Ultra-Violet Filter

tonyq

tonyq

Messages
236
Edit My Images
Yes
I have just bought the Canon 50mm 1.8 lens from Jessops for use on my Canon 600D camera. While buying this,the assistant asked/suggested buying a Ultra-Violet Filter, to go with it as it will protect the lens as much as anything. So being the sucker that I am I agreed to buy it as it was half price when bought with a lens. My question is do I leave it on all the time? if not when is it to be used?
 
marts_uk said:
If you have one, leave it on all the time. People either use UV/Skylight/Protections filters or they dont. There are arguments for and against.
Click to expand...

Mainly against. Especially with that lens which is v cheap and has a well-protected deeply recessed front element anyway. The upside of the deep recessing, ie effectively a small built-in lens hood, is also lost by fitting a filter.

What the sales assistant really meant when they talked about protection, was protection of their profit margin.
 
thank you for your thoughts so far.
I am having a problem with the new 50mm 1.8 lens,(without the filter).Should start a new post? or post here.
 
Put simply, the arguments against are that anything between the lens and the subject can only degrade the image. Adding a filter can also make a lens more susceptible to flare, particularly with the lower quality filters.

The arguments for are that if you have a minor accident, a scratch on a filter means you can junk the filter and fit a fresh one - for relatively low cost (compared to a new lens) you are back as if no damage had occurred.

Which option is right for you depends on you and what / where you shoot.

At one extreme, if you are careful, and shoot landscapes of gently rolling hills, or still life in the studio then there's no benefit to filters.

At the other, if you are accident prone, and shoot rally-cross (mud & stones everywhere!), or from racing yachts, then a filter will be a definite benefit.

Most are somewhere between these, and it's up to you to figure out if the benefits outweigh the disadvantages.
 
Being mainly a portrait photographer, I don't use filters for Portrait work, however I do if shooting landscapes (Hoya Pro UV Filter).

If you do use a filter, use the best you can afford. ie no point spending £1000 on a lens only to put a £5 cheapo ebay filter on the end!
 
Apologies for hijacking this thread, but... I currently have a 7D and two lenses (24-70 F2.8 L and 70-200 F2.8 L) and both are fitted with Hoya Pro1D UV filters. I will shortly be getting a 5D and when they arrive in the country the newer Mk II version of the 24-70. I'm thinking about not bothering with a UV on the new standard zoom for the arguments explained above (mainly IQ) but perhaps will keep the UV filter on the longer lens which I often use for white water canoeing shots so there is sometimes spray in the air.

Just wondered if other, more experienced photographers, thought that this was a good plan of action. What would you do? Do you actually know of anyone who has scratched their front element/filter or is it all a myth? What are the stats? I've never scratched a UV filter. What is the cost of replacing a front element on an L series lens anyway?

Thanks in advance

Neil
 
NewbieNeil said:
Apologies for hijacking this thread, but... I currently have a 7D and two lenses (24-70 F2.8 L and 70-200 F2.8 L) and both are fitted with Hoya Pro1D UV filters. I will shortly be getting a 5D and when they arrive in the country the newer Mk II version of the 24-70. I'm thinking about not bothering with a UV on the new standard zoom for the arguments explained above (mainly IQ) but perhaps will keep the UV filter on the longer lens which I often use for white water canoeing shots so there is sometimes spray in the air.

Just wondered if other, more experienced photographers, thought that this was a good plan of action. What would you do? Do you actually know of anyone who has scratched their front element/filter or is it all a myth? What are the stats? I've never scratched a UV filter. What is the cost of replacing a front element on an L series lens anyway?

Thanks in advance

Neil
Click to expand...

Nice lenses :) Shame to run the risk of degraded images with a UV filter. IMO, Hoya HD protector is the best around, or B+W MRC - both have waterproof coatings (Hoya Pro1 does not).

I have a protection filter that fits most of my lenses, and use it as and when, but never otherwise. However, I always use a lens hood. Last time I used the protection filter was near the sea - salt spray is really horrible stuff, gets everywhere and is hard to clean. Wipe it off before it dries, from the camera too.
 
Thanks Hoppy. That's really helpful advice. I will look into the Hoya HD filters online now. It's a shame that the Mark I and Mark II versions of the 24-70 have different filter threads, or I could have kept the filter that I currently have. I have to admit that I originally left off the lens hoods because I thought that they made me look like I was a bit of an idiot (look at the size of my lens!) but have used them all the time in recent years. Perhaps I need to store the filters in their Hoya boxes and put them on when the weather is wet or the environment is poor (dust, sea spray, etc.). It's easy to get caught in the philosophy of having spent a fair bit on a filter that you don't want to leave it in the bag. And what about the 'just in case I scratch it' feeling?

I'm leaning towards what Hoppy says. Any other opinions?
 
Last edited:
tonyq said:
While buying this,the assistant asked/suggested buying a Ultra-Violet Filter, to go with it as it will protect the lens as much as anything. So being the sucker that I am I agreed to buy it as it was half price when bought with a lens.
Click to expand...

And it's quite likely that the shop made more of a profit from that filter than they did on the camera.
 
Given the cost of 50mm f/1.8 I wouldn't really worry too much about it.

I do have a protection filters for my lenses but they only go on in foul weather and dirty/sandy conditions, or the most dangerous situation of all, the children's party...

The filter for my 24-105 does have a couple of minor battle scars so it has done its job, they would have been on the front element otherwise and while not having any impact on image quality, would have impacted resale value. Not making money of photography this is something worth considering any trading off potential minor degradation in IQ in some situations.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top