Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1] 2 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: UV filters?  (Read 10329 times)
Andres Bonilla
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 565


« on: July 31, 2008, 12:37:01 AM »
ReplyReply

In another photography forum I was advised to take the uv filters off.

"UV filters (on digital) are for hazardous duty use only. Leave them off unless strictly necessary. Your sensor has a UV filter bonded to it.

UV filter effects: http://www.kenandchristine.com/gallery/1054387
http://www.vanwalree.com/optics/filterflare.html "

What are your thoughts?

Andres
Logged
Bradley Proctor
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 150



WWW
« Reply #1 on: July 31, 2008, 12:47:25 AM »
ReplyReply

I use to use them and never noticed any negative effects (However, I never did any testing like in the links you provided either) My reasoning was protection.  I don't use them anymore mainly because I don't need the extra hassle.  I consider a lens hood as adequate protection.
Logged

francois
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 6877


« Reply #2 on: July 31, 2008, 02:35:26 AM »
ReplyReply

I don't use UV filters except in hostile conditions like sand, sea spray or heavy rain. Lens hoods offer better protection when you hit something or drop your camera.
Logged

Francois
mahleu
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 577


WWW
« Reply #3 on: July 31, 2008, 03:17:39 AM »
ReplyReply

I try to keep one on all the time. It only takes a moment for something/someone to bump the end of your lens. The only time I take mine off is at night to minimise flare.
Logged

______________________________________________________________________
Anyone selling a 1DSIII or 6D cheap?
David Good
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 145


« Reply #4 on: July 31, 2008, 04:54:44 AM »
ReplyReply

I use a clear (Nikon) filter on my Canon glass whenever the weather or environmental conditions warrant it. I don't notice any IQ drop, but don't keep them on all the time just in case.
Logged

Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12213


« Reply #5 on: July 31, 2008, 05:07:31 AM »
ReplyReply

I always have one on as it is much more simple - and safe - to wipe/brush a Nikon filter than to mess with the surface of a lens. I donīt believe there is any noticeable difference in image quality, at least, not that I can see. On inspection of filters, it isnīt unusual to find that they eventually pick up marks and deposits that do not come off. Think if it had been your lensīs surface instead.

Rob C
Logged

ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7655


WWW
« Reply #6 on: July 31, 2008, 06:04:35 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

I agree in principle, UV-filters are not needed. I do have a UV-filters on, for protection. i feel easier about cleaning a filter then a lens.

I have not seen any adverse effects but sure there are some. Don't forget that the lens already has something like twenty air/glass interfaces you are just adding two more. The UV-filter is parallell to the sensor this may be a conributing factor to some problems

Best regards
Erik


Quote
In another photography forum I was advised to take the uv filters off.

"UV filters (on digital) are for hazardous duty use only. Leave them off unless strictly necessary. Your sensor has a UV filter bonded to it.

UV filter effects: http://www.kenandchristine.com/gallery/1054387
http://www.vanwalree.com/optics/filterflare.html "

What are your thoughts?

Andres
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=211946\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Logged

Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12213


« Reply #7 on: July 31, 2008, 06:31:03 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
The UV-filter is parallell to the sensor this may be a conributing factor to some problems

Best regards
Erik
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=211998\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]



Not sure how you figure this one: itīs light coming out BEHIND the lens that has a need to be more to the perpendicular...

Rob C
Logged

daleeman
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 159


WWW
« Reply #8 on: July 31, 2008, 08:04:06 AM »
ReplyReply

As others have stated, in principal I believe the UV should be off for exposures. I have from time to time taken it off for shots, but I never ever really think about it.

However, I have 3 times in my life done the "Happy Dance" something like the dance at the end of the movie named, Evan Almighty.

Leica SL w 90mm lens hit a metal door frame so hard it caused the filter ring to crimp in - Do the Happy Dance and throw out the filter.

Nikon F2 w 80 - 200 zoom, camera came off sholder while climbing and dashed on the rocks, scraping the filter and rendering unusable. Do the Happy Dance and throw out the filter.

Nikon D100 w (forget lens) mud slinged up from jeep. Do the Happy Dance and take off the filter, actually it was not too happy of a dance, I got mud on me too.

Lee
« Last Edit: July 31, 2008, 08:05:17 AM by daleeman » Logged
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7655


WWW
« Reply #9 on: July 31, 2008, 09:36:10 AM »
ReplyReply

OK,

We have two potentially reflective surfaces, it could be feasible that light bounces back from the sensor, bounces back again from UV filter and so on. The lenses have a curved surface so multiple bounces of light may be less probable for internal lenses.

Quote
Not sure how you figure this one: itīs light coming out BEHIND the lens that has a need to be more to the perpendicular...

Rob C
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=212002\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Logged

Andres Bonilla
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 565


« Reply #10 on: July 31, 2008, 11:50:55 AM »
ReplyReply

Thanks guys, I have always kept in on, I did not know that everybody was taking them on when shooting. Here is the photo that needs to be straighten  but I guess I messed up the light bulbs a bit because of the uv filter? That is how the other photographer find out I had it on.


Logged
DarkPenguin
Guest
« Reply #11 on: July 31, 2008, 12:55:44 PM »
ReplyReply

Off unless we're talking hazardous duty.  The cost of decent filters isn't that far off of a lens repair.
Logged
The View
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1001


« Reply #12 on: August 16, 2008, 04:02:37 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
In another photography forum I was advised to take the uv filters off.

"UV filters (on digital) are for hazardous duty use only. Leave them off unless strictly necessary. Your sensor has a UV filter bonded to it.

UV filter effects: http://www.kenandchristine.com/gallery/1054387
http://www.vanwalree.com/optics/filterflare.html "

What are your thoughts?

Andres
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=211946\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


They use Tiffen and Hoya filters.

Cheap filters, one should never use.

Have you ever put a Tiffen on a white sheet of paper? That yellowish smear.

Wouldn't want that in front of my lens.

A really good filter, like a B + W is clear and of high optical quality. And if its multicoated, you have almost no loss of light and reflections.


The test set-up with desk lamps and cheap filters is a joke.

Have they measured the angle of light in their "flare test"? How directional is the light from a desk lamp? Can they repeat the exact same angle? I really don't bother with that kind of weirdo tests any more.

If science would work that way, we'd all be dead.

As for me, I always have an UV filter on my lens.

For example, to keep UV and haze at bay.

And to protect, of course, also from dust, which my particular lens needs.


PS: some lenses, like the Canon 17-55/2.8 IS suck in dust if the front element is not covered by a filter.
« Last Edit: August 16, 2008, 04:10:10 AM by The View » Logged

Deserts, Cities, Woods, Faces - View of the World.
The View
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1001


« Reply #13 on: August 16, 2008, 04:03:38 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Off unless we're talking hazardous duty.  The cost of decent filters isn't that far off of a lens repair.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=212096\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Please give me the address of your repair shop.

They repair a lens for 77$?
Logged

Deserts, Cities, Woods, Faces - View of the World.
The View
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1001


« Reply #14 on: August 16, 2008, 04:07:16 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I don't use UV filters except in hostile conditions like sand, sea spray or heavy rain. Lens hoods offer better protection when you hit something or drop your camera.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=211965\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Lens hood is a good one!
Logged

Deserts, Cities, Woods, Faces - View of the World.
DarkPenguin
Guest
« Reply #15 on: August 16, 2008, 09:33:51 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Please give me the address of your repair shop.

They repair a lens for 77$?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=215425\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

The reason one doesn't buy extended warranties is that the collective savings will pay for any individual repair.  If everything breaks then that strategy fails.

Same concept applies.

BTW, how many filters have you destroyed?
« Last Edit: August 16, 2008, 09:42:51 AM by DarkPenguin » Logged
blansky
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 155


« Reply #16 on: August 16, 2008, 10:30:32 AM »
ReplyReply

I've always used UV filters for lens protection and when I purchased my first digital camera I asked about a UV filter. This was not at a pro store like B&H but merely an amateur one and he showed me 3 filters. The most expensive one was made  for digital with some sort of non glare/reflective coating on the inside of the filter.

It was somewhere around $100 so I opted for one at around $55.

Has anyone seen or used the supposed "digital" one and is it truly a better filter.

Thanks,

Michael
Logged
mikeseb
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 482



WWW
« Reply #17 on: August 16, 2008, 10:58:59 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Has anyone seen or used the supposed "digital" one and is it truly a better filter.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=215471\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Sounds like you were being served up a heapin' helpin' of salesman-BS.

Light in front of a filter is just, ah, light in front of a filter, regardless of what happens to the photons after they traverse the rear lens element.

I keep filters on all my lenses. I've used nothing but B+W filters. I can't tell any difference with them on vs. with them off, in a variety of lighting conditions. Just my personal ad hoc testing. I make no scientific claims.

I do know that I've destroyed two filters--one from a near-freak incident (struck by flying rock), the other from blowing sand (where most of us would have agreed on the need for a filter, regardless of our "normal" practice.) So I'm a believer.

I doubt Nikon or Contax would give me a new front lens element for $77!
Logged

michael sebastian
Website  |  Blog
DarkPenguin
Guest
« Reply #18 on: August 16, 2008, 11:13:13 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Sounds like you were being served up a heapin' helpin' of salesman-BS.

Light in front of a filter is just, ah, light in front of a filter, regardless of what happens to the photons after they traverse the rear lens element.

I keep filters on all my lenses. I've used nothing but B+W filters. I can't tell any difference with them on vs. with them off, in a variety of lighting conditions. Just my personal ad hoc testing. I make no scientific claims.

I do know that I've destroyed two filters--one from a near-freak incident (struck by flying rock), the other from blowing sand (where most of us would have agreed on the need for a filter, regardless of our "normal" practice.) So I'm a believer.

I doubt Nikon or Contax would give me a new front lens element for $77!
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=215478\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Yeah, I've lost one.  In conditions where I felt the need to put the filter on.  I've also had flare issues with filters.

The hood has saved many a lens, however.
Logged
mikeseb
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 482



WWW
« Reply #19 on: August 16, 2008, 12:01:57 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
The hood has saved many a lens, however.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=215481\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

No doubt. I keep one of those on at all times, too.

However, I don't fully trust my Nikon or Contax lens hoods. The Nikon hoods are plastic; and the Contax's hoods are mated to their lenses by a flimsy plastic bayonet ring, itself attached to the sturdy aluminum hood by three absurdly tiny screws. I've already popped the screwheads thru the ring and/or broken the ring at least three times with seemingly minor impacts, like bumping into someone's arm or a doorframe as I passed through. Frustrating.

Try finding Contax hoods, or god forbid, the little rings themselves. Shoulda stocked up two years ago when I last bought some from Kyocera....
Logged

michael sebastian
Website  |  Blog
Pages: [1] 2 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad