Sections
Contact us | Privacy policy | Terms of use | DMCA
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.