UV filters

[Kelly Grannell]

I have used my boss' lens and L-O-V-E it. We compared it with the Tamron equivalent. If you're on a tight budget, get the Tamron, it's good enough (but colour abberation is about as bad, if not worse, as Canon 17-85 IS at 17mm)

I'm sorry I can't post any pictures yet, I've been using it for yet-to-be-released products from certain electronics manufacturer and their NDA clause won't allow me to.

I'm ordering one for myself and it should arrive at my friend's store no later than Friday.

 

[JR6ooo4]

Hi Kelly,
One problem I have with the super thin PF for my 72mm diameter, Canon 28-135IS is that there are no interior threads for the normal lens cap to grip. A cap was included with the filter, but it is a rubber type that only grips the outside. I dropped it once during the last trip to disney, (well the one time it fell off without me noticing) and someone saw it, picked it up and ran after me to return it. You just have to love dis folks!
Anyway, if you use a lens cap, that is my one complaint about the thin filters. The cap is always falling off in my bag, when that lens is on the camera.
Mikeeee

 

[Kelly Grannell]

hmmm, I wouldn't like that. Maybe I should just buy the lens hood instead.

wait a minute, I just remember that my 70-200 f/2.8 lens is also 77mm (5mm thick), Ill just try it out with that and see what happens!

 

[captaincrash]

I wuz wondering why on earth anyone would WANT one of those super thin Hoyas? I saw them and their specs are (as I recall) actually a tad bit worse then the top of the line Hoyas for light transmission. The "Ultra Thin" line transmits 97% versus 99.7% for the Super Hoya HMC... oh... I just noticed HOYA makes a Super Pro-1 that is also thin and transmits 99.7%.

Well - still - why buy a thin 3mm filter?

Am I making any sense?

 

[Kelly Grannell]

well, one thing for sure, at 14mm, you will see vignetting caused by the 5mm filter which will be eliminated if you use the 3mm variety.

 

[captaincrash]

So -

- this 3mm filter is only of use to people with lenses which go as wide as a 14mm or wider? It seems as if one should simply dispense with a filter if that were the case or the manufacturer should have designed in a drop in filter provision... or get a step up ring to try and reduce the clip to zero.

A 3mm versus a 5mm filter is a rather subtle difference. I wonder if maybe there is more compelling reason then simply the 14mm angle issue?

Anyone else have a more comprehensive answer?

 

[kaddjr]

This may be a really stupid question, but what does a UV filter do other than protect your lens?

Thanks!

 

[tinksdad]

Digital camera CCDs are sensitive to ultra-violet (i.e.. UV) rays, although they are invisible to our eyes. If you allow UV light to be recorded on the CCD, it is likely that your image will look bluish and the color casts may not be acceptable. Moreover, UV and skylight type filters can also eliminate the lack of sharpness caused by UV radiation and reduces distant haze. UV and skylight filters are design to remove UV light (to some extend) and the bluish cast. UV filters are colorless and skylight filters are pinkish. Both filters can effectively remove UV light; however, skylight filters may produce warmish images because of their pinkish cast.

 

[Groucho]

Actually, CCDs are not sensitive to UV light. Regular film is, and would be used on film cameras for the reasons you mention.

On a digital camera, the UV filter can do nothing but degrade the quality of your image - the only reason to use one is if you feel that it will "protect" your lens, but this is a fairly controversial point, too (I prefer to not use one at all.)

 

[boBQuincy]

This is an old question that is in the same vein as what camera/automobile/beer you prefer (the correct answer is Canon/Chevy/Coors) and we will never get anyone to agree on whether we should use filters or not.

However... another piece of glass in front of the lens can only cause degradation of the image in one way or another. Same goes for a polarizer, even though it improves the image in some ways it can only detract from the sharpness. The filter adds (at least) another two air/glass interfaces and that ain't good!

With filters, mainly get the best ones you can afford and beware when pointing them towards or nearly towards the sun. They will increase the chance of flare.

 

[senecabeach]

Im a real newbie to DSLR picture taking and had the same question.
Loved my Fuji S5000...great pics but wanted a D80 with decent tele lens for wildlife, special vacations coming up and of course better Disney pics.

Got my x-mas wish and do have a UV filter on it. Still doing my homework on the new camera, big learning curve, but at 1st glance, Im finding that the Fuji took/takes (normal every day shots) "sharper" pics.

Could DEFINITELY be me and my inexperience, certainly haven't ruled that out and probably more true than not.

Guess I'll remove the UV and put the "hood" back on and try that for a while???

Your thoughts??

 

[jann1033]

what lens did you buy? i don't know about nikon but i do know if it's a third party you can get good and bad copies...however if you only notice the problem with the uv filter on , i would guess it's that. i do have a variety of uv filters though and can't really see a great deal of difference with or without on any of my lenses...i did see an article that proved it but never really tested it myself.

 

[Groucho]

A lot of it is probably going from a 3mp camera to a 10mp camera. I definitely got what looked like much sharper photos from my 2mp Fuji PnS than my 5mp Minolta PnS. Even a 10mp DSLR will look softer if you blow it up to 100%, plus the default setting probably doesn't have the sharpness cranked up like the Fuji might have. You can try turning that up in the user settings, or shoot raw and turn up the sharpness when converting to jpg.

 

[MarkBarbieri]

Everyone that uses UV filters justifies doing so as a lens protector. Just out of curiousity, how many people do you know that have ever replaced a UV filter because it was scratched? I can't think of a single time I ever did now has anyone I've asked.

My advice is to use a lens hood for protection and take care of your lenses. If it's a really good lens, the front element can be replaced in the unlikely event that it is scratched. While it may be costly if it happens to you, I bet that the average cost per person is lower by using a strategy of replacing scratched lens elements rather than by prophylatctic filters.

I bet that the most likely time to scratch a lens is when people clean it. If there is a speck of sand or crystal on your lens and you push it around with a cleaning pad, you may scratch if. If you just blow off your lens and brush it off before rubbing it, you'll be a lot safer.

Also, if you use a UV filter and a polarizer, be aware of the risk of vignetting. The two filters stacked may actually be in the picture enough to darken the corners of your photo. This is particularly true if you shoot with full frame sensor or with a "digital" lens.

I should add that I lug my camera stuff around through all sorts of nasty conditions when I backpack, canoe, kayak, and travel. I'm not a gentle sort at all. Even when I used UV filters on cheap lenses without hoods, I never scratched a front piece of glass.

 

[ducklite]

Everyone that uses UV filters justifies doing so as a lens protector. Just out of curiousity, how many people do you know that have ever replaced a UV filter because it was scratched? I can't think of a single time I ever did now has anyone I've asked.

I have. My gear takes a real battering with the type of photography I do. I'ts been hit by flying objects including various bodily "fluids", had beer dumped on it, been kicked, you name it. Even with a lens hood, I've managed to get little dings--almost like pock marks--and scratches on my filters. One scratch happened just last week as the result of a collision with another photographers camera. It's a lot less expensive to replace the filter--and on my workhorse lens the filter has been replaced once already, and I'm about to replace it again. I can't afford the downtime of getting the lens fixed.

It's not a cleaning issue, it's an actual "shooting in a hazard zone" related damage issue. I always use a blower/brush before a cleaning cloth. I'm not even going to tell you the type of stuff I've had to clean off.

Anne

 

[senecabeach]

Thanks to ALL for your suggestions/replies..

jann1033, I'm using an AF-S nikkor 18-135 & AF-S VR nikkor 70-300, yea, cost me my lungs but my expectation are certainly higher than what Im getting at the moment..must be ME

Groucho, thanks for the suggestions, I'll trial/error with the user settings and also try raw pics.

I have 38 more sleeps till my Disney trip and can't believe I'm really craming this learning process ...

 

[0bli0]

most of the regulars know i am pretty anti-uv filters . the only time i use them is if i'm shooting paintball tournaments w/ my 80-200 2.8L. this lens has been shot hundreds of times in the filter and it hasn't even been scratched.

for other shooting i don't use them (i use hoods for protection) - especially on my L lenses where you're paying extra to achieve the best possible rendition. you can definitely notice the image degradation from a UV filter in terms of colour shift and contrast loss, and i'm sure the distortion would be noticeable at larger image sizes.

 

[jann1033]

Thanks to ALL for your suggestions/replies..

jann1033, I'm using an AF-S nikkor 18-135 & AF-S VR nikkor 70-300, yea, cost me my lungs but my expectation are certainly higher than what Im getting at the moment..must be ME

Groucho, thanks for the suggestions, I'll trial/error with the user settings and also try raw pics.

I have 38 more sleeps till my Disney trip and can't believe I'm really craming this learning process ...

make sure the vr is working...according to canon you can check the is by taking 2 low light photos of the same thing, one off one on IS should be a noticeable difference
i would guess the vr could be checked the same way.
i was shocked how awful the photo was with the is off which made me wonder if it does something else since my other non IS lens photos aren't as bad as that one was

 

[senecabeach]

i was shocked how awful the photo was with the is off which made me wonder if it does something else since my other non IS lens photos aren't as bad as that one was

Thanks for the hint jann1033 ... will do !!

ObliO .. will take it off and give it a go !!

 

[ducklite]

most of the regulars know i am pretty anti-uv filters . the only time i use them is if i'm shooting paintball tournaments w/ my 80-200 2.8L. this lens has been shot hundreds of times in the filter and it hasn't even been scratched.

for other shooting i don't use them (i use hoods for protection) - especially on my L lenses where you're paying extra to achieve the best possible rendition. you can definitely notice the image degradation from a UV filter in terms of colour shift and contrast loss, and i'm sure the distortion would be noticeable at larger image sizes.

I think much also has to do with the brand of filters you use. I use Hoya's, and am not noticing distortion problems. I have used a lower quality UV filter once in the past (learned the lesson!), and did have some problems with color shift and image degradation.

Right now I'm debating on buying a polarizer for an upcoming outdoor into the sun shoot I've got. I'll start a new thread on that.

Anne

Anne