UV filter (Page 2): Don’t waste your money on a UV filter. Film cameras might need them, but digital camera manufacturers include UV filters on the sensor or as a coating on the lens.

jackpinoh Loc: Kettering, OH 45419

ICUQT wrote:

Hi,
What is a good UV filter that won't break the bank. I need to buy one for my Canon and my Sony . I guess I need to get a different one for all of them due to different sizes? Thanks.
ICUQT

Don’t waste your money on a UV filter. Film cameras might need them, but digital camera manufacturers include UV filters on the sensor or as a coating on the lens.

camerapapi Loc: Miami, Fl.

Why the UV filter? Digital does not require such a filter. Now, if you believe that a UV filter serves to protect your lens think again. The lens cap does a far better job and will not interfere with your images if you remove it prior to using the lens.
A dirty filter is the worse thing that could happen to your photography.

gwilliams6

This award-winning pro shooter of four decades agrees with Jerry and others that use protective filters (either uv or the new clear ones) to "protect from dust, grit,salt spray and damage from wind blown debris". I saw the Tony Northrup scratch test video. Hey Tony can afford to buy new lenses anytime he wants. I for one don't wish to risk the huge investment I have in quality glass, without protection. And I also use circular polarizer and ND filters sometimes.

Better safe then sorry ,and cheaper than repairing or replacing a lens. I have had angry subjects attack my camera, as well people inadvertently knock into my lenses on a shoot, as well as batted balls, hockey pucks etc. directly into the lens during sports shoots. Better to have a filter take that hit. I go for the best B&W and the top Hoyas, for best optical quality and the least possible reflections.

billnourse Loc: Bloomfield, NM

I have always used B+W UV for protection and ND and CPL for effects. I recently discovered Breakthrough Photography filters, and the ones I have, 3 stop and 6 stop ND and a CPL, I am very pleased with. The B+W or Breakthrough are pricey, but I have found that you usually get what you pay for.

Bill

James R. Kyle Loc: Saint Louis, Missouri (A Suburb of Ferguson)

Boris Ekner wrote:

Here is professional photographer Steve Perry on the subject:
https://youtu.be/P0CLPTd6Bds

The only filter a digital camera need is the circular polarizing filter. It eliminates flares and reflections, as well as increase colors in the sky. Furthermore, a natural density filter can is useful for long exposures. That’s it, that’s the filters you should consider getting. Period. Fin. End of story.

Now, please click the link above and listen to what Steve has to say about it.

===============

I do this as well... The Only Filters You Will Need. With Digital photographic work that is ;-)

Most Always, I do Have a "Lens-Shade" on ALL lenses I use in the field. Indoors - not needed, and often are an encumbrance when making use of a On-Camera Strobe.

-0-

ltcarizona

B&W is all I put on my lenses. German engineering use white water glass optics the best. Don't go with anything less and don't put hoya, tiffin or anything else less equal on a lens where sharpness, color and contrast won't be compromised.

billnourse Loc: Bloomfield, NM

As far as a need for protection for the lens, I was doing some environmental portraits of a welder when his grinder threw sparks at me. The filter was instantly trash, but the lens was fine. I guess it depends on what you are shooting as to whether you need a filter for protection.

Bill

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

I use a B&W nano circular polarizer and an ND occasionally and am well pleased with the quality although they are not inexpensive (but why would you buy high quality lenses and put a layer of mediocre glass in front). Regarding protection, I do use a high quality clear (not UV) filter when in an environment that might be dangerous (dirt, sand, etc.). Note that some weather sealed lenses require a front filter to complete the weather sealing. I buy my filters in 77mm and use a stop down ring for any smaller lens. I have not yet tried the xume magetic attachment, but I plan to purchase one. In terms of protection, I ALWAYS use a hood (indoors or out) and have a lens cap on whenever not actually shooting. BTW, certain lenses such as the Canon EF 100-400L are reputed to not work well with any filter (although I haven’t tested this).

lamiaceae Loc: San Luis Obispo County, CA

This has been discussed so many times here. Please just use Search. Zzzzzzzzzz

B+W, Heliopan, high end Hoya.

Nikonman44

ICUQT wrote:

Hi,
What is a good UV filter that won't break the bank. I need to buy one for my Canon and my Sony . I guess I need to get a different one for all of them due to different sizes? Thanks.
ICUQT

Most UV filters are fine. They do the same thing for the lens you attach them to. I use the UV as a daylight lens as in to protect the lens from spills and accidents.

A daylight or UV works wonders . The UV is more expensive but if its on your lens" then its always ready to add detail and saturation as well as protecting the lens.

Nikonman44

camerapapi wrote:

Why the UV filter? Digital does not require such a filter. Now, if you believe that a UV filter serves to protect your lens think again. The lens cap does a far better job and will not interfere with your images if you remove it prior to using the lens.
A dirty filter is the worse thing that could happen to your photography.

Most folk would find exception with your comment on lens cap!!! Most folk loose the great moments because they have to fumble around getting the cap off, putting it in their pocket or letting it dangle from a string
.
Many years ago ( maybe 30) Sterling White from Nat Geo shared that thought with over 150 folk in a seminar.

Since then I have always used daylight filters, as a photographer, it blows my mind that you would think that we would not keep the camera, the lens and the filter clean and always ready to shoot.

HAPPY NEW YEAR and may all your fotos be CLEAR.

Nikonman44

billnourse wrote:

As far as a need for protection for the lens, I was doing some environmental portraits of a welder when his grinder threw sparks at me. The filter was instantly trash, but the lens was fine. I guess it depends on what you are shooting as to whether you need a filter for protection.

Bill

Bill, that's exactly why you use daylight or your choice of Filters. Had the spark hit the primary lens it would be shot and possibly cause damage to your eyes .

Cant think of a better reason to have the lens saving thing called a filter out front for me and that lens.

Nikonman44

James R wrote:

===============

I do this as well... The Only Filters You Will Need. With Digital photographic work that is ;-)

Most Always, I do Have a "Lens-Shade" on ALL lenses I use in the field. Indoors - not needed, and often are an encumbrance when making use of a On-Camera Strobe.

-0-

Seems like a lot of us do this thing. The pol is a great addition especially when you need to rid the shot of distractions and flares and such. Th comment on the lens hood is a good piece of advice. inside shots with the flash attached can cause for Vignette effects and if you did not allow for cropping you have a wonderful shadow that you did not ask for. All good ideas and thoughts.

bpulv Loc: Buena Park, CA

ICUQT wrote:

Hi,
What is a good UV filter that won't break the bank. I need to buy one for my Canon and my Sony . I guess I need to get a different one for all of them due to different sizes? Thanks.
ICUQT

THE BEST UV FILTER IS NO UV FILTER. All a UV filter does is add glass in front of your lens to get dirty, introduce flare and other undesirable elements to your photographs. DON'T USE A FILTER UNLESS THERE IS A REAL PHOTOGRAPHIC OR ARTISTIC REASON TO DO SO! The best protection for your lens is the lens hood you should always have on your lens. It will not only protect your lens, but will prevent flare and other undesirable elements from your photographs.

gwilliams6

bpulv, a lens hood would not have protected my lenses from objects I have had strike inside (with a lens hood attached). If you folks wish to go without proper protection, then fine, its your money. But don't expect any sympathy if an accident occurs on a shoot, like a welders spark etc. It may be fashionable now to parade around without any protection for your expensive glass, you may go years and have no accidents or issues. But I have been through thousands of assignments around the world ,in all kinds of conditions and weather in four decades, and I choose to be smart about taking care of my gear, so it is in top shape when I need it.