|
Search this group's discussions
|
What about UV filters?
|
I know, the pros all recommend buying the highest quality, which equals high price. I thought the UV filter was mostly for lens protection. I did take their advice and ordered the Hoya Pro1 UV for my new Canon 10-22mm wide zoom. Is it worth it?
Posted at 4:00PM, 2 January 2008 PDT
(permalink)
|
 |
focusbeam [deleted] says:
To me the lens hood is more important than the uv filter unless I go to the beach or doing a shoot in an unexpected dust storm. The lens hood can act as a lens protector also, it minimizes lens flare especially shooting backlit scenes, you notice that the inside of the hood is coarser than the outside of the hood to prevent light reflects back in the lens.
I only use the UV filter to make soft focus filter.
Here is the shot in backlight and my home made soft filter.
Posted 54 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
 halco From what I understand the UV filter would only be good as a protector, because the sensor has a UV filter right in front of it, one of the reasons you can not shoot infrared (another subject). But then again if you choose to put one on might as well be a good one, would not want cheap glass in front of good glass. I use UV filters for glass protection as well and I use B+W filters.
As far as lens hoods they are probably the best lens protectors.
I think the UV filter is worth it for peace of mind.
Another thing if you decide to put a CP filter you might want to remove the UV filter, there have been cases of strange reflections. Also with night shots with bright lights.
I think the UV filter is worth it for peace of mind.halco
Posted 54 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I've always been told, or should I say highly recommended to me, to always use a UV filter to protect the lens - because as we all know lenses are very expensive.
I do know that when shooting at night it's really bad to use an UV filter because it causes flair, unless you want flair...
I haven't noticed any significant image degradation when shooting in daylight.
In short, I recommend keeping an UV filter all the time. I'd rather spend $20-$50 on a new UV filter, than $600-$1400 on a new replacement lens.
Posted 54 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Not another holy battle.. please!
Posted 54 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
TMP Photography [deleted] says:
Go Commando !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted 54 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
I'm a Commando Puppy, myself.
Posted 54 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Don't go commando, go ironclad like the knights of old. I roll with B+W MRC filters, UV and CP. Fo'sho.
@ halco - "Is it worth it?"
Isn't that a question to ask before buying? (A holy war should be about more than filters, I always say...)
Posted 54 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
The only holy war is every meeting of my Chargers vs. the hatted Raiders!
I don't see a reason for a holy war, it's always a matter of opinion.
I usually agree with what Bold Puppy says cause well he's usually spot on.
Posted 54 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
UV filters to ME are used only to protect my expensive lenses from dirt, debris and worse ... scratches!
I DO have them on all my lenses BUT I don't spend $80-100.00 each time.
I bought the best for my 70-200mm 2.8IS because I'd rather replace the filter then the $1600 lens.
For your Canon 10-22? I'd say the hood would offer more use to you in that sense and the only filter I get for those super wide angle lenses are either a polarizer or ND grad filters.
However the Pro1 by Hoya is a great choice as it is thin AND it is threaded so you can still attach your lens cap as well. It is more for protection though so don't expect it to do anything magical to any of your images ;)
Posted 54 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
I really think that there is no right answer in this 'debate'. Everyone has opinions, and to each, their own. It is, after all their equipment and their photography.
For physical protection, I use hoods. Interestingly, if I was to go with a superwide, the hood on the 10-22 is almost meaningless, and therefore, I may actually think about a 'protection' filter for that lens. But, certianly not the 70-200/2.8. That has a wonderful hood that offers a lot of physical protection.
Case in point: the 50mm f/1.4 lens. The front element of this lens extends while focusing. Any filter on this element simply increases the length of the element, and therefore increases the physical/mechanical leverage that any impact, however small, may have on the lens. Read the 50mm forums about the lens no longer functioning - it's almost always from it being tossed about in a bag. I got the hood for it (it's personally annoying to me that I have to buy hoods for non-L glass...), and leave it on all the time, especially when it's in my bag off the camera, and also when it's on my camera in the bag. Any filter on the front of this thing would further expose it to potential physical damage. How is that protection?
The issue here boils down to: "what do you need to do" in your photography. If you have too much sunlight, and you want narrow depth of field - a neutral density filter. If the greens aren't green enough, or you want to be able to see through the water, then a circular polarizer is called for. But, if you want to block UV rays, the sensor of all modern dSLRs has a built-in UV filter, so that's already being done. You're going to dull your image. If you also shoot film, then yes, I can see wanting to use such a filter, but not digital.
The same thought goes for other types of filters, including graduated ND filters (bracket the shot). Coloration filters? Easily applied in post.
There are exceptions to any generalization - those shooting in very windy conditions with sand, for example, really DO need a cover over their glass. Same thing with salt water (if you're photographing water skiers in the ocean, for example).
The front glass on most Canon lenses is much, much stronger than any filter glass. Indeed, if you were to crack your filter, THAT is when you're most likely to scratch your glass! How's that for ironic. Filters have coatings (ok, the good and better ones do) that can wear off. After a while, you need to toss the filter. Usually, that happens after about 1000 shots of not noticing that the shots are dull.
It's all about using the right tool for the job. I'll only put on a filter if I think a given situation needs it. Otherwise, the lens is bare. My photos thank me for it.
Posted 54 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
If you protect your feet by wearing socks that are made of glass, then go for it and protect your lens with uv-filter.
Posted 54 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I agree with BoldPuppy, it is a no right answer debate.
My thoughts on the matter. One more thing between you and a photograph. Eliminate as many as possible. The front element of your lens is much harder than a UV filter. 9/10 accidents that would break the filter first will break the lens anyway. I know of a post by a wedding photographer that claims that a filter saved her L glass from a fall, but she was very lucky in the bounce. Most of the time she would have broken the lens.
Also, you wouldn't believe the amount of crud you can shoot though before it affects image quality visually. I'm sure some test bench could show a problem with just a bit of dust, but we live in the real world.
Posted 54 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
focusbeam [deleted] says:
It is very understandable to buy filters for your lenses, most photographers do have them at the begining, however later on when they use other filters like soft focus, polarizer, ND ect... they start to get tired of switching back and forth filters, in the process some filters tend to get stuck on the lens, in some cases they don't take time to line up with the thread they mess up the lens. When people buy a new lens they want a filter, same with the next lens and on and on but only a few favorites get to used more often the rest sit in the closet. Human nature, when you have a new toy you don't care much about the old ones. Me too, I have a lot of UV filters in the begining, now I don't use them, laziness, again human. Now, the first thing I buy is the lens hood, then the polarizer not the UV.
It's not easy to scratch a lens, most of the time you see a used lens selling on the market, some don't focus properly, some have bad thread, some have damage focusing ring but rarely you see a scratch lens.
Posted 54 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I always use a filter, makes me feel better, easier to replace, you can just get totally plain glass now, I have seen them, dont know how good they would be- as in glass quality that is, on one lens I have cross threaded the blighter, thankfully its not a lens I use much. One day it will need surgery.......
Posted 54 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
My 2 cents on 2 things.
1. I still cant believe that Canon do now supply a lens hood with the kit lenses when you buy a 'complete' camera kit.
2. Go Chargers!
Posted 54 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I use Hoya Pro 1 Digital UV (0) filters as protection filters. They stay on the lenses from new and don't come off unless they need a really good clean! And where possble use the hoods too..
Originally posted 54 months ago.
(permalink)
forever_temporary edited this topic 54 months ago.
|
|
For all of my lenses, I have 5 UV filters, then the hood, then 5 more UV filters duct taped to the end of the hood, and then a condom wrapped over the whole thing for good measure. Then I wrap all my lenses in a 4 inch layer of foam rubber. Protection all the way, baby!
Ok, in all seriousness, I have a filter on some lenses, and not on others.
For example, I have a UV filter on the end of my macro lens. Why? Because I almost always shoot with it at full 1:1 extension and then focus by physically moving closer or further from the subject (works best for me). Because of that, and because of the close distances involved, there is an increased chance that I'll bump the end of the lens into something. The UV filter provides added peace of mind that I won't scratch my macro glass.
I don't, however, have a filter on my 2.8 70-200, even though it's more than twice as expensive as my macro -- simply because, as others have stated, the hood already provides excellent protection.
Posted 54 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I'd like to share a picture that my wife took of her 10-22mm after dropping it accidently:
She was mortified when it happened, as you can probably imagine, but the UV filter took the brunt of the impact; the lens didn't suffer any damage at all. At a minimum, the threaded ring at the nose of the 10-22 would have likely been damaged without the filter.
I don't buy the need for a UV filter; these sensors are already well-protected in that regard from the factory. But I am a little nervous about my own carelessness, and cleaning/replacing a filter is easier than cleaning/replacing the lens. ;-)
Posted 54 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
that was a near miss...
i agree the UV filter provides protection to the lens... and the hood is instrumental in blocking the glare...
but like the majority in the stream suggests... it all depends on what lens one is using... i use both - a UV filter and lens hood for my 17-85mm.... however i remove the hood for certain shots...
its always a good thing to have a UV filter anyway... u will be on the safer side...
Posted 54 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Here, I disagree. I do not believe that it is *always* a good thing to have a uv or any other filter on. UV filters *wreck* high contrast images. Any of the night photos I took on NYeve would have all kinds of horrible ghosts and flares in there had I used one.
A hood should have taken that impact - and had that glass come into contact with the lens front glass, you could have scratched it, requireing the front element to be replaced, anyway. In addition, the threads may be damaged, preventing you from using any filter again....
Posted 54 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Ha certainly a heatfelt one this one - for me it's a no-brainer a lot of my photography's around aerosol paint and/or mud so I need it to keep the lens clean + I hate to say it depending on the style of shoot I'll get cheap filters to use as disposable covers, wiping tends to smear in a hurry!
Posted 54 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
@ Lil'pete - your case *calls* for and justifies doing that. I'll support your choice to protect your glass in that environment. The same for those who shoot in sandy/very windy conditions. Perhaps you may want to look into the 'glass' protection filters mentioned above.
Posted 54 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Personally all of my lenses have UV filters fitted, lens hoods as well. I can always remove the filter should the shot demand it and would rather write off a filter than a lens, especially since it will only get damaged when you can't easily replace it.
Posted 54 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
man... i've read about 20 posts in different groups regarding filters, to use them or not. it seems like the recommendation is either use the filter or use the hood. i have the 17-40 L and i'm just afraid to get particles inside because having a filter completes the weather proofing. ugh!
maybe one day i'll get over not using the filter and not get freaked out like i've gotten over not using the saftey on my USP.
Posted 49 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
I'm going to amend what I said there a few months ago... I said:
your case *calls* for and justifies doing that. I'll support your choice to protect your glass in that environment. The same for those who shoot in sandy/very windy conditions. Perhaps you may want to look into the 'glass' protection filters mentioned above.
There are other ways to solve this problem, provide protection, and not worry about damaging the photo with a cheap filter. One way is what's called a "marine cape"... a fancy ziplock for your camera that is intended to let you use the camera in very rainy situations, or situations where there is sand and/or salt spray.
I wrote a review of it here (for a more general audience):
flickr.com/groups/canondslr/discuss/72157604981233374/
It not only protected against salt spray, it also protected against greasy, slimy hands from sunscreen. I could take photos in a boat, and not worry about the spray... (taken with a rented 10-22, which did not come with a hood, and I won't buy filters for a size I don't use regularly:)
And this one was taken with my 135L with the hood and a Rodenstock CPL in place:
I would have NEVER dared to take the camera out on a beach or on a boat before... this opens up a whole new realm of possibilities....
Posted 49 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Ok I think I have been converted..please see my thread on the 70-200 f2.8 discussion...for some examples of my distorted backgrounds...thanks....I have seen the light @ f2.8...LOL
www.flickr.com/groups/ef70-200mm/discuss/72157605683752911/
Posted 48 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
UV filters are good when there needed, i.e. beach, hurricane, fire, any other time when objects may strike the lens or you may drop the camera, but to have a filter on all the time and reduce image quality and camera performance is just crazy, I have filters, and I use them probably 30 days in every year, i.e. when I'm skiing, when I'm surfing or when I'm doing something stupid, the rest of the time I'm just careful.
Posted 48 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
The 10-22 is a pretty expensive lens, so I think it's worth the protection of an UV filter. Since this is also great glass, I get high quality filters so it won't negatively impact the great optical qualities of the lens.
I'm generally using B+W F-Pro and Hoya Pro1 series filters, and I really can't tell from the pictures if an UV filter was on or not. Not even when doing side by side comparison.
Posted 48 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
The 135L is a more expensive lens than the 10-22. Many zooms and other primes are more expensive than the 135... that's not really the point. However, the 135 has a very deep hood, where the 10-22 hood is a few petals around the edge. It goes commando unless I have the CPL on there. For beach shots, it's inside of the rain cape for physical protection.
Posted 48 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Isn't it incredible that a 77mm UV filter costs1/10th of a new 40D, or a 17-55mm 2.8 ? Oddly enough, I picked up a hoya 77mm uv for $10 out of a clearance box at best buy a few months ago. I should of bought more...
Originally posted 48 months ago.
(permalink)
dwaynejava edited this topic 48 months ago.
|
|
I've often read pros and cons of filter use, and I use them in wet or dusty conditions but it was my purchase of a s/h lens that brought home how much tougher the front element of a lens is compared to a filter. I seems that the broken shards are sharp enough to do some serious damage.
heres a shot of the one I bought and the tale of woe from its previous owner.
I'm not saying don't use one just consider that it might not protect the way some people think.
Posted 48 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Glass can certainly scratch glass...
Posted 48 months ago.
(permalink)
|
Would you like to comment?
Sign up for a free account, or sign in (if you're already a member).
|
|
Canon EOS 40D Users /
Discuss
Feed – Subscribe to Canon EOS 40D Users discussion threads
