Reading mode: Light Dark

Filter for lens protection: UV or Skylight?

Go to last post
F

Florestan229186

Well-known member
Messages
121
Reaction score
0
Location
Twickenham, UK, UK
On all my old film SLR lenses, I used to have a Skylight 1A filter to protect the lens and its coating. I now have to buy some filters for my DSLR and, of course, they're different sizes. I see a lot of folks recommending UV filters these days.

Is one type any better then the other?

--
Robert
 
Florestan said:
On all my old film SLR lenses, I used to have a Skylight 1A filter
to protect the lens and its coating. I now have to buy some
filters for my DSLR and, of course, they're different sizes. I see
a lot of folks recommending UV filters these days.

Is one type any better then the other?
Click to expand...
Depends on who you ask.

IMNSHO there's very little difference between multicoated filters, while there is some difference between uncoated, single-coated, and multicoated. I choose my UV(0)'s with the rigorous process of buying whichever multicoated filter happens to be available at the store, and haven't noticed any significant differences between them. I have Hoyas, Tiffens, and B+W's.

Petteri
--
Me on photography: [ http://www.prime-junta.tk ]
Me on politics: [ http://p-on-p.blogspot.com/ ]
 
UV is the best choice for general protection. Hoya's multicoated pro range are very good.
 
Florestan said:
On all my old film SLR lenses, I used to have a Skylight 1A filter
to protect the lens and its coating. I now have to buy some
filters for my DSLR and, of course, they're different sizes. I see
a lot of folks recommending UV filters these days.

Is one type any better then the other?

--
Robert
Click to expand...
Take a look at this link for a professional viewpoint on filters.

http://dpfwiw.com/filters.htm

Pixy.
 
The author says "Under nearly all conditions and for nearly all cameras, UV filters are a waste of money and a potential source of flare for digital photographers."

I've never noticed a difference to be honest. Now I don't use the UV filters anymore. They are a very nice protection of course, but I'm the only one using my camera and I know how to clean and take care of it.

Furthermore, it's much much easier to clean a lens glass than a filter. The filters have a coating which makes them hard to clean (i.e if you hold them up to a light source you almost always see some "swipe lines" or dust). Using a microfiber cloth on the lens glass direcly is a breeze.

Just my 2c :)

Good luck with the DSLR.

Stefan
Florestan said:
Thanks, everyone. I shall buy some Hoya HMC UV's, I think.

--
Robert
Click to expand...
 
Digital sensors are not sensitive to UV, so UV filters are a total waste.

Sky
Florestan said:
On all my old film SLR lenses, I used to have a Skylight 1A filter
to protect the lens and its coating. I now have to buy some
filters for my DSLR and, of course, they're different sizes. I see
a lot of folks recommending UV filters these days.

Is one type any better then the other?

--
Robert
Click to expand...
 
Sky Walker said:
Digital sensors are not sensitive to UV, so UV filters are a total
waste.

Sky
Click to expand...
Lens protection......
UV are colorless.
Skylight are a light pink, why mess with the color balance?

Me, I only put on the UV filter when the environment has the potential to affect the front lens element......like a dust storm or blowing rain......otherwise I run bare.

Heh heh.....I'm a dog.....I always run bare!

--



Your're not going to take my picture with that Nikon are you?
 
Florestan said:
Thanks, everyone. I shall buy some Hoya HMC UV's, I think.

--
Robert
Click to expand...
Hi Robert,

I also use a Hoya Super HMC pro 1 UV(0)

Being a digital camera the only benefit is really protection of the lens.

I do not regret buying the best quality I could afford in order to keep any degradation caused by the filter to a minimum.

I feel it is easier to keep clean and replace, if it gets damaged, than the camera lens.

I bought mine from http://www.2filter.com

Regards,

Pixy.
 
Skylight have a very slight tint, UV generally do not. I have also read (and it's also stated in the site linked to in previous post below) that digital sensors aren't really sensitive to most UV light so the only purpose of a filter (and a very worthy one having had filters save several of my lenes) is to protect the lens.

But that makes me wonder why so many people waste money on buying super-multi-coated-do-everything-pro filters that cost $50 when a $20 basic multicoated one would achieve the same results on a digital camera.

I suspect it's another form of gear addiction. Anyone think otherwise?
Florestan said:
On all my old film SLR lenses, I used to have a Skylight 1A filter
to protect the lens and its coating. I now have to buy some
filters for my DSLR and, of course, they're different sizes. I see
a lot of folks recommending UV filters these days.

Is one type any better then the other?

--
Robert
Click to expand...
 
pipspeak said:
But that makes me wonder why so many people waste money on buying
super-multi-coated-do-everything-pro filters that cost $50 when a
$20 basic multicoated one would achieve the same results on a
digital camera.

I suspect it's another form of gear addiction. Anyone think otherwise?
Click to expand...
Your camera is only as good as the weakest link. Put a $20 filter on the front of a good lens and you have a $20 lens.

"Protective filters" have more to do with some people's fears. Hey, some people still put plastic over expensive furniture! If it makes someone feel better having "protection", so be it. But then they should pay for a filter that will do the least amount of damage to the image.
 
chocolate said:
Your camera is only as good as the weakest link. Put a $20 filter
on the front of a good lens and you have a $20 lens.
Click to expand...
That's a bit of an exaggeration. $$ does not equate to quality. The Nikkor 50mm f1.8 is fast, sharp and costs less than $100. It's a great lens. It can be inexpensive because it's not trying to do anything fancy. A protection filter is trying to do even less (no blades, no focus, no electronics, not even an actual lens). There's no reason it shouldn't be able to do it for $20.
 
Florestan said:
On all my old film SLR lenses, I used to have a Skylight 1A filter
to protect the lens and its coating. I now have to buy some
filters for my DSLR and, of course, they're different sizes. I see
a lot of folks recommending UV filters these days.

Is one type any better then the other?
Click to expand...
Yes indeed. For the umpteenth time, Skylight is PINK!!!!! Put it on a piece of white paper and check it out. Haze is yellow. You need plain optical glass or UV, nothing else, unless you are after some special effect. It is far the best to get a BRASS filter ring, or it may bind and you won't get it off when you have to replace it. That's Heliopan, B+W, Leica and some Nikon filters. Heliopan and Leica filters are 'loose' in the ring, so that they are 'unstressed', if that means anything. All glass, except quartz is a UV filter.
Skipper494.
 
brn said:
chocolate said:
Your camera is only as good as the weakest link. Put a $20 filter
on the front of a good lens and you have a $20 lens.
Click to expand...
That's a bit of an exaggeration. $$ does not equate to quality.
The Nikkor 50mm f1.8 is fast, sharp and costs less than $100. It's
a great lens. It can be inexpensive because it's not trying to do
anything fancy. A protection filter is trying to do even less (no
blades, no focus, no electronics, not even an actual lens).
There's no reason it shouldn't be able to do it for $20.
Click to expand...
Not true. The 50mm lens is cheap because it is a very old design with lots of research on it for more than 40 years.

A filter is an add-on that is not part of the overall lens design. A filter generates reflections. A filter generates flare. A cheap filter is not optically flat. A cheap filter is usually layered plastic rather than glass. All of this and more precludes the use of the phrases "good filter" and "twenty bucks" in the same paragraph.

If you are happy with your cheap filter, great. But don't encourage others to make the same mistake by touting some imagined manufacturer's evil plot.
 
chocolate said:
Not true. The 50mm lens is cheap because it is a very old design
with lots of research on it for more than 40 years.
Click to expand...
And a piece of flat glass is a new innovation that requires a great deal of research.
chocolate said:
A filter is an add-on that is not part of the overall lens design.
A filter generates reflections. A filter generates flare. A cheap
filter is not optically flat. A cheap filter is usually layered
plastic rather than glass. All of this and more precludes the use
of the phrases "good filter" and "twenty bucks" in the same
paragraph.
Click to expand...
What dollar amount would you suggest is reasonable? What I had issues with was claiming that if you put a $20 filter on a good lens, you now have a $20 lens. Can we agree that's an overstatement? I just don't see why a $100 lens, needs a $100 protection filter.
 
brn said:
And a piece of flat glass is a new innovation that requires a great
deal of research.
Click to expand...
Dangit. That was supposed to read "And a piece of flat glass is a new innovation that requires a great deal of research?" The lack of a question mark makes all the difference in the world. :)
 
But the implication of everything I've read is precisely that a $50 filter makes no difference to an image than a $20 filter. Especially on a digital camera where UV is not an issue.

Show me the proof that an SMC filter results in a better image than an MC one for "average photos". I would agree on certain lenses (telephoto, for example) there would be advantages to filter coatings. But not all lenses.
chocolate said:
pipspeak said:
But that makes me wonder why so many people waste money on buying
super-multi-coated-do-everything-pro filters that cost $50 when a
$20 basic multicoated one would achieve the same results on a
digital camera.

I suspect it's another form of gear addiction. Anyone think otherwise?
Click to expand...
Your camera is only as good as the weakest link. Put a $20 filter
on the front of a good lens and you have a $20 lens.

"Protective filters" have more to do with some people's fears. Hey,
some people still put plastic over expensive furniture! If it makes
someone feel better having "protection", so be it. But then they
should pay for a filter that will do the least amount of damage to
the image.
Click to expand...
 
[snip]
chocolate said:
A filter is an add-on that is not part of the overall lens design.
A filter generates reflections. A filter generates flare. A cheap
filter is not optically flat. A cheap filter is usually layered
plastic rather than glass. All of this and more precludes the use
of the phrases "good filter" and "twenty bucks" in the same
paragraph.

If you are happy with your cheap filter, great. But don't encourage
others to make the same mistake by touting some imagined
manufacturer's evil plot.
Click to expand...
Is this all just theoretization, or have you actually tried this?

I have. As a matter of fact, I tried it with a pane of ordinary window glass (from a photo frame). My finding was that there is no visible effect on the image quality under normal circumstances, although under flare-prone circumstances (bright point-like light source inside the frame or near it) it does have an effect.

IOW, you're exaggerating the problem no end.

Petteri
--
Me on photography: [ http://www.prime-junta.tk ]
Me on politics: [ http://p-on-p.blogspot.com/ ]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top