UV filter and Skylight filter question

mugsandb

mugsandb

Messages
63
Name
Andy
Edit My Images
Yes
I have a UV filter and a Skylight filter (77mm) and would like to know which to use for:

Tamron 10-24

Sigma 120-400

on a Canon 450d.

Any recommendations welcomed.

Thanks

Andy
 
Unless you are paranoid about fingerprints/scratches to the front element - don't bother with UV/skylight filters. dSLRs do not suffer from UV light the way that film used to.

Note that if the physical attack to the front element is likely to scratch it, chances are that the filter would have broken anyway.

Opens can of worms and stands well back
 
I'm now standing well back with Graham!

I always thought it was best / safest to use one of these filters to offer some form of protection to the lens against scratches etc.

Have I got it wrong then?
 
All filters increase the number of glass/air interfaces and MAY cause additional flare if you are shooting contre jour. In days of film, the recording medium was also sensitive to UV and so you would lose colour saturation on sunny days - this does not happen with digital sensors.

So by putting a filter on the front, you MAY degrade your image for little/no perceived gain in safety against damage. If the lens gets damaged, there is always insurance.

If you are going to attach a filter, it needs to be a high quality one (not £5 from Jessops :-) ) in which case if you are spending £40+ on a Hoya Digital Multi-Coated (DMC) Pro1 UV Filter, then I would take the risk and not bother.
 
Having already got the filters, I may as well use them though. (They're not the £5 from Jessops ones).
 
I am looking for a good UV filter to put on the 18-55mm IS that should be with me by the weekend. Any ideas as to make / price. I really don't want to spend a lot. £20 max
 
Koolpc said:
I am looking for a good UV filter to put on the 18-55mm IS that should be with me by the weekend. Any ideas as to make / price. I really don't want to spend a lot. £20 max
Click to expand...

18-55 is what filter diameter..? canon..?

you do not need a UV filter for digital cameras

you can use a "Protector" which is a plain glass coated filter
such as Marumi DHG Protector......"here"
I use their 72mm slimline - well impressed

HOWEVER
1 experienced member here prefers high quality multi-coated UV
another uses Hoya HD or Pro-1 Digital
these are much more than £20......:lol:

the lesson is that each to his own - under £20 "may" get you a filter which introduces degradation and flares

eBay are bad for fakes - I was given a B+W UV [top class]
it is advertised on eBay RRP £40 ...BIN £9.99...yeah right ..!:shake:

if it is "protection" you want - many members advocate using a lens hood
 
mugsandb said:
Having already got the filters, I may as well use them though. (They're not the £5 from Jessops ones).
Click to expand...

Since you've already got them, it would be a shame to throw them away. So keep them for the odd occasion when they might actually do some good, eg protect from sea spray, flying mud etc.

Otherwise, leave your lenses naked - as the manufacturers intended - and get the best from them. Use a lens hood for general protection.

BTW, the Skylight is very slightly pink, intended to correct the occasional blueness you can get with film when there's loads of UV about. Waste of time with digital.
 
Having just invested in a new lens myself, I've bought one of the Hoya Pro-1 filters to go with it. I do most of my stuff by the beach and there is always the risk of sand/stones flying up and hitting the front element. Trying to follow your mates around when they're speeding up and down kiteboarding isn't a particularly 'clean' job some days! I don't mind so much when I'm using the 18-55 or the 50mm f1.8, they're so cheap they're almost disposable. But yeah, brand new lens isn't going to be treated with such disregard :lol:
 
Last edited:
Anyone? Also, what about lens hoods, are they a worthy buy?

Any links to a decent one for a Canon lens, 58mm
 
Last edited:
Koolpc said:
Anyone? Also, what about lens hoods, are they a worthy buy?

Any links to a decent one for a Canon lens, 58mm
Click to expand...

Yes, as I said above. I always use a lens hood - best way there is to keep finger marks off the lens which is mostly the problem.

Use the one made for the lens. They are often lens-specifica and all manufacturers produce one.
 
As has been said above i only have a uv filter on to protect the lens as id rather replace a filter than take a chunk out the lens
 
B16JUS said:
As has been said above i only have a uv filter on to protect the lens as id rather replace a filter than take a chunk out the lens
Click to expand...

Likewise, I'd prefer my lens hood to take a knock rather than the front element of the lens.
 
Always use a lens hood and always use a filter outdoors.
The only time the filters come off is:

Night photography - the additional glass produces all kinds of unwanted reflections and ghosting.
When putting other filters on, such as polarising or effects filters - 'stacking' filters can produce severe vignetting.
In the studio when the lights might cause flare - usually they stay in place there as well.

As an aside, there was recently a post by a member here, asking whether a lens he was looking to buy 2nd hand was irreparably damaged or not.
The front element had several 'spots' on the front element - either water-drying marks or blemishes in the coating that couldn't be cleaned off (the seller claimed to have tried without success).
Although slight marks like that won't unduly affect image quality, it'd be better if they weren't there at all. I wouldn't buy a lens like that given the choice between it and an unmarked example - something to consider if the lenses you have now might be sold on at a later date to fund upgrades to your kit.

I've lost count of the times I've discovered 'surprise' debris stuck to the filters of my lenses - sometime in quite benign shooting situations (I once had a blob of ice cream stuck to my 70-200, which went unnoticed for the time it took to dry solid while bimbling around The Lanes in Brighton).
 
Arkady said:
Always use a lens hood and always use a filter outdoors.
The only time the filters come off is:

Night photography - the additional glass produces all kinds of unwanted reflections and ghosting.
When putting other filters on, such as polarising or effects filters - 'stacking' filters can produce severe vignetting.
In the studio when the lights might cause flare - usually they stay in place there as well.

As an aside, there was recently a post by a member here, asking whether a lens he was looking to buy 2nd hand was irreparably damaged or not.
The front element had several 'spots' on the front element - either water-drying marks or blemishes in the coating that couldn't be cleaned off (the seller claimed to have tried without success).
Although slight marks like that won't unduly affect image quality, it'd be better if they weren't there at all. I wouldn't buy a lens like that given the choice between it and an unmarked example - something to consider if the lenses you have now might be sold on at a later date to fund upgrades to your kit.

I've lost count of the times I've discovered 'surprise' debris stuck to the filters of my lenses - sometime in quite benign shooting situations (I once had a blob of ice cream stuck to my 70-200, which went unnoticed for the time it took to dry solid while bimbling around The Lanes in Brighton).
Click to expand...

I utterly and absolutely concur!.....The only way to go:)
 
grahamsewelluk said:
Unless you are paranoid about fingerprints/scratches to the front element - don't bother with UV/skylight filters. dSLRs do not suffer from UV light the way that film used to.

Note that if the physical attack to the front element is likely to scratch it, chances are that the filter would have broken anyway.

Opens can of worms and stands well back
Click to expand...

:thumbs: skylight have a pink cast as well.
No filters here apart from polarize.
Hood will protect your lens
 
Koolpc said:
Not good reviews of the lens hoods.
Click to expand...

Sorry mate, but we must be reading different reviews! 4.5 out of 5! What more do you want?
I have this same one and it is virtually no different to the canon at a fraction of the cost. For what it is (a small ring of plastic) the canon price is well over the top!
 
grahamsewelluk said:
Unless you are paranoid about fingerprints/scratches to the front element - don't bother with UV/skylight filters. dSLRs do not suffer from UV light the way that film used to.
Click to expand...

To be awkward... skylight actually have their own use, not as a protection/UV filter - they help balance the slight blue casts you can get on sunny days (especially in shadows). Mine is on my zoomy lens most of the time since I got it, as I mostly shoot in times that it helps.


I'm on Arkady's side in this though, I have a UV filter on most of the time, although I may take it off if doing studio work/night work, the rest of the time I see no downsides.

I also have a hood on most of the time.
 
I've had filters for every lens I've had and I feel the only reason to take them off is if you think they may be degrading the images.
 
littlemonster said:
To be awkward... skylight actually have their own use, not as a protection/UV filter - they help balance the slight blue casts you can get on sunny days (especially in shadows). Mine is on my zoomy lens most of the time since I got it, as I mostly shoot in times that it helps.


I'm on Arkady's side in this though, I have a UV filter on most of the time, although I may take it off if doing studio work/night work, the rest of the time I see no downsides.

I also have a hood on most of the time.
Click to expand...

Film is slightly sensitive to UV, hence the use of a UV filter. When there's a lot of UV about, at altitude and snowscapes etc, film can benefit from a little more help in the shape of a very slightly pinkish Skylight filter. Some older electronic flash is also a bit blue. It's a very mild colour temperature (white balance) correction filter in that respect.

Digital cameras already have both UV and infrared filters over the sensor, so there is no need for additional UV filtration. For colour correction, such as blue-ish shadows on very bright days, you can use the Shade white balance setting.
 
I have cleaned all sorts of rubbish from my filters, including water, dust, pollen, nectar, mud, oil, fingerprints, and dog saliva. I don't think I would be so happy cleaning all of that off the actual lens. Cleaning degrades coatings, and eventually scratch. There is a greater chance of accident without the filter, look up Murphy's Law.

Good UV filters don't degrade the image much. The difference with and without is negligible using HOYA HMC or better. In fact my 85mm has a cheap one and I still can't see any difference.

UV is better than skylight. Skylight adds colour cast and loses some light, while UV is clear and neutral.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top