Beginner looking for advice on UV filter

shannensdaddy

shannensdaddy

Messages
470
Name
Darren
Edit My Images
No
Hi Everybody
I recently bought a Nikon D90 with a AF-S DX 18-105mm f3.5-5.6G ED VR lens on the classified section on here , it has arrived and I am now looking for advice on the type of UV filter that I should fit on the lens to protect it from scratches . I have looked at this one below .

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Polaroid-Op..._sim_ph_4?ie=UTF8&refRID=0ZF4ECD5XXAZNKKCJ5PQ
Is there a specific make or type to use ?
I take it the filter size is 67mm , going by the size on the lens body .
Any advice would be appreciated .

regards Darren :)
 
Last edited:
As your asking for advice.. mine is... dont waste your money sticking another bit of glass in front of your lens... Unless you know your going to be in a situation where it could get scratched then dont bother.. it "could" impact on your lens pic quality.. the lens hood will protect it :)
 
I used to use UV filters on everything. Then purely out of curiosity I did some controlled tests with them on and off. I've never used them since! The difference in contrast and clarity with and without them was remarkable ( I was using mid range filters but I doubt expensive ones would have been much better).

As KIPAX says, the only place I would ever consider using them is a situation where the lens element is at risk from the likes of flying debris. Other than that the hood is more than enough protection for me.
 
The can is open, there's worms everywhere.

To the OP. Stop reading now.

You have all the advice you need, either buy decent filters or don't bother at all (unless you're in a really crappy environment).

There's no right answer, and what is about to follow is 3 pages or more of arguments that'll add nothing of any value to the above.
 
EspressoJunkie said:
I used to use UV filters on everything. Then purely out of curiosity I did some controlled tests with them on and off. I've never used them since! The difference in contrast and clarity with and without them was remarkable ( I was using mid range filters but I doubt expensive ones would have been much better).

As KIPAX says, the only place I would ever consider using them is a situation where the lens element is at risk from the likes of flying debris. Other than that the hood is more than enough protection for me.
Click to expand...
Playing devils advocate here only but many on here completely disparage the use of UV/protection filters saying they destroy image quality and yet are quite happy to use and stack CPL's, HD and graduated. Mmmmm

BTW the op asked what the best filter for protection was. There is an answer to that without the sidebar arguments about image quality.
 
Hi Darren

I don't use UV filters, as has been said, the lens hood tends offers sufficient protection...

The only time I would use a filter like this, would be if for example I was shooting near the sea and wanted some protection from spray...

Personally, I'd save your money, put it towards something else :) If you do want to use a filter, then I would recommend you buy a good quality one...
 
hoolio said:
Playing devils advocate here only but many on here completely disparage the use of UV/protection filters saying they destroy image quality and yet are quite happy to use and stack CPL's, HD and graduated. Mmmmm

BTW the op asked what the best filter for protection was. There is an answer to that without the sidebar arguments about image quality.
Click to expand...
That's just tosh.

A UV or skylight filter is only added for 'protection' there's a chance it will degrade the image, there's another option for 'protecting' the lens, it's called a lens hood and it also improves image quality.

A CPL provides an effect that's impossible to achieve without it's use, if there's a chance that the image is degraded slightly by it's use, then that's a price worth paying.
 
Lens hoods are ideal for preventing lens flare from light sources near the lens.

Grads are a must for balacing exposure accross a landscape. a UV filter plays no optical role in an image. Why place a £30 cheap bit of glass in front of a £1000plus lens and hold back your investment?
 
If you accept that a uv filter damages quality then you have to accept that all filters will to a certain extent and the crucial phrase used is "price worth paying" there is always going to be a trade off and it is up to the individual to decide how much they are willing to pay in terms of the tradeoff.
Btw the hood was not protection enough my 24-70L and for information I use £100+ Cpl's and Lee grads etc, no uv's.
 
Anything you put in front of the front element must degrade the resulting image. It may not be noticeable to the human eye at normal viewing distance but could be under magnification.
If the filter actually adds something ( in the form of effect) more than it takes away ( in the firm of image degradation) it must be worth using.
As it happens I never use any kind of filter.
 
Last edited:
Anyone else starting to feel sorry for the OP :) I best he wishes he never asked :)
 
:runaway:Well Guys I already have a lens hood which I have not taken out of the bag yet but will use from now on but I was wondering in strong sunlight do you not need a filter ND or UV ?
Complete novice here but I have always been interested and have finally bite the bullet and bought a D90 camera to learn on .

thanks for the advice , Darren
 
shannensdaddy said:
:runaway:Well Guys I already have a lens hood which I have not taken out of the bag yet but will use from now on but I was wondering in strong sunlight do you not need a filter ND or UV ?
Complete novice here but I have always been interested and have finally bite the bullet and bought a D90 camera to learn on .

thanks for the advice , Darren
Click to expand...
You may need a ND filter for long exposure photography, 'UV filters' hark back to the days of film, and aren't required for digital sensors.
 
Jesus christ could you lot argue in an empty room?
 
shannensdaddy said:
:runaway:Well Guys I already have a lens hood which I have not taken out of the bag yet but will use from now on but I was wondering in strong sunlight do you not need a filter ND or UV ?
Complete novice here but I have always been interested and have finally bite the bullet and bought a D90 camera to learn on .

thanks for the advice , Darren
Click to expand...

IF you want longer exposures than the smallest aperture your lens and the slowest speed (ISO) your camera will let you have, you need an ND filter (the classic examples being to get creamy water or shallow depth of field (DoF)) to reduce the amount of light getting to the sensor. Back in the days of film, UV filters were often used to reduce haziness but digital sensors generally have a UV filter in front of them so fitting one to the lens has no visible effect (other than having the potential to cause extra flare, reducing image quality (IQ)). Another option back then was to use a skylight filter which effectively added a very slight warm up tint to the shot but which are now fairly redundant since sensors aren't as sensitive to different colour temperatures as different emulsions are on film (you can set your digital camera's white balance to pretty much any light source but had to use different films (or heavy filtration) for tungsten lighting than for daylight (or flash).

I still have some skylight filters which occasionally get pressed into service for protection if there's a lot of dust or spray in the air but I no longer use them as a matter of course.
 
Some people do actually prefer to have some protection - I'm one of them and only use Nikon NC filters.

AL
 
b w mrc ones are good, and wider lenses have a more open hood, so can make sense to use one, I like to trapple through woods so use em :)
 
Just to muddy the waters a bit more:

1. Some Canon L series lenses are only weather resistant when a filter is fitted.

2. Some of the best lenses you can buy with awesome image quality - eg 300mm f/2.8 - have a plain glass element at the front to reduce the cost of damage repair.

Surely it follows that using a filter is OK, so long as the quality of the glass in the filter matches or exceeds the quality of the glass in your lens...
 
StewartR said:
Surely it follows that using a filter is OK, so long as the quality of the glass in the filter matches or exceeds the quality of the glass in your lens...
Click to expand...


aaaaw come on stewart.. we would all rush out and buy one tomorrow if that was the case....
 
I used to use top quality UV filters until I nearly sent myself crazy with focus issues!
£1600 lens with filter attached = focus all over the place!
Remove filter = focus spot on!
Guess what I do now!;)
 
StewartR said:
Some Canon L series lenses are only weather resistant when a filter is fitted.
Click to expand...

A very few Canon L lenses include this statement in the manual...
"Since the front element of this lens moves when focusing (zooming), you need to attach a Canon PROTECT filter sold separately for adequate dust- and water-resistant performance. Without a filter, the lens is not dust or water-resistant."
Click to expand...

StewartR said:
Some of the best lenses you can buy with awesome image quality - eg 300mm f/2.8 - have a plain glass element at the front to reduce the cost of damage repair..
Click to expand...

My 300f2.8 does, indeed, have a protective front element, designed to be relatively cheap and easy to replace in case of damage. However, it is not flat but slightly curved. This curvature has been optimised to remove, as far as possible, any internal reflections. That means that the chances of it producing flare are hugely smaller than with a flat piece of glass. It is also much thicker than any 'protective' filter, so will do a much better job of actually protecting, rather than easily shattering into a million shards of shrapnel.

However, these protective front elements do seem to be lacking in the newer super zooms. Apparently the number of people needing to replace the 'sacrificial' front element was so small (10 per year is the figure I've had quoted, and most of them had the job done under insurance) that it was decided to do away with that element as part of the overall weight-saving.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top