Using a CPL all the time or a UV filter?

Granty_ · 28 Dec 2009

Hi,

I am just about to purchase a Sony CZ 16-80mm and was looking for some form protection in the form of a UV filter and was going to buy a CPL with next months pay cheque.

Now some people seem to say that a UV filter degrades image quality, especially as they are prone to flare and that infact a high quality CPL like the Hoya HD would be the better way to go as it dont lose that much light.

My only issue is I'm mainly landscape and I hate using CPL's on dull days as it is with images needing longer shutter speeds etc.

What does everyone think? Just buy a CPL and keep it on all the time?

Ta

Granty

HoppyUK · 29 Dec 2009

Simple solution is not to use a protection filter at all. Just use a lens hood and be careful.

I use a Hoya HD CPL most of the time on a 10-22, but that's for landscape. You wouldn't want it on a general purpose lens like a 16-80 all the time, quite apart from the loss of light.

grey.squirrel · 29 Dec 2009

If your worried about lens flare from the UV filter then that shouldn't be a problem on dull days when you don't want to use your CPL

Just take both and decide which you need to put on for that day.

evo456 · 29 Dec 2009

Granty_ said:
Hi,

I am just about to purchase a Sony CZ 16-80mm and was looking for some form protection in the form of a UV filter and was going to buy a CPL with next months pay cheque.

Now some people seem to say that a UV filter degrades image quality, especially as they are prone to flare and that infact a high quality CPL like the Hoya HD would be the better way to go as it dont lose that much light.

My only issue is I'm mainly landscape and I hate using CPL's on dull days as it is with images needing longer shutter speeds etc.

What does everyone think? Just buy a CPL and keep it on all the time?

Ta

Granty

With a CPL you'd probably lose around 1 to 2 stops of light, is that something you really want? Some people pay an arm and leg to get the extra stop of light from their standard zoom. To put this in perspective here is what your lens will become 1 / 2 stops loss respectively

3.5- 4.5 - Original
5.0 - 6.3 - 1 stop loss
7.0 - 9.0 - 2 stop loss.

This could be difference between using a higher/lower ISO (noise) + higher/lower shutter.

Another thing, the CZ is pretty prone to vignetting on the wide side, to minimising this you'll need the thinnest filter possibly. I would recommend a lens protect filter like from Marumi.

seriousrikk · 29 Dec 2009

HoppyUK said:
Simple solution is not to use a protection filter at all. Just use a lens hood and be careful.

I use a Hoya HD CPL most of the time on a 10-22, but that's for landscape. You wouldn't want it on a general purpose lens like a 16-80 all the time, quite apart from the loss of light.

Don't get hung op on needing a filter there all the time for protection. Use one when conditions suggest you should but otherwise keep a UV and a CPL handy and use the hood.

theonemule · 29 Dec 2009

I think a filter will suffice for all the time. Also, this is smart to protect the lens.

I only really use CPL whenever there is a lot of glare. This usually occurs when I'm outside shooting in broad daylight with lots of reflective surfaces, such as water, sand, snow, cars, pavement, and glass.

If I really want to show things down, I'll sometimes double up a CPL or use a ND filter with a CPL....In broad daylight, 2 CPL can slow down the exposure 7 or 8 stops...

Kaouthia · 29 Dec 2009

Granty_ said:
Now some people seem to say that a UV filter degrades image quality

I agree with this up to a point. Yes, any piece of glass (no matter whether it's a UV, Skylight or CPL filter or a window) is going to degrade your image quality and increase the risk of flare, but it's really a question of what's an acceptable loss.

On my Sigma 10-20mm, Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8 VR and 300mm f/4 AF-S I use 77mm UV Filters, but they're B+W pro filters that cost about £70 each (but I'd rather replace a £70 filter than a £500-1500 lens just because some water spray or mud or other crap got stuck to the end of it and permanently marks it). When you're holding just the filter up to an object in the light (assuming you're not seeing reflections on it) you really can't tell there's any glass inside there.

The difference to the images my cameras produce is minimal because I bought high end filters to minimise distortions, light loss, flare, etc. The quality of the final result is still perfectly acceptable to me and my clients.

When I look at cheaper filters like the Sunpak and low end Hoya ones, the effects can definitely become a bit more obvious.

I have a CPL for the above lenses too, but more often than not, it's sat in its case in my bags until I need it, at which point I switch out the UV on whatever lens I need it for.

terryuk · 29 Dec 2009

would a uv filter on a nifty fifty used indoors make much of a difference to the pictures

Kaouthia · 29 Dec 2009

If it's a high quality filter, probably not enough that you'd notice or care.

Gordon Scott · 29 Dec 2009

I'm about to buy a just Hoya HD CPL because it is good quality and only looses 1 stop. I'm forgoing the UV filter cost to pay for the good quality Hoya HD CPL. Will use the the CPL when situations will be improved by its characteristics and in hostile conditions. Otherwise the lens hood is adequate protection IMHO and has no loss of quality by putting more glass in front of an expensive lens. I tend to use a tripod, so the loss of 1 stop is not a problem particularly as I'll just decrease the shutter speed or, if necessary when hand held, switch on IS and / or up the ISO by stop.

desantnik · 29 Dec 2009

terryuk said:
would a uv filter on a nifty fifty used indoors make much of a difference to the pictures

No but the quality filter that you'd need to not be mangling the images will cost as much as the "nasty fifty" in the first place!

If your "indoors" is so dangerous that flying bullets will damage your lens, you are probably living in Iraq/Afganistan/Gaza and I'd suggest putting the 70 quid for the filter towards a plane ticket out of there instead :lol:

terryuk · 29 Dec 2009

desantnik said:
No but the quality filter that you'd need to not be mangling the images will cost as much as the "nasty fifty" in the first place!

If your "indoors" is so dangerous that flying bullets will damage your lens, you are probably living in Iraq/Afganistan/Gaza and I'd suggest putting the 70 quid for the filter towards a plane ticket out of there instead

i leave in deepest essex with three teenage kids Iraq/Afganistan/Gaza sound like holiday destinations in comparison :lol:

Granty_ · 29 Dec 2009

Thanks for all your input.

As I'm mainly a landscape photographer some form of protection is essential for me. I think I'll do what I do now really and use both, probs the Hoya HD filters they seem pretty good.

I took a pretty big fall the other month, camera in hand and I had my CPL on my lens at the time and as the camera landed in a puddle I was thankful to have it on because 1 i was lucky everythng worked after and 2 the first thing I did was reach for my clean fleece in my bag to dry everything off. The CPL was pretty much ruined but the front of the lens element was fine, if it had not been on I'd have had to risk not drying it right away and run the risk of fungus.