Filters: UV or Protector - which to buy?

justinitus

justinitus

Messages
807
Name
Justin
Edit My Images
Yes
Evening all

Looking a bit of advice please :D

Am a bit confused as to which filter to buy for my 10-20mm lens - UV or Protector. I know the difference, one has UV coatings, one is clear - my query is which is better for the above lens or doesn't it matter?

I was looking at the Hoya Pro 1 Digital's as they have thin frames but I also found some Nikon ones at a good price (thanks Dod :thumbs:). Does anyone know if the Nikon branded filters have thin or regular frames?

Thanks in advance :thumbs:
 
To a point it doesn't really matter. Assuming you're using it on the D300s, the sensor's coatings will block most all UV that enters anyway.

So, it doesn't really matter which you use as long as it's top notch (and the Sigma 10-20mm is worth spending top dollar on, it's an awesome lens) the sensor still will see pretty much the same thing. I ended up going with B+W Pro UV filter for mine. I think it cost about 70 quid.
 
Thanks Kaouthia :thumbs:

Would a UV filter affect my images in any way at all?

Would a clear Protector filter introduce any flare/reflections at all as it's just clear glass?
 
When it comes to these types of filters, from experience I suspect you will find a different opinion depending on who you ask. Even the so called experts in the camera shops will have different opinions. In terms of quality, the Hoya pro slim range are very good, and should you ever intend to add anymore onto the front of it, for example a circular polariser, then having the slim pro, is the best place to start.
I have used both types over the years on film and digital, and I can't really see any difference, but I am sure someone else will respond to this thread with a different opinion.
 
There was a study done on filters and their effects, the Hoya HMC came out the best if I remember correctly, although I can't remember where to find the report :(
 
Well for me personally i dont see the point in buying any really good glass to stick a bit of cheap glass in front of it.
I prefer to stick a hood on it that will prevent you from knocking the end of it,but thats just me.:):thumbs:
 
jockwav said:
Well for me personally i dont see the point in buying any really good glass to stick a bit of cheap glass in front of it.
Click to expand...

What about sticking an expensive piece of glass in front of it? :)

Using the B+W Filters, I've had no noticable loss in image quality (certainly not enough to concern me anyway), and no issues with flaring, but as I said the pro B+W UV/clear filters are about 70 quid.
 
I suppose it all comes down to personal choice,just my own prefference.:):thumbs:
 
My main reason for using one is that I did a lot of shooting out in fields with dogs & birds of prey, and when mud and crap gets sprayed up, the lens hood isn't always going to help. I've replaced 3 or 4 filters now because they got so dirty from mud splatter. Cheaper than replacing the lens. :)

As I said though, any extra glass at the end of your lens is going to degrade image quality to some degree no matter how good it is. It's all a question of acceptable loss, to me it's acceptable. If I were shooting a 24mp D3x I might think differently, but on the D100, D200, D300s it's never been a noticable issue.
 
If there's mud and other crap being thrown all over the place, I'm as worried (if not more so) by the possibility of it getting into the body of the lens through the focus or zoom rings.
 
jockwav said:
I suppose it all comes down to personal choice,just my own prefference.:):thumbs:
Click to expand...

Totally agree, dumped all my filters and use a lens hood for protection.!

One point not mentioned which I have not actually tested myself is that surely any extra glass on the front will certainly have an effect on flare etc.

:)
 
jockwav said:
Well for me personally i dont see the point in buying any really good glass to stick a bit of cheap glass in front of it.
I prefer to stick a hood on it that will prevent you from knocking the end of it,but thats just me.:):thumbs:
Click to expand...

Nikon uses a flat glass plate at the end of its 200mm f/2 lens for protection. Not a cheap lens, renowned for its image quality.

http://imaging.nikon.com/products/imaging/lineup/lens/af/telephoto/af-s_vr_200mmf_2g_if/index.htm

Which endorses the practice of using protective filters in my opinion.

As has been correctly pointed out, the one risk of filters is extra flare. A good multicoated filter will not demonstrate noticable flare in normal use in my opinion.

I challenge anyone to tell the difference between images taken with and without a protective/UV filter.

I regularly take off my protective filters to clean them, and believe me I'm relieved that the dust and crud (don't know where it comes from) is on the filter not the lens.

To address the OP's initial question - I've always gone for UV filters, on the grounds that they are useful for UV-sensitive film, in case I get into film at some later stage, or wish to sell the filter in which case it will be worth more because it's useful to more people than just a protector.
 
martsharm said:
I challenge anyone to tell the difference between images taken with and without a protective/UV filter.
Click to expand...

I took the same scene with and without a UV filter fitted and could see the difference so I've not used one since. It was a decent hoya but did not cost £70.

I'd use one for protection against flying dirt but wouldn't otherwise. I'm aware my lens is exposed but my normal handling is careful in any case and coatings are still unmarked.

I'd say get one at the budget you feel comfortable with and then decide for yourself. If you can find a used one you will probably not lose any money on it should you decide against.
 
Nod said:
If there's mud and other crap being thrown all over the place, I'm as worried (if not more so) by the possibility of it getting into the body of the lens through the focus or zoom rings.
Click to expand...

Well, it's not big chunks of mud, it's mostly spray. But I have a rain coat for my lens & body that will cover up to a 500mm lens. So, I'm not that worried. Obviously the end of the lens needs to be uncovered in order to be able to see the shot. That's where the problem comes in. Specs of mud and crap in the air can permanently damage the coating on the glass.

Flares. Multi coated high end filters, and I still use a lens hood to help prevent unwanted light getting into the lens. When I'm using flash they're always flagged off from directly entering the lens, so it's never been a problem.
 
I have a UV filter that I keep in the bag for sandy/sea spray-y/similar enviroments but 99% of the time I just use a hood for protection
 
MartinM said:
Totally agree, dumped all my filters and use a lens hood for protection.!

One point not mentioned which I have not actually tested myself is that surely any extra glass on the front will certainly have an effect on flare etc.

:)
Click to expand...
:thumbs: Hood only no filters
No need for UV on digital and the only filters i use is polarizes even then on a 10-20 it not so hot as it will not work on all of the image if its the dark blue sky's your after
 
Go for a bog standard skylight or UV filter to give general protection. There are circumstances when image quality will suffer (mainly in difficult lighting where reflections are posible), in those circumstances - just take it off and put it in your bag.
 
Well, thank you all very much for the feedback - learnt a lot :D
 
martsharm said:
Nikon uses a flat glass plate at the end of its 200mm f/2 lens for protection. Not a cheap lens, renowned for its image quality.

http://imaging.nikon.com/products/imaging/lineup/lens/af/telephoto/af-s_vr_200mmf_2g_if/index.htm

Which endorses the practice of using protective filters in my opinion.
Click to expand...

It's not a flat plate glass, it's a meniscus - it's curved. Canon fits the same to some lenses - mainly those with massively large, very vulnerable, and massively expensive front elements - not everyday lenses. The curve substantially reduces the possibility of picking up reflections off the surface of the sensor, which with a flat filter are bounced straight back again off the rear surface, creating ghosts.

As has been correctly pointed out, the one risk of filters is extra flare. A good multicoated filter will not demonstrate noticable flare in normal use in my opinion.

I challenge anyone to tell the difference between images taken with and without a protective/UV filter.

I regularly take off my protective filters to clean them, and believe me I'm relieved that the dust and crud (don't know where it comes from) is on the filter not the lens.

To address the OP's initial question - I've always gone for UV filters, on the grounds that they are useful for UV-sensitive film, in case I get into film at some later stage, or wish to sell the filter in which case it will be worth more because it's useful to more people than just a protector.
Click to expand...

If you want to see flare from even the best filter, take a night shot with a few bright lights against dark areas, with and without the filter. You'll see it. The real question is whether or not you think it's significant, but it's there right enough.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top