UV filters

[huskermommy]

Hello!

A few months ago, I bought a Canon Rebel XTI which I'm loving! At the time, I only bought one lens, the 58mm 1.8. Now, FINALLY, I'm buying a zoom lens..the Canon EF 28-135 f 3.5-5.6! Anyway.. I'm wondering if I should buy the lens hood and UV filter, both or just the hood? Anybody have suggestions?

Thanks in advance,

 

[MarkBarbieri]

My opinion is to buy the hood and skip the filter. Their is an age old argument on the use of UV filters. They serve no purpose optically (UV isn't an issue on any DSLR). The question is whether the protective value outweighs the image degredation. The image problem is because they add a glass surface at the front of the lens which makes for flare problems.

My view comes from having never replaced a filter or lens element because it was scratched, despite not being very careful with my gear. I do, however, use a hood for protection against stray scratchy things and stray light. I've had plenty of shots ruined because of stray light.

 

[photo_chick]

I thought UV filters were really not of much everyday use for film either unless you are at higher elevations where more UV rays are present. That is what I remember anyway, though my memory is not what it used to be! (thank you sleep deprivation!) Am I remembering right? If not what is your take on it?

Sorry to stray a little here, but it does pertain to why you would or would not want UV filters!

 

[boBQuincy]

The filter is a matter of preference, depending on whether or not you buy into the "lens protection" thing.
The hood is required in either case, to prevent flare. One of my favorite scenes at WDW (wish I had taken a picture of it) was someone taking a photo with a Canon 1D, and the lens hood on backwards.

 

[huskermommy]

Ackk..... I can't decide what to do because BOTH reasons for getting/not getting the filter make sense. I for sure am getting the hood so that's a non-issue.

I would think that putting a $30ish piece of glass over a VERY expensive piece of glass doesn't make much sense, but then again, I want to keep my lens protected and a lot of people do buy the filter.

Does the hood serve as protection..I'd think it would at least help?

Thanks again!

All the best,

 

[Groucho]

The hood certainly does serve as protection.

Furthermore, I think that scratching or cracking the front element of your lens is a pretty rare thing to happen for most people. You either have to be shooting in fairly adverse conditions and/or be fairly careless... or had a bad streak of luck, I suppose...

Another way to look at it... how often do you see people replacing their UV filters because they were cracked in an accident? Not very often, I think.

 

[mabas9395]

When I got this same lens, I got both the hood and UV filter. I still use the hood every time I take this lens out of the bag, but I stopped using the filter a while ago unless I am in really harsh conditions (like the beach or something).

I would definately get the hood no mater what. Only get the filter if you are going to get a very, very high quality one and you think that you are rough on your glass.

 

[jann1033]

i have hoods and filters for all my lenses,,such a waffler,, but thinking of the fact in however many yrs i've had a slr i have never scratched a lens or filter, hmm did i really need the added protection of a filter? think not.. although i did bump the lens cap of my new lens the other day. got a smudge of white paint on it and almost cried..i am way to neurotic.

and ot but i actually think they fixed my 28-135!!!!! got it back today, they said the focus was not operating correctly so they did electrical adjustments to the part..( probably cleaned the little connectors but if i worked i don't care) haven't shot anything but the next door neighbor's but i think it is sharper..it actually looked good! so this weekend i'll try it out for real.only took them since Jan 2 but if it works I'll be thrilled

 

[AKLforever]

I just noticed they sell UV lenses for DSLRs, and since I have one now, I wanted to make sure it worked the way Im thinking. Now, if I get the lens, and with a DSLR when you look through the Viewfinder, you are looking through the lens it self, right? So, then, you would see in the UV spectrum just by looking through the camera, right? I just want to see if thats right, and Ill follow up with why this is an awesome thing to someone like me.

 

[KrazyPete]

If I understand you correctly, I think it works the opposite of what you are saying. Like UV filtered sunglasses the filter blocks UV light.

 

[Master Mason]

UV filters were important in the film days, but most folks that use them in digital do as a protection for their glass. I was in that camp before, but a few folks convinced me to try it without.... So currently no UV filters on my lenses.

 

[mhm]

UV filters were important in the film days, but most folks that use them in digital do as a protection for their glass. I was in that camp before, but a few folks convinced me to try it without.... So currently no UV filters on my lenses.

Do you use something else to protect the glass, or not?

 

[AKLforever]

Oh, sorry, I dont think I explained my self very well. Thats my bad. But when I say UV, I mean Ultraviolet lens, meaning it allows you to see in the UV spectrum, not protect you against it.

 

[MarkBarbieri]

Oh, sorry, I dont think I explained my self very well. Thats my bad. But when I say UV, I mean Ultraviolet lens, meaning it allows you to see in the UV spectrum, not protect you against it.

I've never heard of such a thing. First, you can't see UV light (unless you're part bee). It would be really amazing to find that a lens can substantially alter the wavelength of light passing through it so that light that was too short wavelength to be seen now can be. Every time I've ever seen the term UV lens it has mean UV filter.

I'm not saying that it's not possible that a UV to visible light converting lens doesn't exist, but I've never heard of one.

 

[Master Mason]

Do you use something else to protect the glass, or not?

Just the hood. The arguement that was made to me that won me over was that I spent over 1K on a lens, and put a $50 piece of glass in front of it, so I was really takeing away quality from a really good lens.

 

[ukcatfan]

Oh, sorry, I dont think I explained my self very well. Thats my bad. But when I say UV, I mean Ultraviolet lens, meaning it allows you to see in the UV spectrum, not protect you against it.

I believe that you are thinking of an IR filter instead of a UV. UV is shorter than visible light and IR is longer than visible light but not as long as radio waves for example. The IR filters do give a neat effect, but I am pretty sure that they are difficult to capture and not all cameras can do it.

Kevin

 

[ukcatfan]

Just the hood. The arguement that was made to me that won me over was that I spent over 1K on a lens, and put a $50 piece of glass in front of it, so I was really takeing away quality from a really good lens.

Not just that, but if you drop a lens with just a filter on it, the shock wave is transferred at nearly 100% from the filter to the lens and would likely cause damage to the internal workings of the lens. With a plastic hood, the hood will break and absorb the majority of a drop from a reasonable height. Nothing is going to help you if you drop it off the observtion deck at the CR for example. The ultimate protection would be to use both, but I personally feel like I am covered enough with the hood and do not have to worry about degraded IQ. I always used a UV with my S1 and adapter tube and did not notice a difference, but did notice the difference when placed on my K100D. If you do end up going with a UV for protection, at least get a high quality multi coated one.

Kevin

 

[Groucho]

Yeah, I was going to guess that he meant IR filter as well. I'd like to pick one of those up one of these days... who knows.

I don't think that the naked eye will be able to look through an IR filter and suddenly see the IR spectrum, I think you need a long shutter speed to capture it? I don't remember; I looked into a bit a while ago but most of the info has fallen out of my head by now.

 

[MICKEY88]

I think you need a long shutter speed to capture it? I don't remember; I looked into a bit a while ago but most of the info has fallen out of my head by now.

you should keep your head in an upright position at all times, to reduce the risk of things falling out of it...

 

[Groucho]

you should keep your head in an upright position at all times, to reduce the risk of things falling out of it...

It's not that, it's that there's only so much room in there, and as new stuff comes in, old stuff necessarily falls out, usually in fragments... so I remember that I read something but don't remember the details. The human brain is maddeningly imprecise and unreliable.