Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
Thread started 23 Jun 2010 (Wednesday) 16:31
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

using filter in front of expensive glass !!!

 
TweakMDS
Goldmember
Avatar
2,242 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Nov 2008
Location: Netherlands
     
Jun 24, 2010 09:57 |  #16

A damaged front element doesn't necessarily impact on image quality, but it can cause more flare and loss of contrast. However, a UV filter always does this a little.
Think about when you actually need it. A hood is good protection already, but in some scenarios, a filter can help and can be easier to clean. I always use a filter on my 100mm macro because I touch plants and spiderwebs with it all the time. Filter is clean in 3 secs, and I don't need to risk damaging the front element (or coating).
In rain/sandy wind a filter can also be useful, or when a lens needs it to be weathersealed.


Some of my lenses focus beyond infinity...!
~Michael
Gear | Flickr (external link)
"My featured shots" (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
Tadaaa
Senior Member
926 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Apr 2010
     
Jun 24, 2010 10:03 |  #17

illrooster132 wrote in post #10414682 (external link)
when a "uv " filter is used , does it loose IQ?

You are sticking something in between your lens and your subject... Some sort of distortion is bound to occur but usually not noticeable... The most noticeable problem is an increase in lens flare.


- 1D & G9 & Sigma DP1 & Nikon D800 -

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
dogwalker
Member
197 posts
Joined Oct 2008
     
Jun 24, 2010 10:24 |  #18

I thought UV filters are useful for removing haze? Is that not true with DSLRs? Or would a CP be better? I know the CP has other uses (remove glare/reflections, enhance colors), just curious about haze.


450D | 18-55 IS | 55-250 IS | 50 f/1.8 | 430EX II

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
robert7111a@yahoo.co.uk
Member
44 posts
Joined Aug 2006
     
Jun 24, 2010 10:28 as a reply to  @ dogwalker's post |  #19

Personally the only filters I use are CPL or ND. I use lens hoods for protection/cutting down stray light etc.

Never believe a camera salesman. They will use any technique for "upsales" and to bamboozle the unitiated.


robert7111a
London (UK)
Canon EOS 30D, 5D Mk 1, 5D Mk II, EF 24-105mm f4L, 70 - 200mm f4L, 70 - 200mm f2.8L, 24mm f1.4L, 50mm f1.4, 50mm f1.2L, 85mm f1.2L, 135mm f2L, 100mm f2.8 macro, EF-S 17 - 85mm

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
LV ­ Moose
Moose gets blamed for everything.
Avatar
23,414 posts
Gallery: 222 photos
Best ofs: 4
Likes: 4589
Joined Dec 2008
     
Jun 24, 2010 10:36 as a reply to  @ dogwalker's post |  #20

For protection... in blowing sand, sea spray, waterfall mist, and so on... I use a UV filter (B+W). Other than that, I go naked, using a lens hood for protection.

Other filters (ie CPL) obviously have their uses.


Moose

Gear... Flickr (external link)...Flickr 2 (external link)...
Macro (external link)...Hummingbirds (external link)
Aircraft (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
dogwalker
Member
197 posts
Joined Oct 2008
     
Jun 24, 2010 10:37 |  #21

Thanks, Robert and Moose. Now I'm going to try out a lens hood, too.


450D | 18-55 IS | 55-250 IS | 50 f/1.8 | 430EX II

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Yusef
Senior Member
677 posts
Joined Dec 2009
     
Jun 24, 2010 11:26 |  #22

I used UV filters for protection and peace of mind.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Wilt
Reader's Digest Condensed version of War and Peace [POTN Vol 1]
Avatar
44,274 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 3468
Joined Aug 2005
Location: Belmont, CA
     
Jun 24, 2010 11:53 |  #23

There are good filters, and there are not good filters. Good filters cause minimal effect of flare, passing 99.7% of the light, whereas not good filters cause very visible evidence of flare by passing only 93% of the light. Here is a test series which gives you an idea of the difference of 'no filter' vs. 'good filter' vs 'not good filter'...http://www.kenandchris​tine.com …ter-Tests/1054387_ucZqa/2 (external link)

Don't be tempted to cheap out of filter purchase, for your pictures will definitely suffer. Buy good ones, or none.

Because digital SLRs have UV filters immediately in front of the sensor, they are superfluous on the lens except for protection from blowing sand or salt spray or gooey toodlers' fingers during closeups. UV filtration and 'haze' are two different things with the same root cause, UV light. Film used to be sensitive to invisble UV light (whereas dSLRs filter that out), so that was the reason in the past for UV filters. But additionally, UV light can cause visible atmospheric haze, so these filters tried to balance out some of the visible effect via a yellow filter to filter out blue light rays. That was use primarily for B&W film shooting; a Skylight filter did the same thing for color film.


You need to give me OK to edit your image and repost! Keep POTN alive and well with member support https://photography-on-the.net/forum/donate.p​hp
Canon dSLR system, Olympus OM 35mm system, Bronica ETRSi 645 system, Horseman LS 4x5 system, Metz flashes, Dynalite studio lighting, and too many accessories to mention

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
hollis_f
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
10,649 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 85
Joined Jul 2007
Location: Sussex, UK
     
Jun 24, 2010 12:01 |  #24

dogwalker wrote in post #10418884 (external link)
I thought UV filters are useful for removing haze? Is that not true with DSLRs?

It used to be true for film (well, it still is) but there's a filter in front of the sensor in a digital camera that removes virtually all the UV and IR.


Frank Hollis - Retired mass spectroscopist
Give a man a fish and he'll eat for a day. Teach a man to fish and he'll complain about the withdrawal of his free fish entitlement.
Gear Website (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
LV ­ Moose
Moose gets blamed for everything.
Avatar
23,414 posts
Gallery: 222 photos
Best ofs: 4
Likes: 4589
Joined Dec 2008
     
Jun 24, 2010 12:06 |  #25

hollis_f wrote in post #10419439 (external link)
It used to be true for film (well, it still is) but there's a filter in front of the sensor in a digital camera that removes virtually all the UV and IR.

Yeah, I was kinda bummed when I bought my first UV Haze filter, and it didn't allow me to see through haze and fog like Superman :lol:


Moose

Gear... Flickr (external link)...Flickr 2 (external link)...
Macro (external link)...Hummingbirds (external link)
Aircraft (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Naturalist
Adrift on a lonely vast sea
Avatar
5,614 posts
Gallery: 94 photos
Likes: 991
Joined May 2007
Location: Tallgrass prairie of northwest Minnesota, USA
     
Jun 24, 2010 12:10 |  #26

I do not use a filter unless I want an effect (CPL or ND) but I do use a hood all the time.

Many people purchase a quality lens, then throw a cheap UV filter over the front only to later complain about image softness, unwanted glare/flare or reflections.

I have never damaged a lens due to the lack of a filter over the front of it. (knocking on wood)

If you want a UV filter over the lens all the time don't go cheap but personally, I would stay away from them.


Doug
http://www.douglasbrow​nsr.com (external link)
Entered: 2-16-84 Passed: 5-22-84 Raised: 6-19-84

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Wilt
Reader's Digest Condensed version of War and Peace [POTN Vol 1]
Avatar
44,274 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 3468
Joined Aug 2005
Location: Belmont, CA
     
Jun 24, 2010 12:16 |  #27

Keep in mind that filters are removeable. So in challenging situations (candles against dark backgound is but one example), they can be unscrewed so as to not degrade the quality at all, yet they can be screwed on for the physical protection they afford against blowing sand or salt spray or gooey toodlers' fingers during closeups.


You need to give me OK to edit your image and repost! Keep POTN alive and well with member support https://photography-on-the.net/forum/donate.p​hp
Canon dSLR system, Olympus OM 35mm system, Bronica ETRSi 645 system, Horseman LS 4x5 system, Metz flashes, Dynalite studio lighting, and too many accessories to mention

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
6_Myles
Member
66 posts
Joined May 2010
Location: Asheville, NC
     
Jun 24, 2010 12:47 |  #28

Wilt wrote in post #10419541 (external link)
Keep in mind that filters are removeable. So in challenging situations (candles against dark backgound is but one example), they can be unscrewed so as to not degrade the quality at all, yet they can be screwed on for the physical protection they afford against blowing sand or salt spray or gooey toodlers' fingers during closeups.

That's how I feel about it too.


Gear List
A photographer trapped in an Architect's body
www.alexanderdesignstu​dio.com (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
dogwalker
Member
197 posts
Joined Oct 2008
     
Jun 24, 2010 13:24 |  #29

I have a 15-85 coming, which I'm going to test. I also bought Canon lens hood, and the #1 UV filter on a recent test (Hoya multi-coat U(0) something or other). I'll test both. Thanks again!

I do have a nice B+W CPL, but it's the size of my kit lenses.


450D | 18-55 IS | 55-250 IS | 50 f/1.8 | 430EX II

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
ingraman
Member
169 posts
Joined Mar 2009
     
Jun 24, 2010 13:25 |  #30

Wilt wrote in post #10419541 (external link)
Keep in mind that filters are removeable. So in challenging situations (candles against dark backgound is but one example), they can be unscrewed so as to not degrade the quality at all, yet they can be screwed on for the physical protection they afford against blowing sand or salt spray or gooey toodlers' fingers during closeups.

Anectodal story: I was on vacation when I accidentally dropped my camera with hood and polarizer attached. The fall (about 1 foot) caused the filter frame to distort slightly, but enough so that it couldn't be removed from the lens. The filter wasn't visibly damaged, but it was a huge pain taking shots in darker areas with the polarizer on. If the filter hadn't been on, everything would've been fine. Never used a screw on filter after that.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

5,804 views & 0 likes for this thread
using filter in front of expensive glass !!!
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member was a spammer, and banned as such!
847 guests, 177 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.