Filters?

JAC40

JAC40

Messages
59
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi. Being pretty new to dslr cameras, it has been suggested to me to get a uv filter to protect my lens. But others say they ruin your photos. What would you recommend? I'm not careless but accidents happen :confused: Also I've seen some close up filters for close-up/macro photography...are these any good? Not really tried macro so thought they might be a good starting point before getting a proper lens. Any advice would be appreciated. Thanks.
 
Cannot comment on the close up filters as I've never used them

UV/protection filters is akin to Nikon vs Canon or RAW vs JPEG but it's simple if you want one buy the best you can afford as the really cheap ones will likely be the most detrimental to image quality, if your shooting into a strong light source it's best to take any filter off to reduce lens flare, though sometimes you'll need to keep say graduated ND filters on even when shooting into that light source...

All that said I never use a UV/protection as I don't find them beneficial, as nearly all my lens have a hood, anything that makes it past the hood will likely smash any filter and I don't like the idea of broken glass coming into contract with my front element

But it's all down to choice :thumbs:
 
In general, unless you're weather sealing your lens from rain/sand etc, don't use a uv filter, it will affect image quality. Just use the lens hood.
The cheap close up filters are........ cheap & not really brilliant.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ST4
a raynox at 30-40quid should be where you start with macro, there actually really good

as for uv filter then a b w mrc are the best, but if your lens isnt expensive its not worth spending 20-30quid on a filter to protect it
 
UV and Protection filters can and do affect image quality. Sharpness is not usually a problem with a decent quality filter, but a) shooting into bright light they will increase flare and images will look washed out, and b) you can get ghosting with bright lights against dark backgrounds, eg sunsets, street scenes at night. With longer focal lengths, sharpness can also be affected as they enlarge imperfections.

Lens hoods offer excellent protection, and can enhance image quality in some situations such as bright side lighting. Use a protection filter only when you need it, such as sea spray or flying mud etc.
 
  • No UV/'protective' filter can improve image quality on a dSLR.
  • All UV/'protective' filters will cause some degradation in image quality.
  • The seriousness of this degradation tends to decrease as filter cost increases.
  • Good filters will cause degradation that is not noticeable under most conditions.
  • All filters, even the best, will cause noticeable degradation in some conditions.
  • Image degradation is worse with longer focal lengths
 
I use the b+w pro uv filter and there is no degradation in quality at all. During an event I took several with it on and off, and there wasn't a difference. If there are conditions that would make the image worse, I've yet to find them in gig photography, outdoors or indoors.
 
I too can highly recommend B+W filters, they are not cheap but they don't have any noticable effect on the image. :)
 
Bluesmachine said:
I use the b+w pro uv filter and there is no degradation in quality at all. During an event I took several with it on and off, and there wasn't a difference. If there are conditions that would make the image worse, I've yet to find them in gig photography, outdoors or indoors.
Click to expand...

Rizvan said:
I too can highly recommend B+W filters, they are not cheap but they don't have any noticable effect on the image. :)
Click to expand...

ALL FILTERS, regardless of quality, will degrade the image significantly in some situations. See post #5 above.
 
Rather than people constantly naysaying when it comes to filters, can someone please provide photographic evidence of this? All I ever see is the odd person popping up insisting they cause problems, yet I've used them in all sorts of scenarios and had no issues. I've even once seen posted, two images (not on here, I think) saying one was with filter and one not, with the naysayers started out with the lines "you can clearly see the difference" and it turned out the O/P was lying and it was the same image :D

I'm not suggesting for one minute there are no issues, just that I haven't been able to find these issues people speak of, and often shoot directly into light sources. It's now got to the point where it's now starting to irritate me when people talk down to users of filters and provide no evidence to back up their theory. Call me mad but I don't believe everything I read on the internet without facts :)
 
I'd hardly call low quality images, 3 years old, using no name filters a good show of proof. Even Hoya filters are known for problems.

I'm referring to the b+w pro filters, not cheap rubbish that WILL cause issues.
 
Bluesmachine said:
Rather than people constantly naysaying when it comes to filters, can someone please provide photographic evidence of this? All I ever see is the odd person popping up insisting they cause problems, yet I've used them in all sorts of scenarios and had no issues. I've even once seen posted, two images (not on here, I think) saying one was with filter and one not, with the naysayers started out with the lines "you can clearly see the difference" and it turned out the O/P was lying and it was the same image :D

I'm not suggesting for one minute there are no issues, just that I haven't been able to find these issues people speak of, and often shoot directly into light sources. It's now got to the point where it's now starting to irritate me when people talk down to users of filters and provide no evidence to back up their theory. Call me mad but I don't believe everything I read on the internet without facts :)
Click to expand...

If you shoot with/without filter comparisons in some of the 'difficult' situations outlined above, you'll see for yourself. Plenty of examples if you run a search through google images.
 
I use to keep Hoya pro UV filters on all my lenses when I started out, but after 3 years, I've never knocked my lens enough to warrant the protection, so I don't bother now. With that being said, I have no intention of selling any gear. I'm keeping them to the death. If I was buying a lens that I had the intention of selling later on or part-ex-ing, then I would use a UV filter.
 
No one is talking down to you Naill. Just because you haven't found or can't see any difference doesn't mean that there isn't any. Just the fact of putting another piece of glass in front of a carefully designed and manufactured optical lens
certainly isn't going to improve the quality.

If you're happy with the results you're getting that's all that matters. Some however dont want anything in front of their 2 grand lens.
 
I used them recently over a 4 day event as there was a lot of smoke machines in the venues. If I know I won't need them, I keep them in the bag just incase (you can bet you'll need something you don't bring). Gig photography results in lots of stuff getting on your equipment, so they're very handy there.

Originally I specifically bought the filters as I planned on getting some action shots of RC cars in mud, etc. camera wrapped in storm jacket with a filter is a must :D

Anyway, unless someone can provide evidence rather than 'look at Google', combined with the fact the b+w pro filters have no issues in any scenarios I've discovered! I'll always advise people to buy them. After all, in all the years this debate has been going not a single person has provided an image to counter that opinion.
 
Gaz J said:
No one is talking down to you Naill. Just because you haven't found or can't see any difference doesn't mean that there isn't any. Just the fact of putting another piece of glass in front of a carefully designed and manufactured optical lens
certainly isn't going to improve the quality.

If you're happy with the results you're getting that's all that matters. Some however dont want anything in front of their 2 grand lens.
Click to expand...
I didn't mean to imply anyone was talking down to me (if I did!). I honestly don't care what people say to or about me. I'd just like evidence to back up statements, as I remember all the misleading stuff I was told when I started out. It can be very annoying if people are saying conflicting things for no apparent reason.

If someone doesn't want a filter in front of their £2k lens, that's their call. I'd rather have it when I know I need it. I'm not made of money :p
 
Last edited:
Bluesmachine said:
I'd hardly call low quality images, 3 years old, using no name filters a good show of proof. Even Hoya filters are known for problems.

I'm referring to the b+w pro filters, not cheap rubbish that WILL cause issues.
Click to expand...

Surely it matters not when the images were taken and given Hoya is a respected brand it's a little unfair to call them cheap rubbish....or perhaps you feel new images need to be shot on a regular basis to demonstrate the same old issue
 
Bluesmachine said:
I'd hardly call low quality images, 3 years old, using no name filters a good show of proof. Even Hoya filters are known for problems.

I'm referring to the b+w pro filters, not cheap rubbish that WILL cause issues.
Click to expand...

Excuses, excuses excuses. Another member of the 'Ignore' club.
 
Personally I invest in B+W filters, not cheap but I have never seen them cause issues with ghosting/flare etc.
B+W are tried and tested and they wouldn't be anywhere if their hardware caused issues with optical performance of lenses.
I do believe that cheaper filters could cause optical issues if its made of cheap uncoated glass.

I buy my filters for protection only so if I ever had a problem with a certain shot I was taking, I would just take it off and re-take the photo.
 
B+W filters are not immune to the same problems that affect all filters, even the best ones. They are an extra piece of glass in the optical path, with two shiny surfaces, and they can and do affect the image very noticeably in certain conditions.
 
MWHCVT said:
Surely it matters not when the images were taken and given Hoya is a respected brand it's a little unfair to call them cheap rubbish....or perhaps you feel new images need to be shot on a regular basis to demonstrate the same old issue
Click to expand...

I think you've missed a bit of info here. On the link posted, it clearly says "Hoya HD - no name - cheapo". Hoya are known to have issues with things like colour cast, and the "no name", and "cheapo" are clearly awful, which is what I was referring to :) (edit) oops, missed a point you made. As sensors and lenses improve over the years, yes, you'd need to revisit the issue. Better optics will show up more problems with anything in front of the lens, so the quality of the filters would need to improve too, unless already the best they could possibly be. Just using better lenses on the same camera shows you certain limitations, as does moving up to a better camera with the older, less than perfect lenses.

hollis_f said:
Excuses, excuses excuses. Another member of the 'Ignore' club.
Click to expand...

Excuse me? What on earth is that supposed to mean? Or are you just trying to troll the forums to cause arguments when others are actually contributing to the discussion?

Rizvan said:
Personally I invest in B+W filters, not cheap but I have never seen them cause issues with ghosting/flare etc.
B+W are tried and tested and they wouldn't be anywhere if their hardware caused issues with optical performance of lenses.
I do believe that cheaper filters could cause optical issues if its made of cheap uncoated glass.

I buy my filters for protection only so if I ever had a problem with a certain shot I was taking, I would just take it off and re-take the photo.
Click to expand...

This is my thought on the subject too. If it causes no problems, use it until you find one.

HoppyUK said:
B+W filters are not immune to the same problems that affect all filters, even the best ones. They are an extra piece of glass in the optical path, with two shiny surfaces, and they can and do affect the image very noticeably in certain conditions.
Click to expand...

I doubt there is anything that's immune to everything. I imagine they'd charge a much higher price if they could make that claim, and rightly so!
 
Last edited:
Bluesmachine said:
I think you've missed a bit of info here. On the link posted, it clearly says "Hoya HD - no name - cheapo". Hoya are known to have issues with things like colour cast, and the "no name", and "cheapo" are clearly awful, which is what I was referring to :) (edit) oops, missed a point you made. As sensors and lenses improve over the years, yes, you'd need to revisit the issue. Better optics will show up more problems with anything in front of the lens, so the quality of the filters would need to improve too, unless already the best they could possibly be. Just using better lenses on the same camera shows you certain limitations, as does moving up to a better camera with the older, less than perfect lenses.



Excuse me? What on earth is that supposed to mean? Or are you just trying to troll the forums to cause arguments when others are actually contributing to the discussion?



This is my thought on the subject too. If it causes no problems, use it until you find one.



I doubt there is anything that's immune to everything. I imagine they'd charge a much higher price if they could make that claim, and rightly so!
Click to expand...

Lets get something right here your wrong, I'm wrong we are all wrong on this as there is not definitive right answer to this question there's only logical answers...if you cannot use logic then were all doomed...I've never encountered a cast issue with genuine Hoya filters and I'm fairly certain hopefully @StewartR can confirm that L4H supply a Hoya Pro UV with their applicable rentals...do you really think they would use a rubbish type? That's not to say they're needed or that it's L4Hs position on the issues as frankly I have no idea but I just want to refute this idea that Hoya is a rubbish filter as that's utter tosh

If you want to have a discussion on the merits of filters but please don't sit there with your fingers in your ears ignoring anyone or saying they're trolling just because they have different but equally valid views to yourself
 
I really have no idea if you're skim reading what I posted, or are genuinely misunderstanding. I have not said Hoya are rubbish (I own a pro Hoya filter that I bought with my 70-200 2.8mkii), all I've said is that they have been known to have cast issues. I have no idea if every filter they've ever released has it, and nor have I said that. Again, as I've already said, which you've quoted so I assume you've read it, the link provided showed Hoya AND a cheap filter AND a no name one which I said were awful NOT the Hoya.

Here's a google search regarding colour cast. https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=hoya nd filter colour cast&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&client=firefox-a&channel=sb&gfe_rd=cr&ei=4libU72XDYeVigakpICgDQ

For some reason you seem to be using my PRO, FOR, LOVE THEM, ALWAYS USE THEM, recommendation of filters as if I'm saying not to use them! As for my comment of trolling, are you seriously trying to tell me the previous post I was referring to wasn't trolling? It was flat out rude and argumentative, offering nothing to the conversation. The very definition of trolling.

Back to the subject, I'm not sure what your issue is. I've said, and again you've quoted me as saying, I agree that you can use filters if you want to or not. No one is holding a gun to anyone's head. For some reason you've quoted a part of my comment that supports your argument and ignored the part that makes your comments moot. Again, I repeat, if you can use them with no issues and it saves your lens from getting gunk on it IF you use it in a scenario where you'll need one, which is the only reason you'd even buy one, then use it until you come across an issue which makes it a negative factor.

It's that straight forward. I've no idea why people are starting to argue when it's clearly been said and agreed that it's a persons choice to use them or not.
 
Last edited:
But they're ND filters?

You can google other ND manufacturers, quite a few produce colour casts.

I've got a few Hoya Pro 1 digital polarisers, they're the best ones I've used.
 
what about a marumi dhg lens protection filter
this is on my camera and i searched here to get some clarity on the subject
i do also have a lens hood which is always on the lens...
G1 with kit lens 14-45
its good to talk
cheers
geof
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top