UV filters

[DizneyNutz]

The link below speaks about using UV filters. IMHO I would suggest using a Polorizing filter instead when filming outdoors in bright conditions. I feel that this will make your colors brighter (like looking through polorized sunglasses).

http://photo.net/equipment/filters/

 

[PopArtGal]

thx!

Very helpful... Though I have no spare money at the time

 

[DizneyNutz]

thx!

Very helpful... Though I have no spare money at the time

So if not in the budget, then don't bother! I am sure you will still end up with great images. I will say that there are plenty of inexpensive ones ( I call disposable) that are not professional quaility but still give you some of the results. You really have to weigh the value of of filter or non filter for your viewing pleasure. I would say go with your camera as is and enjoy if the budget doesn't allow otherwise. Hope you all have a memorable trip.

 

[MarkBarbieri]

Last May I didn't use my UV lense....

And regret it for a few shots.

I wanted to use it for our next trip (in 14 days woohoo!!!)

Will it affect my shots?

Do I have to remove it the second it starts to get dark?

Any tips on filming the parade at night? (I'm going to MVMCP so any tips about filming that will be welcomed !)

A UV filter shouldn't affect your shots. They filter UV light, which affected film but doesn't really affect sensors. Many people still use them to protect their lenses from scratches.

 

[PopArtGal]

I do have a lense just as a protection... Ill keep that one...

The UV lense came with that one when I bought it.

Never used it. And I won't use it this time either. I'll just be careful.

 

[Bete]

I'm more interested in use of this for a video camcorder than a camera.

My understanding is that this filter will protect my lense, as well.

Is this a good idea?

 

[Geoff_M]

I always have a UV or Skylight filter on my lenses in order to protect the front elements. This is a topic of debate amongst some photographers. Some feel that they should never be used as, technically, any time you place any additional layers of glass between the lens and the film/sensor it will result in *some* loss of image quality. I'm of the belief that any loss is negligible and not worth scratching or cleaning wear on the front element of the lens.

 

[jann1033]

as per protection, being of the opposite mind, i saw an interesting test of uv filters once, tiffen vs some of the "high priced models" ie b&w, hoya the expensive ones had some impact in iq but not nearly as much as the tiffen. course they also can cost much closer to $100 per than the tiffen as well. if i recall someone had to replace a larger mm lens piece that got scratched and it was close to the same price as a high priced uv filter(always a chance i might not be remembering right) ...however, how much are you willing to pay to keep the lens from maybe being scratched some day maybe could be and not have it affect the quality of the image? personally i use a hood now instead and my uvs sit at home but that might not be possible with a video camera(?) bad person i am, sometimes i use nothing since the hood can make things darker than i want but i'm careful and no scratches ever ( decades of use)
as per sun..i recall seeing a few articles that said digital cameras are not as sensitive to uv as film but sensitive ir instead. guessing that applies to video as well (of which i know nothing about). if i were going to use any filter i would probably get a cp filter since that will help more with nice colored skies on a sunny day( living in ne ohio, land of 100% cloud cover, they don't help much here usually)...the only thing you possibly notice at all with a uv (other than less iq) would be maybe in a really hazy situation, some are called haze filters though i don't recall ever seeing a difference in photos i have taken of the blue ridge mts, a real source of haze, never compared side by side though either

 

[boBQuincy]

The only benefit from a UV filter is to the people who make them and sell them. They add nothing good to the image and are not much protection to the lens, a decent lens hood is much better at that and reduces flare.

 

[MarkBarbieri]

I find this to be the most overworked debate in photography.

First, it is not needed to protect from UV rays. Your digital sensor, unlike some films, is not sensitive to UV rays, so that not worth worry about.

The primary use for UV filters these days is for lens protection. I've read of several cases where people claim that their lens was saved by having a UV filter on it. I've never seen such a case in my own personal experience. If you use a lens hood (which you should for shading reasons) and you are at all diligent, the odds of a significant scratch should be pretty small. I've used lenses for years without filters and have no visible scratches at all (and I frequently clean them by breathing on them and wiping them with my T-shirt).

The primary complaint about UV filters is the impact on image quality. I would argue that in the overwhelming majority of circumstances, you will not notice any difference whatsoever. The exception, and it is a big one, is when you are shooting scenes with lights visible in the scene (the sun, the moon, a lamp, headlights, etc). In those cases the UV filter is another flat surface for light to reflect off of and great a "ghost" light. I've seen this occur in many pictures. A good UV filter with anti-reflective coatings will substantially mitigate this problem.

Another problem is that, being a piece of glass sitting in front of the lens, the sometimes catch indirection light sources and spread that light around the picture. The result is a picture that is washed out because this extra stray light boosted the exposure of all of the areas that should be dark.

One other problem is that with wide angle lenses shooting wide open, they often cause or exacerbate vignetting problems. The edges of the filter a ever so slightly in the frame and cause the corners of the picture to darken.

So when people put on a UV filter and take a test shot that doesn't involve their widest zoom setting and widest aperture and doesn't include light sources within the frame and doesn't include light grazing the front of the lens and they declare that it has no negative affect on image quality, they are right for those conditions. That doesn't mean that it won't hurt them in other areas.

In my opinion, UV filters rarely protect from any real harm (especially for people using lens hoods) and they rarely cause any significant image degradation. I see occasional reports where they save people's lenses from disaster and I see occasional pictures where they cause image problems. Use one if you worry about your lenses and don't use one of if you worry about your pictures. Odds are, it won't make much difference either way, but it might make you feel more comfortable.

 

[Geoff_M]

I see occasional reports where they save people's lenses from disaster and I see occasional pictures where they cause image problems.

I agree that this debate is greatly overblown, but let me add a couple of my personal experiences. I did have a lens that was "saved" by the presence of a filter. About 10 years ago I was changing lens and suffered a colossal "brain fart". I "let go" of the lens in the wrong hand. As a result, my first 80-200 f2.8 fell to the ground (with no hood screwed on, because I was in the middle of a change). It landed front-end down. It also landed on something (think it was another piece of equipment) that hit the filter and "spider webbed" it big time. If the filter hadn't been on it, what struck the filter would have hit the front element. Would it have crack it too? Probably not seeing as it's thicker, but it would likely have left a lovely ding!

Also, I have a 10.5mm fish-eye that I really like. For obvious reasons, there is no front filter on it. I've owned it two years now, and already there are marks on the optical coating of the front element that I cannot get off with a cleaning cloth. I've been careful to put the cap on the fish when I carry the camera on my shoulder. I don't have such marks on my other lenses that have filters.

And as for overall image quality, I've never been vexed with wondering why so many of my image are "soft", so for me the issue of the filters on image quality appears to be moot.

 

[dr_zero]

I have collapsible lens hoods and UV filters on the zooms and UV on the others.

I also live in Fl and are around water alot and I had rather clean the UV filter off time and time again than the actual lens the less contact with the coatings to me the better.

Side note: If you go out and use your camera it is going to get dirty, dust, air pollution etc so a good wipe down after use is always a good idea.

 

[Amy]

What about polarizing filters? Jann said she lives in OH and doesn't have very many sunny days; same with me living in Pittsburgh. But we were just on vac in Williamsburg, Virginia, bright sunny days, blue skies with fluffy clouds. In order to get proper exposure, I had to keep bracketing my shots - expose for the buildings and sky was blown out. Expose for the sky, and the buildings were too dark.

Would a polarizing filter have helped with the blow-out skies? If so, does a polarizing filter affect image quality as much as a UV filter would?

 

[dr_zero]

What about polarizing filters? Jann said she lives in OH and doesn't have very many sunny days; same with me living in Pittsburgh. But we were just on vac in Williamsburg, Virginia, bright sunny days, blue skies with fluffy clouds. In order to get proper exposure, I had to keep bracketing my shots - expose for the buildings and sky was blown out. Expose for the sky, and the buildings were too dark.

Would a polarizing filter have helped with the blow-out skies? If so, does a polarizing filter affect image quality as much as a UV filter would?

I think the polarizing filter would have helped some.

Here is a link that has some good comparisons of one in use so you can see how it works.
http://www.cs.mtu.edu/~shene/DigiCam/User-Guide/filter/polarizer.html

With a UV filter you wont see much difference since it generally filters out light we cannot see.

 

[thomas998]

For a camera.. I see no point... I do however put a filter on my camcorder... not because I think it will help the image... nor because it will provide much protection (since if I hit it hard enough that it would damage the lens it will probably be so hard it will shatter the filter and scratch the lens anyways)...I put it there to keep the dust out of the stupid automatic lens cover that they put on camcorders... I don't want dust mucking up the silly thing and force me to send it off for service.

 

[jann1033]

What about polarizing filters? Jann said she lives in OH and doesn't have very many sunny days; same with me living in Pittsburgh. But we were just on vac in Williamsburg, Virginia, bright sunny days, blue skies with fluffy clouds. In order to get proper exposure, I had to keep bracketing my shots - expose for the buildings and sky was blown out. Expose for the sky, and the buildings were too dark.

Would a polarizing filter have helped with the blow-out skies? If so, does a polarizing filter affect image quality as much as a UV filter would?

quality wise, any cheap filter is supposed to degrade the image..my cps are pretty cheap( ie tiffen) and i still use them as the sky looks much better if it's not gray. they are useful for things like windows and ponds as well( glare) and sometimes they help if you want to lower your shutter on the rare bright day for fountains etc. i have used them with a hood to cut down the brightness to get a slow enough shutter speed.i wish i had the iq filter test bookmarked but i don't. it was a real eye opener because it did cause a noticeable image change with the cheap ones. even the tester was shocked how much difference there was. course you probably wouldn't notice it unless you had 2 filters and took photos side by side, you'd just figure it was the lens, the light, something messed up etc etc etc.
as far as hoods for protection i 'would think a rigid one would be better since a collapsible one might collapse and not help much. i did keep a filter on by the ocean, think it was a cp since i don't think i had my uv collection with me. it helped hold my nifty little camera rain bonnet deal in place

 

[Groucho]

I'm definitely in the "hoods not filters" camp. This becomes more and more evident as the megapixel count goes up. At 100% with 14.6 mp, it's pretty easy to tell if there's a filter on the lens or not (and you really see a difference between different lens quality levels), as as 12 mp DSLRs become more and more common, this may be more of an issue. My CP is a pretty nice Hoya HMC one and it does seem to affect sharpness a touch, though I haven't done A/B comparisons. I only use it when I feel like I really need it.

Regardless, I don't want anything unnecessary on my lens element... I think lens hoods are going to give better protection in most any circumstance - if your lens doesn't have one, it's worth getting one. The exception being a fisheye of course, you just have to be careful with them.

 

[dolce]

i bought a canon s5 is last week, didnt get the insurance for it but before i start using it i wanted to buy a uv filter....now my understanding is that you buy an adapter with it.....what is the difference between 52mm and 58mm?

 

[dr_zero]

i bought a canon s5 is last week, didnt get the insurance for it but before i start using it i wanted to buy a uv filter....now my understanding is that you buy an adapter with it.....what is the difference between 52mm and 58mm?

The 52 and 58 are the diameter in MM of the front threads of the lens.
You can get a 58mm UV filter or a 52mm or whatever size you need for the lens in question.

You don't need an adapter unless you have a say a 52mm lens and want to use a 58mm filter so you get a step up adapter and step down if you are doing the opposite.

Generally you don't want to put a smaller filter on the lens you can go bigger but smaller and you start have issues.

 

[JimbobJimbo]

As dr_zero said the difference between 52mm and 58mm is the diameter of the threads on, in the case of the S5, the adapter. Since you can't add a filter directly to the S5 you need to buy the adapter. When I had my S5 I bought the adapter from lensmate, they have both the 52mm and 58mm adapter. I went with the 52mm because I had read that the 58mm had some problems with vignetting.