Anyone have strong views about UV filters?
Rusty69
Loc: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
In the course of researching my Lumix Prime, I stumbled across this comment from Amadou Diallo in the on-line Wirecutter blog.
"There's another cross-brand issue we’ve learned about recently: built-in UV filters. Panasonic puts the filter in their camera bodies while Olympus places it in the lens. If you use a Panasonic lens on an Olympus body, there's no UV filter, so in some circumstances, you may get chromatic aberration (purple fringes along high-contrast edges). This can be fixed by adding a UV filter to the front of the lens, but that’s an inelegant workaround.
Mac
Loc: Pittsburgh, Philadelphia now Hernando Co. Fl.
Rusty69 wrote:
In the course of researching my Lumix Prime, I stumbled across this comment from Amadou Diallo in the on-line Wirecutter blog.
"There's another cross-brand issue we’ve learned about recently: built-in UV filters. Panasonic puts the filter in their camera bodies while Olympus places it in the lens. If you use a Panasonic lens on an Olympus body, there's no UV filter, so in some circumstances, you may get chromatic aberration (purple fringes along high-contrast edges). This can be fixed by adding a UV filter to the front of the lens, but that’s an inelegant workaround.
In the course of researching my Lumix Prime, I stu... (
show quote)
Your title is misleading. You're not asking for views on UV filters, you're asking about UV filters on specific equipment.
UV filters were widely used on film cameras, but not so much on digital cameras. I have never heard of chromatic aberration on a digital camera caused by not having a UV filter on.
Rusty69
Loc: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Sorry about that - hit the wrong key trying to indent the quote.
Anyway, here is my question. I have always put a UV filter on my lenses, both for physical and for chromatic protection (sic.). I recently acquired a Zuiko 14-150 mm, as a general purpose lens, and my first instinct was to purchase a UV filter for same. It would now appear that I am doubling up on the UV protection, at least as far as spectral compensation is concerned. Does anyone here care to add to this conversation? I am a little confused, and I also don't quite understand what is inelegant about an add-on filter. Furthermore, where in the body of my E-M10 MkII is this mysterious UV filter located?
I know this could be possible, but I also know that the internet employs no fact checkers. How can this be confirmed?
Rusty69
Loc: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Sorry Mac, as you can tell, I wasn't finished.
I don't think the sensor is sensitive to UV light. The imaging sensor is very sensitive to IR(so much so that it always has an IR filter) but not UV.
JohnR
Loc: The Gates of Hell
As far as I know, ANY glass cuts down the amount of UV passing through it. The lens itself with its many elements is already a UV filter so putting another filter in front of it is an exercise in futility as far as UV is concerned. Now as a protection for the front element of the lens then thats a different thing altogether - good idea IMHO
Rusty69 wrote:
In the course of researching my Lumix Prime, I stumbled across this comment from Amadou Diallo in the on-line Wirecutter blog.
"There's another cross-brand issue we’ve learned about recently: built-in UV filters. Panasonic puts the filter in their camera bodies while Olympus places it in the lens. If you use a Panasonic lens on an Olympus body, there's no UV filter, so in some circumstances, you may get chromatic aberration (purple fringes along high-contrast edges). This can be fixed by adding a UV filter to the front of the lens, but that’s an inelegant workaround.
In the course of researching my Lumix Prime, I stu... (
show quote)
I’m not sure what you’re talking about, but after many years of using UV/protection filters (only B+W or Heliopan) on my pro quality Nikon and Olympus lenses, I realized that I was putting yet another piece of glass on the lens and one that was not optimized for maximum IQ. I bought my first SLR in 1976 and my first DSLR in 2000 and have had many mishaps but never damaged the front element of any lens. So now I shoot naked and raw. (Not me, the camera!) I still use a protection filter but only when I’m in blowing sand or misty waterfalls. PS- film was sensitive to UV; digital sensors not really.
Rusty69
Loc: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Fotomacher wrote:
I’m not sure what you’re talking about, but after many years of using UV/protection filters (only B+W or Heliopan) on my pro quality Nikon and Olympus lenses, I realized that I was putting yet another piece of glass on the lens and one that was not optimized for maximum IQ. I bought my first SLR in 1976 and my first DSLR in 2000 and have had many mishaps but never damaged the front element of any lens. So now I shoot naked and raw. (Not me, the camera!) I still use a protection filter but only when I’m in blowing sand or misty waterfalls. PS- film was sensitive to UV; digital sensors not really.
I’m not sure what you’re talking about, but after ... (
show quote)
Thanks for this. Like most of the other respondents, you seem to know exactly what my problem is, and the solution. So what concerns me now is the readiness of camera retailers to sell these filters without so much as a glancing question as to their suitability or use. Oh well, I guess they are in business to make sales, so buyer beware! My thanks again to all who wrote on this issue - I love this site, and the education it is giving me. UV filters are now consigned to the scrap heap.
Those evil evil evil camera retailers, always so willing to free the novice photographer of their hard-earned money. Thankfully, the good and true UHH experts are here to set the record straight.
If you'd rather clean the fingerprints, dust, and miscellaneous gunk off the filter glass rather than the lens surface, use a high-quality Clear or UV filter. If you don't care, don't use a filter. It's your lens; it's your decision.
As stated UV filters are not necessary for a DSLR unless used for "protection". I find my lens hood does the same thing.
Rusty69
Loc: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Both excellent points.
TriX
Loc: Raleigh, NC
This filter/no filter for protection debate has raged as long as I’ve been reading this forum, but lots do agree that a clear glass filter is appropriate in a dirty, sandy or wet environment, especially if the wind is blowing. Also some weather rated lenses do require a filter to complete the weather sealing. There have also been conflicting reports as to whether you can see the difference with and without. I have seen comments from some very knowledgeable members that certain lens (in particular the Canon 100-400L) are visibly degraded by a filter. In any event, while a UV filter was the de facto standard in the film era when film was sensitive to UV, it is not an improvement over a clear glass filter on a DSLR. Personally, I would not put a poor quality filter of any kind on a high quality lens.
Gene51
Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)
Rusty69 wrote:
In the course of researching my Lumix Prime, I stumbled across this comment from Amadou Diallo in the on-line Wirecutter blog.
"There's another cross-brand issue we’ve learned about recently: built-in UV filters. Panasonic puts the filter in their camera bodies while Olympus places it in the lens. If you use a Panasonic lens on an Olympus body, there's no UV filter, so in some circumstances, you may get chromatic aberration (purple fringes along high-contrast edges). This can be fixed by adding a UV filter to the front of the lens, but that’s an inelegant workaround.
In the course of researching my Lumix Prime, I stu... (
show quote)
I'm pretty sure that UV filters have nothing to do with chromatic aberration. CA is a failure of the lens formula to properly focus colors at the same plane. UV filters have little to no effect on this. Achromat or achromatic lens formulas do a great job at minimizing CA.
TriX
Loc: Raleigh, NC
Gene51 wrote:
I'm pretty sure that UV filters have nothing to do with chromatic aberration. CA is a failure of the lens formula to properly focus colors at the same plane. UV filters have little to no effect on this. Achromat or achromatic lens formulas do a great job at minimizing CA.
👍👍
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.