UV filters?
- Thread starter Hadley
- Start date
- Messages
- 1,228
- Name
- Keith
- Edit My Images
- No
Mainly for film, you can buy one to protect your lens, but a hood is better.
The search function is your friend:
http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/search.php?searchid=3876710
http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/search.php?searchid=3876710
- Messages
- 1,179
- Name
- Gemma
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Except it comes up with "Sorry - no matches. Please try some different terms."
Basically, arguments go both ways, they can (some people say do full stop) degrade images, however others will then argue it tends to be an amount you can't even see pixel peeping most of the time. The UV part does nothing for digital cameras so they are just a protector.
Personal preference above all else though. Personally I do a lot of shooting where there's sand, sea spray and such, plus I'd rather be cleaning a filter than a lens more often. But for studio work it'd probably be just a waste of money.
Does it? I just tried again and it comes up with the same search results for UV Filters..
Try typing a new search for 'Protection and UV Filters'...
This has been done to death so often now that it's becoming a bloody joke - the last thread like this was only last week FFS...
Nod
Tootles
- Messages
- 50,204
- Name
- Nod (UK)
- Edit My Images
- Yes
When there's spray, sand and the like blowing all around you, how do you protect the barrel of the lens against the carp getting in through the zoom/focus/aperture rings? It's all very well having a pristine front element but if the lens starts making grinding noises as it focusses and/or zooms, it's just as knackered as one with a scratched front element.
Personally, I rarely use IR or any protection filters - if there's loads of airborne debris/spray, I'll leave the SLR at home or in the bag and use my Canon D10 waterproof compact and settle for smaller prints.
- Messages
- 1,179
- Name
- Gemma
- Edit My Images
- Yes
The thing is, the lenses should hopefully be well enough sealed to prevent stuff getting in - but on the lens front all it has to do is land there, if I have a filter I can pop it under the tap to get bits off if needed, don't fancy doing that with my lens tbh.
In cornwall though it's usually windy to some degree and I'm limited as to where I could go without sand/dust/sea spray, if I did as you do then I may as well not own a DSLR! :shrug:
To buy a DSLR then not use it at all where it may get dusty is a tad odd, all I'm doing is putting something that will hopefully stop my lens glass getting scratched etc. I also use a lens hood most of the time.
Must be person specific?
OP this I think was a fairly decent thread: Linky
Also this
I will say whilst currently my filters are a mix I will hopefully over time end up with Hoya Pro1 Digitals at least on them all. Only cheaper on currently as they were free.
Last edited:
Nod
Tootles
- Messages
- 50,204
- Name
- Nod (UK)
- Edit My Images
- Yes
In the real world though, how many lenses are dust proof? With few exceptions, the volume of a lens changes as it's zoomed or focussed so it'll suck in air and (possibly) fine dust. I'll agree that a filter can be (although I wouldn't) run under a tap to remove dust/grit but I'll also point out that wind borne dust is unlikely to have the sandblasting effect that many people may imagine - we'd be stripped to the bone in moments if it did!
I do use my DSLRs where they may get dusty but I don't go looking for trouble by taking them on a wind/spray swept beach if I can help it - that's one of the reasons I bought the waterproof compact!
- Messages
- 23,200
- Name
- Richard
- Edit My Images
- No
The arguments are, protection vs image degradation (there is no benefit to extra UV filtration with digital, it's a film thing).
On protection, a lens hood is arguably better especially as the main problem I have is my own sticky finger marks. I think enemy number one is salt sea spray and while I generally don't like filters just for protection, I have a UV for that. Or flying mud if I was ever to shoot rallies or something. Otherwise, I'm just careful and am not afraid to clean the lens itself if necessary. They're pretty tough if you're careful - brush off the dust, then use a clean microfibre cloth. Been doing that for decades
On the image degradation side, it is not a sharpness issue (or very rarely, maybe with a cheap polariser on a long lens) but flare and ghosting. The ghosting side is particular to digital as bright lights are reflected off the very shiny sensor and then back again off the rear of the filter creating a mirror ghost image. But this is only visible with very bright areas against dark backgrounds.
Cheap uncoated filters are definitely bad :thumbsdown:
On protection, a lens hood is arguably better especially as the main problem I have is my own sticky finger marks. I think enemy number one is salt sea spray and while I generally don't like filters just for protection, I have a UV for that. Or flying mud if I was ever to shoot rallies or something. Otherwise, I'm just careful and am not afraid to clean the lens itself if necessary. They're pretty tough if you're careful - brush off the dust, then use a clean microfibre cloth. Been doing that for decades
On the image degradation side, it is not a sharpness issue (or very rarely, maybe with a cheap polariser on a long lens) but flare and ghosting. The ghosting side is particular to digital as bright lights are reflected off the very shiny sensor and then back again off the rear of the filter creating a mirror ghost image. But this is only visible with very bright areas against dark backgrounds.
Cheap uncoated filters are definitely bad :thumbsdown:
- Messages
- 1,643
- Name
- Ed
- Edit My Images
- No
I use UV on all my lenses both digital and 5x4.
Usually go for mid-top end Hoya or B+W as cheaper ones just aren't worth bothering with.
I always work on whats cheaper to replace, a £50 filter or front element?
It also makes cleaning easier as you aren't rubbing grit into the front element.
Usually go for mid-top end Hoya or B+W as cheaper ones just aren't worth bothering with.
I always work on whats cheaper to replace, a £50 filter or front element?
It also makes cleaning easier as you aren't rubbing grit into the front element.
- Messages
- 382
- Edit My Images
- No
So why buy a UV filter instead of just say a hoya pro protector? Which to me seems cheaper?
- Messages
- 23,200
- Name
- Richard
- Edit My Images
- No
Probably because the dealer told you a load of rubbish in order to sell you a) a filter, and b) the most expensive one.
There is three times the profit margin on most accessories compared to cameras and lenses...
- Messages
- 382
- Edit My Images
- No
Probably because the dealer told you a load of rubbish in order to sell you a) a filter, and b) the most expensive one.
There is three times the profit margin on most accessories compared to cameras and lenses...
I haven't been sold anything, I was considering buying a protector for the times I'm in a dusty, sandy or muddy environment. My question really is why people put UV filters on and not a protector (which seems cheaper) when UV filters are not intended for digital?
wontolla
Misery Guts Monica
- Messages
- 8,501
- Name
- I'm not a Misery Guts and Monica is not my Moniker
- Edit My Images
- Yes
They dont use them as a uv filter, they use them as a protector glass, uv filters will have no (or negligable) effect on digital cameras. Just does the same job as a clear filter.
- Messages
- 23,200
- Name
- Richard
- Edit My Images
- No
Because they 'think' there is some benefit. It is an enduring myth, propograted by those with an interest in flogging useless filters, and swallowed by the gullible* who are anxious to protect their precious new toys.
*and Rob
Last edited:
- Messages
- 382
- Edit My Images
- No
I know, which is why my question is why not just buy a protector which in the same range where I have been looking has been cheaper than the UV filter.
- Messages
- 382
- Edit My Images
- No
Because they 'think' there is some benefit. It is an enduring myth, propograted by those with an interest in flogging useless filters, and swallowed by the gullible* who are anxious to protect their precious new toys.
*and Rob
Thanks Hoppy, for the rare occasions I need to fit one I will just buy a protector then
I was thinking of buying a 77mm Hoya Pro 1, any other better suggestions?
- Messages
- 23,200
- Name
- Richard
- Edit My Images
- No
Thanks Hoppy, for the rare occasions I need to fit one I will just buy a protector then
I was thinking of buying a 77mm Hoya Pro 1, any other better suggestions?
Hoya HD, if only because I think it has a slightly easier to clean multicoating
Amazon is usually cheapest.
- Messages
- 1,179
- Name
- Gemma
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Because 2/3 I got for free, the other I've just bought was 2nd hand and it was whichever came up in a good make
Well, at the risk of sounding like a schill for Nikon...Nikon's Pro lenses are.
The focus and zoom helicoils are arranged so as to expel dirt and moisture as you turn them...They've done this since the 1960's - it's not a new feature, though they made a point of harping-on about it at the time...
I frequently had to 'work' the rings back and forth after a job out in the sandy places, sometimes it got so bad on my 17-35 I thought it wouldn't ever work properly again... Still using it, only been serviced once after I dropped it in a river.
You can see dirt appearing at the edges of the rubber grips as you turn them...
Because they 'think' there is some benefit. It is an enduring myth, propograted by those with an interest in flogging useless filters, and swallowed by the gullible* who are anxious to protect their precious new toys.
*and Rob
I love you too, you revolting little troll...
