UV filter - lens protection and what else?

wishmaster

wishmaster

Messages
116
Name
Lea
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi,

Noob alert! :p

Having read a few comments elsewhere about people using UV filters to protect the lens from damage and dust, I'm looking to buy one - Hoya 52mm HMC Haze seems ok for around £10 as a starter.

What effect will a UV filter have on shots? I know they prevent UV light from entering the lens and sensor, but am not clear about what difference this will make to an image. Does it prevent sun glare or is that a polarising filter? :thinking:

Cheers,
Lea
 
That's about it Lea, on digital cameras a UV filter is simply there for protection of the front of the lens. It's a personal choice really, the filter can block out a bit of light and will also ultimately have a small detrimental effect on overall image quality, for me, I have UV's as protection on all my lenses and on more then 1 occasion they've saved me from a potentially nasty ding/gouge/scratch on the front element, other folk simply want the highest image quality possible and therefore don't use em.
 
wishmaster said:
As I'm so new at this, I doubt I'll be taking pics worthy of worrying about the quality for a while yet hehe. I'd be more upset if the lens was damaged for the sake of spending a tenner on a filter though.

Thanks for that. :)
Click to expand...

i use a filter to protect my lenses ,in fact thats the next thing i get after the lens, dam sight cheaper to replace a filter than buy a new lens :)
 
wishmaster said:
I'd be more upset if the lens was damaged for the sake of spending a tenner on a filter though.
Click to expand...

Exactly the way I look at it :thumbs:

BTW, forgot to answer the other part of your question, a polarising filter is the one to use to cut down on reflections from shiny surfaces and water etc. I also find em quite handy to cut down a bit of light so I can reduce my shutter speed without closing down the aperture too far, like when shooting motorsport and panning to get the background blurred.
 
Do you really want to put a cheap piece of glass in front of a precision engineered lens? Digital cameras don't need UV protection. The only thing it will do (if anything) is reduce the quality of your images and possibly introduce unnecessary effects like flare and affect AF accuracy. The front element is not as fragile as you might think.

Cheers
 
My lenses have UV filters on for protection in transit, in addition to plastic lens caps. They screw off, so I take them off before I shoot :) Then I screw them back on again :)
 
God yet another thread regarding filters :bang: :p

Its virtually down to personal preference as some will say its for protection & yet why not use the lens hood...

I use them (Nikon's NC filters on £2700 worth of lens's) but for protection only - for MY PIECE OF MIND!!

Same say yah & some will say nah - try one & see for yourself if you notice any difference with one on or off then either keep it or flog it...

It goes with the same as original battery grips & batteries or 3rd party versions... There'splenty of threads regarding all 3 subjectson the forum if you look...

Each to their own..
 
Last edited:
Lea

I use Hoya HMC UV (O) on all my Canon film lenses -- for protection only

on my Digital lenses I use Marumi DHG ''Protector''... never seen any image degradation

but then most of my images are crap anyway ....:lol:
 
paulyoung666 said:
protection against what :shrug:
Click to expand...

Against me dropping one when I'm changing it. Or one rolling off a rock. Or a stray tree-branch. Or.....

So it only protects the front element but that's a 50% glass risk-reduction :)
It's not like it's a chore to unscrew!
 
Carter64 said:
Against me dropping one when I'm changing it. Or one rolling off a rock. Or a stray tree-branch. Or.....

So it only protects the front element but that's a 50% glass risk-reduction :)
It's not like it's a chore to unscrew!
Click to expand...

wasnt being funny , just asking , i have UV filters on both my lenses , the reason , its a lot cheaper to replace the filter than the lens if it gets covered in crap :thumbs:
 
save your money and use a hood, will protect against 99% of accidents. the other 1% being head of impact with a pointy object. however if something impacted the filter with any reasonable force itd probably break it exposing the element to shards of glass anyway.
 
Yardbent said:
but then most of my images are crap anyway ....:lol:
Click to expand...
That's my line! :D

Thank you for all the replies and I'm sorry if I dredged up a very old topic in a new thread. I'll make use of the search facility a bit more in future. Doh.

I'm such a noob that I don't expect anyone will be able to pick out my use of a UV filter from any of the crap I'm likely to photograph for the foreseeable future. Coming from compact and bridge cameras to the D3100, even though it's an entry level dSLR, is a huge learning curve for me. I'm happy to take something even half decent.

My main concern and reason for the questions is damage and dust on the lens, so reducing the light a little by adding the filter doesn't worry me too much. I can always take the filter off for a short time when I'm going for that next National Geographic cover shot :cuckoo:
 
Ah right, sos Paul :)
I suppose (generally) it depends on what sort of photography you do. I like woodlands a lot, so keep it on when I'm walking/tripping/falling into mud/water or into and off trees :)
If I'm doing long night shots with the gear in the comfort of the car boot and a flight-case, I'd not bother.
 
wishmaster said:
That's my line! :D

Thank you for all the replies and I'm sorry if I dredged up a very old topic in a new thread. I'll make use of the search facility a bit more in future. Doh.
Click to expand...

i would not worry about dredging up a old subject ,seems thats what is expected , well if you search and not ask it will take forever to get to the magic 100 post ...to me in here there is no incentive to search :bonk:
 
I've just got s UV filter for mine, and if I'm honest, I'm really not sure it'll be staying in it. It does seem to have a noticeable affect on the picture - certainly flare is more noticeable.

It maybe one to keep in the bag for use in those messy locations...
 
I have one for every lens I have, but I have not got the habit of taking it off every time I start to shoot, and back when I'm done....just like a lens cap....

One of those things really...for peace of mind...:D

Bu it definitely has a detrimental effect on IQ, especially flare etc...
 
Yardbent said:
on my Digital lenses I use Marumi DHG ''Protector''... never seen any image degradation
Click to expand...

If you always shoot with them on, how will you notice the difference? Unless you shoot the same controlled scene with and without filters, the difference will not be apparent.

Cheers
 
Carter64 said:
Against me dropping one when I'm changing it. Or one rolling off a rock. Or a stray tree-branch. Or.....

So it only protects the front element but that's a 50% glass risk-reduction :)
It's not like it's a chore to unscrew!
Click to expand...

You have more things to worry about than just damaging your front element if you keep dropping them :D
 
* 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.
 
oymd said:
I have one for every lens I have, but I have not got the habit of taking it off every time I start to shoot, and back when I'm done....just like a lens cap....

One of those things really...for peace of mind...:D

Bu it definitely has a detrimental effect on IQ, especially flare etc...
Click to expand...

So why don't you save money and just use the lens cap?

Uv filters are a waste of money.

Just use a lens hood, which actually benefits the image as well as protecting the lens.

In all my years I've never so much as scratched a front element.
 
I never use them, maybe if I was doing some close in shots of someone angle grinding and throwing sparks at the lens.

Most of my glass is in the 2-3k$ range and people say that's even more reason to use one as protection, but if you are that precious about your gear you won't get the shot. I will get waist deep in water, shoot in rain, whatever it takes. My gear is insured these days but I have always been this way.

I would also like to point out that the front element is probably the cheapest to replace on most lenses, not as much as you might think, and they are pretty tough anyway.

There are shooters who sling their cameras into the boot of the car without even sticking on a lens cap. They don't need no stinkin lens cap and when they need to clean the dirt off the front element they just wipe it with whatever shirt they happen to be wearing. That's how real men shoot lol.

My take is use a good lens hood for protection.
 
wishmaster said:
That's my line! :D

Thank you for all the replies and I'm sorry if I dredged up a very old topic in a new thread. I'll make use of the search facility a bit more in future. Doh.

My main concern and reason for the questions is damage and dust on the lens, so reducing the light a little by adding the filter doesn't worry me too much. I can always take the filter off for a short time when I'm going for that next National Geographic cover shot :cuckoo:
Click to expand...

Ahhh but therein lies the problem, you never know when that shot will present itself and if the autofocus misses or you have to spend time removing the filter, then its too late. Try telling the editor of ng that you didn't manage to pull the shots because your protective filter was causing trouble and see how much protection it provides then ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top