Thankyou for all your help everyone, where i was going wrong is that i had a uv filter on and then the hood. I have now taken it off and it works fine!! Thankyou again
gabriella said:Thankyou for all your help everyone, where i was going wrong is that i had a uv filter on and then the hood. I have now taken it off and it works fine!! Thankyou again
Chuck your uv filters in the bin!
They do nothing on dslr's.
Except prevent your lenses from accidental damage.
Rich
Except prevent your lenses from accidental damage.
Rich
Smoot said:Except prevent your lenses from accidental damage.
Rich
So what does the hood do???!!!
UV filters offer about as much protection as a paper condom on a heroin addict.
Smoot said:As far as I'm aware, the hood on my 70-200 and 17-40 help to prevent glare or lens flare from the sun (or other light source)
I would say as a secondary use it does prevent large objects from getting at the glass, however in my opinion it certainly does not offer enough 'protection' for peace of mind
Rich
Do all these sales assistants tell everyone that a UV is an absolute must when they buy a camera?
It does both, hense no need for the UV filter which was designed for film.
No screw in filter is strong enough to offer protection.
Me too, I'll be banging my head against the wall otherwise.
My parting comment is this though - I've been doing photography for nigh on 15 years and have never used a filter for protection.
I have never suffered a damaged front element.
Hoods and common sense.
Good luck?
How many lenses have you wrecked?
OR how many UV filters have you wrecked where the Lens was totally save by it's being smashed to pieces? :bang::bang::bang::bang::bang:
So im guessing that uv filters are just a complete waste of timethen??
So im guessing that uv filters are just a complete waste of timethen??
unless you plan on scratching your lens... which im hoping not to!
That was a waste of £8 then :/ :/
But it clearly seems a sensitive subject questioning the purpose of a uv filter
Here we go again....:bonk:
Or get stuck on and shatter and make even more of a mess than if you had just used the lens hood. If you drop your lens, a UV wont help you. If you bash the front with enough force to break the filter, chances are you will have dislodged the front element, or the autofocus system too.
Loose- loose situation really.
So what does the hood do???!!!
UV filters offer about as much protection as a paper condom on a heroin addict.
It does both, hense no need for the UV filter which was designed for film.
No screw in filter is strong enough to offer protection.
Spot on Jim.
Take heed on this. If you think a UV filter is useful for anything on a DSLR, you are wrong.
Here we go again....:bonk:
Or get stuck on and shatter and make even more of a mess than if you had just used the lens hood. If you drop your lens, a UV wont help you. If you bash the front with enough force to break the filter, chances are you will have dislodged the front element, or the autofocus system too.
Loose- loose situation really.
Marcel said:Well I'd like to point out you're wrong.
I dropped my 50mm with a filter on the front, which took the brunt of the damage. Lens was fine, filter was cracked and bent.
So to categorically state they will not offer any protection is incorrect.
(Yes, the 50mm was hoodless, but that's not the point).
Apart from my own personal experience, I have to disagree anyway. A UV filter *will* offer protection of the front element. The level of protection is open to discussion depending on who the user is.
It will also degrade image quality somewhat (depending on the filter of course).
That's where personal choice comes in. For some, the level of protection offered outweighs the degradation in image quality.
If the OP wants to use a UV filter on their lens, then that's fine. It will offer a bit of protection (although admittedly it's better to use a hood for physical drop protection), but it will also offer protection from rogue airborne elements. Stones, scratches etc.
If those replying dont think they should, then that's fine too.
It's a personal choice.
However, don't ram your opinions down other people's throats and post with animosity should they not agree. It's a personal choice, and everyone would do well remember that, and respecting that choice.
We're supposed to be the friendliest photography forum, and I like us to stay that way.
So im guessing that uv filters are just a complete waste of timethen??
unless you plan on scratching your lens... which im hoping not to!
That was a waste of £8 then :/ :/
But it clearly seems a sensitive subject questioning the purpose of a uv filter
...dont worry about all the remarks........
when you've been here a little you will see many topics are a proverbial red-flag to a bull.....
filters
hoods
weddings
tripods
baby photos.......
Yardbent said:...dont worry about all the remarks........
when you've been here a little you will see many topics are a proverbial red-flag to a bull.....
filters
hoods
weddings
tripods
baby photos.......
all get their share of Yes/No...as it should be, as we are ALL entitled to our opinions
however..you did say you paid £8...this level of quality will 'certainly' be no good for your lens
if you do want to add a 'protector' look at Hoya HD, Hoya Pro-1, Marumi DHG
but they are costly
nevertheless, most comments are true...you dont need a UV filter
the front glass of my Sigma 17-70mm 2.8 is a bit exposed, so I added a Marumi 77mm Protector
sorry if that's long-winded ....didn't want you to get the feeling there was lotsa animosity here.................john
ziggy© said:One of my UV filters on my lenses has a scratch on it. I dont know how it happened but i am glad the scratch is on the filter and not the lens.