Do you use UV filters for lens protection?
Dec 11, 2011 20:50:36 #
On digital cameras you do not need to go with a UV filter. The sensor already does that. A clear multi coated filter is the best way to go if you really need a filter. I don't use filters, but I do use the lens hoods all the time. I have been shooting since 1968 with Nikon cameras. I have all of my lenses from the old days and a boat load of new ones for my D300s. Have never had a problem with the front lens being hurt. I always carry a blower and cleaning cloth, along with my lens pen.
Erv
Erv
Dec 11, 2011 21:11:30 #
I know the argument for not using them. However I recently had the $88.00 B+W UV filter save a lens that costs $1800.00. Threw away a scratched filter and bought a new one.
I used to work at Wolf Camera and I know they push $20.00-$30.00 low quality filters. Might as well put a coke bottle bottom on your lens - the good stuff from B+W will not make a noticeable degradation in your image. Most customers were incredulous that a good filter cost as much as their kit lens (or more!).
I used to work at Wolf Camera and I know they push $20.00-$30.00 low quality filters. Might as well put a coke bottle bottom on your lens - the good stuff from B+W will not make a noticeable degradation in your image. Most customers were incredulous that a good filter cost as much as their kit lens (or more!).
Dec 11, 2011 22:27:22 #
Yes, I use UV filters on all my lenses. However, I have not noticed any slowness in auto focus because of UV filters.
Dec 11, 2011 22:32:52 #
I saw the recommendation by Scott Kelby in the Digital Photography Book 1, and it made sense to me. While walking through the woods I often walk into spider webs, and after having to clean the lens once, I figured it was worth the price to have the filter on. It's easier to clean, and if it gets scratched it's not much loss.
Of course a lens cap would provide protection as well, but it's hard to get the critters to wait while I take the lens cap off of the camera.
I would be interested to see the evidence of any difference in photo quality with or witout the uv filter, if anyone has tested the same shot both ways and can show the difference in the results. One thing I'm sure of is that I have a ways to go before the quality of my photos will demonstrate the difference. :wink:
Of course a lens cap would provide protection as well, but it's hard to get the critters to wait while I take the lens cap off of the camera.
I would be interested to see the evidence of any difference in photo quality with or witout the uv filter, if anyone has tested the same shot both ways and can show the difference in the results. One thing I'm sure of is that I have a ways to go before the quality of my photos will demonstrate the difference. :wink:
Dec 11, 2011 22:56:05 #
Yes
and, No
When I'm in a relatively controlled situation, I leave the filters off, but when I'm going into the field or on a trip, I put them on.
Then take them off to put on a CP or ND filter, just to replace it again when I'm done.
Webs and branches etc. were what convinced me...
GT
and, No
When I'm in a relatively controlled situation, I leave the filters off, but when I'm going into the field or on a trip, I put them on.
Then take them off to put on a CP or ND filter, just to replace it again when I'm done.
Webs and branches etc. were what convinced me...
GT
Dec 12, 2011 05:36:50 #
I don't use filters for protection, although I used to years ago. I use lens hoods & lens caps for that. You will get ghosting in certain situations (like at night when you have light sources in the frame) & while you may not be able to see a detrimental effect on the image, however minor, they do have an effect on the IQ...Here's a link to an article on this...
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/columns/sm-feb-05.shtml
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/columns/sm-feb-05.shtml
Dec 12, 2011 05:56:58 #
Dec 12, 2011 05:58:17 #
Roger Hicks
Loc: Aquitaine
CaptainC wrote:
I used to work at Wolf Camera and I know they push $20.00-$30.00 low quality filters. Might as well put a coke bottle bottom on your lens .
Did you ever run tests on that? I did. So did Ctein (a better experimentalist than I). You need something really awful, like 3mm (1/8 inch) window glass, before you get detectable degradation of the resolution, shooting test charts.
I completely agree about the value of protection, though. A good few years ago, my wife tripped and fell in the Himalayas. The star-shaped crack on the front of the lens was horrifying. But fortunately it was an L39 filter, and the lens (a then-new 35/2.8 PC-Nikkor) was completely unharmed.
The main times I *don't* use filters are (1) when shooting straight into a light source, or with many light sources in the picture (2) in the studio and (3) when I haven't got around to buying a protective filter in the right size.
Cheers,
R.
Dec 12, 2011 06:06:33 #
Roger Hicks
Loc: Aquitaine
JHodge wrote:
I would be interested to see the evidence of any difference in photo quality with or without the uv filter, if anyone has tested the same shot both ways and can show the difference in the results.
Dear Jim,
So would I. The normal reaction you get is, "You must have really low standards." If you then question that, the normal reply is "Everyone knows." Well, yes, people who haven't done any tests themselves, and believe all they're told, might believe it.
I'm told that differences may be visible with extreme wide angles and with longer lenses, but as I've never personally tested it, I'll reserve judgement on that one too. With anything resembling a normal lens (35-90mm on 35mm), I've never met anyone yet who could demonstrate a difference. And I don't know anyone who's tested other lenses.
Cheers,
R.
Dec 12, 2011 06:38:08 #
I'm old school - Always Do, Always Will use a UV or Skylight as protection. They are so much cheaper than buying another lens.
Dec 12, 2011 07:26:56 #
Hello I use a 1A, or Skylight filter, it has no compensation, but protects the lens.
Dec 12, 2011 07:33:26 #
Tman
Loc: Texas
As much as I paid for my Canon L lens, I had filter on them before leaving the store. Even when I still used the cheaper lens, still used the UV for protection.
Dec 12, 2011 07:35:13 #
photocat
Loc: Atlanta, Ga
No, and in over 64 years I have never damaged a lens.
With film, I did use filters but only to control gray scale.
With film, I did use filters but only to control gray scale.
Dec 12, 2011 08:37:19 #
I use the UV to protect the lens. I only take it off when I'm shooting something special, when I want a polarizer on, or when it might add a glare from a side light sneaking in. I have never noticed any difference in autofocus speed on any lens.
Dec 12, 2011 09:00:00 #
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.