Filter opinion needed (Page 2): So the folks that are on the side of "Always us a filter" I understand are saying so typically for lens protection. So what is the reasoning for not...

UntamedImages Loc: Utah

So the folks that are on the side of "Always us a filter" I understand are saying so typically for lens protection.

So what is the reasoning for not having a "protective filter" on a lens? I have heard that a UV filter can actually cause softness.

Just curious!

Rongnongno Loc: FL

O_S_O_K wrote:

So the folks that are on the side of "Always us a filter" I understand are saying so typically for lens protection.

So what is the reasoning for not having a "protective filter" on a lens? I have heard that a UV filter can actually cause softness.

Just curious!

Not if made from glass and by a reputable company....

BHC Loc: Strawberry Valley, JF, USA

Rongnongno wrote:

UV filters are never a good idea.

I keep UV-0 filters in all my lenses. I've never broken a filter on the camera, but I've hit them hard enough against tables and similar items that I was relieved it wasn't the front surface of my lens. And I know that, had I not had them, the coating on older lenses might have been scratched. I always use B+W or Hoya filters as they seem stronger and yield less distortion, flare and/or CA. I do remove the UV filters for difficult shots or if I'm using Cokin filters. And, yes, if I buy a new lens and cannot get the right sized filter, I will do as Rongnongno does and buy a larger filter with a step-up ring. I try to always buy low profile frame filters so as to avoid vignetting. And NO, do not even think of trying to adapt one to a large fisheye lens.

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

mechengvic wrote:

The Germans are hard to beat when it comes to grinding glass or coating it. That's why I like B&W filters.

You are correct. Ziess and Leitz "bake" their coatings onto their lenses, most other glassworks merely coat the glass after polishing, which is not as hard or durable. German glass is pretty darn good, but the same can be said for other mfgrs.

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

davidheald1942 wrote:

you do know that small scratches on a lens
will not affect the picture? It's true.
I wouldn't scratch it on purpose though.
I know most on the UHH will scold me for
saying that, but they probably never had a
second hand lens with scratches on it either.
I have made prints as large as 16"x24" and
I never saw a single scratch on my prints.
ronny

Scratches do - if you include bright elements - flare and ghosting are the main effects of small "cleaning marks" on a lens.

HeyYou Loc: SE Michigan

Brandmic, check out the recent thread 'UV Filters'.
You'll find eight pages of passionate debate that brings out the best of all of us (haha).
Disclosure: guilty as charged. I am one of those who posted in that thread. ALWAYS keep the filter on !

dcampbell52 Loc: Clearwater Fl

Rongnongno wrote:

UV filters are never a good idea.

Purchase a neutral density instead or better yet a polarizing filter (This is what I have on all my lenses).

Added:
I also use a step up ring on all my lenses to 77mm so that all my other filters are normalized to one standard and my lens caps the same....

:thumbup: :thumbup:

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

Brandmic wrote:

Are "Hoya Alpha UV multi coated" filters decent UV filters? I need 52, 55 and 58mm filters just to keep on lens when there is no other filter on them.

I have Hoya UV filters on all my lenses. I've done comparisons with them on and off, and I still use them. If I'm after an "important" shot, I'll remove it, just to give myself the best chance of getting a good image. I use these filters only to protect the lens.

I use Xume adaptors, so I can have filters on and off in less than a second. These are great for polarizers. Also, consider getting a set of step-up adaptors. Buy one 58mm filter and use it on all your lenses. Or, buy one 77mm filter and plan for the future.

Whey you have to buy filters for several lenses, you tend to go cheaper. At least that's what I did before I learned about step-up rings.

http://www.xumeadapters.com/

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search?Ntt=step-up+ring+sets&N=0&InitialSearch=yes&sts=ma&Top+Nav-Search=

Jim Bob

Brandmic wrote:

Are "Hoya Alpha UV multi coated" filters decent UV filters? I need 52, 55 and 58mm filters just to keep on lens when there is no other filter on them.

Yes, those are excellent filters. You could perhaps save a few dollars without compromising quality by using the Hoya EVO (SMC) multicoated filters. Google "best UV filters" for an exhaustive study on UV filters conducted several years ago. Hoya won out over many others including B+W.

BboH Loc: s of 2/21, Ellicott City, MD

I use the UV's for protection.

Looked at a lens one day and say the rim was dented in over about a half inch. Was not aware that I had hit anything - glass not damaged.

Had that been the lens instead of the UV I would no longer have been able to attach a filter or anything else that uses the len's threads. Until then "protection" had been an abstract - now it real.

Bob Boner

I never use a uv filter on amy of my lenses. I use only polarizers and ND filters. The uv filter has no real purpose. Why buy the best lens you can afford and then put a useless cheap filter on it. The lens cap and lens hood, together with reasonable care, provide all the protection you need for the glass on the lens.

Brandmic Loc: Alabama

Jim Bob wrote:

Yes, those are excellent filters. You could perhaps save a few dollars without compromising quality by using the Hoya EVO (SMC) multicoated filters. Google "best UV filters" for an exhaustive study on UV filters conducted several years ago. Hoya won out over many others including B+W.

:thumbup: :thumbup:

anotherview Loc: California

Here we have the contrarian view of the usefulness of a UV lens filter, by way of mere assertion: "UV filters are never a good idea."

A UV filter protects the lens surface from both filth and damage.

In my practical experience, two or three times now, a UV filter has saved the exposed front lens element from damage.

For this reason alone, consider always using a UV lens filter for your lens(es).

I will say as an exception on occasion I have left off the UV filter because of fast failing light prompting me to take pictures instead of fiddling with screwing on a UV filter after removing the circular polarizer. Otherwise, a UV filter stays on all my lenses as a practical matter.

This test report may help you decide on a UV filter:

http://www.lenstip.com/113.1-article-UV_filters_test.html

Rongnongno wrote:

UV filters are never a good idea.

Purchase a neutral density instead or better yet a polarizing filter (This is what I have on all my lenses).

Added:
I also use a step up ring on all my lenses to 77mm so that all my other filters are normalized to one standard and my lens caps the same....

RJNaylor Loc: Delmar, New York

I think someone needs to say that leaving a polarized filter on a lens in a bad idea -- you have a two stop loss of light. That is great when you want a wide aperture and it is bright out but when there is not that much light it means using a two stop higher iso to get what you want.

I have a B+W UV filter with a nano-coating and it seems to improve the look of the photos but costs just over $100. Hoya is also good and there are cheaper ones that also work fine.

Rongnongno wrote:

UV filters are never a good idea.

Purchase a neutral density instead or better yet a polarizing filter (This is what I have on all my lenses).

Added:
I also use a step up ring on all my lenses to 77mm so that all my other filters are normalized to one standard and my lens caps the same....

Tom47 Loc: Gettysburg, PA

I am in the no filter group. I have been shooting since the mid 70's. Never had a lenses scratched and never used a protective filter. If I would have a reason to I would use a clear glass filter Nikon makes one or Hoya or B+W. but as I stated I really see no need for a protective filter.