UV FILTER

D

derrycity

Messages
491
Name
phil
Edit My Images
Yes
what impact would an expensive uv filter have as to a chepo version from ebay
the reason i'am asking i got a cheap one in a hurry and it appears to give a pinkish cast
 
Cheap filters are to be avoided all all costs...an expensive one will be fine unless you own a Canon...they don't like filters at all...
 
why do canon not like uv filters
if so would i be better using clear glass to protect the lens glass.
ps thanks for reply
 
Ralphmyster said:
but he has a canon likewise so what would you suggest Arkady
Click to expand...

derrycity said:
why do canon not like uv filters
if so would i be better using clear glass to protect the lens glass.
ps thanks for reply
Click to expand...

Just guessing, but I think Arkady may be making a joking reference to some other threads about filters. You will notice that he's not a Canon man... If you search his user name and mine, you'll soon get the idea ;)

On thing I think we agree on though, is that if you must use a filter for protection, make sure it's a high quality one.
 
Sorry guys you have to do your homework here - there are about five live threads covering this subject as I write this...

As Hoppy says - it was a joking reference to other stuff he an I have posted.

Cheap filters are worse than no filter at all, even though it leaves the front element 'naked' to the (other) elements...lol
They can cause addditional flare, and can even impart optical distortions to the images.

Good quality glass by Nikon, Hoya (Pro-series) and B+W are the only way to go.

For a DSLR you don't need to buy a UV filter for protection as the sensor already as a UV filter built-in; the Neutral-Contrast filters from Nikon, or the 'Protection-Filters' from other manufacturers will be fine and will impart no colour-shift...
Nikon's filters reduce light transmission by approximately <3%, Hoya-Pro and B+W about 4% compared to up to >5% by some other manufacturers...

In fact Nikon no longer make UV filters aside from a single bayonet-fit model - the remainder being of the NC type...

Though I use UV filters with no qualms at all...
 
thanks arkady i now have a better understanding and i think i'll be getting a b&w filter
 
I do confess that I don't like using filters, mostly cause I have a hard enough time without them and don't know what I'm doing! :lol: I do have a couple of cheap filters and I like the polarising filter. Haven't tried the cheap UV filters yet, but I didn't want to spend alot of money on a filter that I didn't like. The cheap ones are more of an experiment. If I like them, I'll get some more expensive ones, but til then, cheapies for me!
 
MagicMynx said:
I do confess that I don't like using filters, mostly cause I have a hard enough time without them and don't know what I'm doing! :lol: I do have a couple of cheap filters and I like the polarising filter. Haven't tried the cheap UV filters yet, but I didn't want to spend alot of money on a filter that I didn't like. The cheap ones are more of an experiment. If I like them, I'll get some more expensive ones, but til then, cheapies for me!
Click to expand...

Effects filters are even more prone to optical anomalies than 'plain' protection filters...

The best are Lee filters, originally designed for the Movie industry and hideously expensive, though they do a 'budget' line which are also not cheap...
Cokin used to be the be-all-and-end-all for hobbyist effects filters:
The 1980's saw all manner of horrendous effects being used, but things have calmed down these days and they should be pretty good value for money...

A UV or 'protection' filter isn't something you 'like' - you decide whether you need one or not depending on the type of work you do and whether your lens is likely to be subjected to foreign objects, rain, sand or other wind-born particulates.
And 'cheap' isn't an option for something that's permanently left on your lens - so buy the best.

If you're studio-bound for the majority of your work then you don't need one.
 
I click on filter threads that involve Rob with trepidation now...........:naughty:

I guess UV filter arguments are like Canon V Nikon,Ferrari v Lambourghini,length v girth.Everybody has a different opinion on them.
 
fracster said:
I click on filter threads that involve Rob with trepidation now...........:naughty:

I guess UV filter arguments are like Canon V Nikon,Ferrari v Lambourghini,length v girth.Everybody has a different opinion on them.
Click to expand...

I think I'm pretty even-handed on the whole - I always say when it's not a good idea to use filters as well as their plus-points, rather than some people who are all-or-nothing...
What I cannot abide is the knee-jerk reaction to a bad image with "it's the filter's fault" - when 9 times out of 10 it's user-error or cheap, crummy lenses...
 
fracster said:
I click on filter threads that involve Rob with trepidation now...........:naughty:

I guess UV filter arguments are like Canon V Nikon,Ferrari v Lambourghini,length v girth.Everybody has a different opinion on them.
Click to expand...

That's easy. Canon is best, and Porsche is the transport of choice, for those that are not troubled by issues of either length or girth.

Arkady said:
I think I'm pretty even-handed on the whole - I always say when it's not a good idea to use filters as well as their plus-points, rather than some people who are all-or-nothing...
What I cannot abide is the knee-jerk reaction to a bad image with "it's the filter's fault" - when 9 times out of 10 it's user-error or cheap, crummy lenses...
Click to expand...

Must have missed that post... ;) :D
 
HoppyUK said:
That's easy. Canon is best, and Porsche is the transport of choice, for those that are not troubled by issues of either length or girth.



Must have missed that post... ;) :D
Click to expand...


Nice one Richard..............:lol:
 
:thinking: Im glad "derrycity" asked the question...... as I make a point of buying fairly expensive UV filters more for protecting the glass on front of my lens than anything else. Am I wasting my hard earned money :shrug:
 
Arkady said:
Effects filters are even more prone to optical anomalies than 'plain' protection filters...

The best are Lee filters, originally designed for the Movie industry and hideously expensive, though they do a 'budget' line which are also not cheap...
Cokin used to be the be-all-and-end-all for hobbyist effects filters:
The 1980's saw all manner of horrendous effects being used, but things have calmed down these days and they should be pretty good value for money...

A UV or 'protection' filter isn't something you 'like' - you decide whether you need one or not depending on the type of work you do and whether your lens is likely to be subjected to foreign objects, rain, sand or other wind-born particulates.
And 'cheap' isn't an option for something that's permanently left on your lens - so buy the best.

If you're studio-bound for the majority of your work then you don't need one.
Click to expand...

Given specific jobs, careers, shoots etc, I agree, it's a need thing, after that I think it comes down to personal choice. I happily use a lens hood, but I'm apprehensive, even then, to leave the lens cap off when I'm not shooting at that moment, eg, wandering around somewhere, I'll put the lens cap back on. Other people that I've met don't do that, because they have a filter on, protecting their lens. So in that sense, it comes down to whether or not I like to use the UV filter, I know that it can change my images, which is another reason that I wanted to try before I invest in good ones, I appriciate that cheap filters will have a different effect, but at the end of the day, since I'm only shooting for me, it ultimately always boils down to what I like, what I'm comfortable with etc.
 
Lens caps only go on when my kit's put away in the bag - at all other times they're off...

Hoppy - you know very well that I've stated that filters are no good when doing night shots when there are point light sources in the frame...:lol:

Gazbag - expensive filters are the only ones worth buying at all, unless you intend to go rallying or to a desert moto-x circuit or something where you WILL write a number of them off...so cheaper ones like the Hoya HMC range - which are actually only a tenner or so less that their pro-series...
I got through five or six in a six-month period in Afghanistan and a similar number while in Iraq in 2008...not through abrasion, but from clag kicked up by helicopters...
 
Have a look at the Hoya PRO1 D Protector. Not the cheapest, but Hoya make the following statement -

This is the ultimate in clear filters. It will not affect the color balance or performance of your lenses in the slightest.

p.s I am using one at the moment and so far the CANON gremlins have not rendered it as useless :lol:
 
Arkady said:
Lens caps only go on when my kit's put away in the bag - at all other times they're off...

Hoppy - you know very well that I've stated that filters are no good when doing night shots when there are point light sources in the frame...:lol:

Gazbag - expensive filters are the only ones worth buying at all, unless you intend to go rallying or to a desert moto-x circuit or something where you WILL write a number of them off...so cheaper ones like the Hoya HMC range - which are actually only a tenner or so less that their pro-series...
I got through five or six in a six-month period in Afghanistan and a similar number while in Iraq in 2008...not through abrasion, but from clag kicked up by helicopters...
Click to expand...

Rob...I was about to retort that lens hoods should be used instead of filters unless a particular effect or result was required e.g. polarised/ND etc. until you described the environment you shoot in.

Not too sure what you shoot (maybe a rain check on the word 'shoot') but you wouldn't want a expensive fast long(ish) lens then which required drop-in filters but there again you might as it might mean you could be further away from the subject ... take care!...

Jamie
 
shoshone said:
Not too sure what you shoot (maybe a rain check on the word 'shoot') but you wouldn't want a expensive fast long(ish) lens then which required drop-in filters but there again you might as it might mean you could be further away from the subject ... take care!...

Jamie
Click to expand...

Check out my Flickr pages for what I shoot...

And my 'Capa' signature quote for why I don't like long lenses...lol
 
I just but a B+W, I haven't heard of them till now having always had Hoya, and I don't know if they are any good but the build quality of them seems amazing!? Really heavy! Hope it doesn't affect my autofocusing :D
 
Arkady said:
........so cheaper ones like the Hoya HMC range - which are actually only a tenner or so less that their pro-series...
..
Click to expand...

I know I've posted this often but....in a Lab test of UV filters, Hoya came out tops..."here"

interestingly, as "arkady" says , the HMC scored very well indeed

i found a good range at College Cameras ..."link"
 
Gazbag said:
:thinking: Im glad "derrycity" asked the question...... as I make a point of buying fairly expensive UV filters more for protecting the glass on front of my lens than anything else. Am I wasting my hard earned money :shrug:
Click to expand...

if it is "Protection" you aim for, then I suggest a Marumi DHG Protector ..."link"
top of the line v Hoya HD would be the Super DHG
somewhat cheaper than Hoya HD
as stated in many threads - UV filters are no longer needed

also, I ditched all my Hoya HMC Skylight 1B from film days as you could see a definite "pink" tinge on my DSLR
 
Yardbent said:
if it is "Protection" you aim for, then I suggest a Marumi DHG Protector ..."link"
top of the line v Hoya HD would be the Super DHG
somewhat cheaper than Hoya HD
as stated in many threads - UV filters are no longer needed

also, I ditched all my Hoya HMC Skylight 1B from film days as you could see a definite "pink" tinge on my DSLR
Click to expand...

You could see a definite 'pink' just looking through the damn things...lol
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top