Reading mode: Light Dark

UV filters on my 20D?

Go to last post
J

Jim Ball

Forum Enthusiast
Messages
289
Reaction score
0
Location
Frontenac, KS, US
Way back when I packed a camera for a living, I kept UV filters on all my lenses as a first line of defense against dust and damage to the front element of the lens. I cannot remember where I read it, or find it on a search, but I think I read something to the effect that Canon CMOS sensors and UV filters do not get along well. Did I dream or imagine this? If I didn't, what is a good filter to use to protect the front of my expensive (to me, anyway) glass?
--
Love my Twenty-D
 
There ws a post here, a while ago, where someone showed some pictures that demonstrated that a UV filter reduces the image quality if it is used with the 70 - 300 DO but this was particular to the DO lens because of the defractive elements.

Ian
 
I have found that you can't run uv filters with canon DSLRS. I know that some people would call me crazy, and they have. but i couldn't figure out why my shots were not as crisp as other peoples using the same equiptment. After experimenting, I found that taking off the uv filter makes a drastic difference. Many people ask me if i'm afraid of damaging the lens, but does it make sense spend $2000 on a lens if it is not sharp. Besides if you keep the lens hood on and be carefull then the chances of damaging it are pretty slim. And it would be wise to have insurance for your expensive equiptment anyway.
 
on here has been photos of christmas lights and candles and such which showed some very annoying artifacts. When people took off their filters, the strange extra lights went away.

The surfaces of the sensor and filters in the "stack" are more reflective than film is/was. So under certain circumstances, you'll get bizarre internal reflections happening with your digital camera that you wouldn't have with film.

It's good to get coated filters to help with this, but even so, you may need to remove the filter for some kinds of shots.

--
Jim H.
 
The chances of your lens getting damaged if you use a hood but no uv filter is close to zero. The chances of a UV filter hindering the quality of your images is 100%. Even the best filters, in certain circumstances will degrade image quality. With film, it was worth using the best filters becaue those rarely degrade image quality and flm is sensitive to UV light (i.e. more often than not a good filter would help the image quality). A CCD/CMOS is not sensitive to UV light so a filter can never help your image, only hurt it. Now if you use your camera somewhere where damage is guaranteed to happen to the lens, I suppose it's better that it happens to a filter.
--
http://davidson.smugmug.com
Use this code to save $5 on smugmug: UPu6udxnAfhNI
See my profile for equipment and wish list
 
They are technically sensitive to UV light, but not anywhere to the extent of film and you'll never notice. This is why true UV photography is done with specially designed CCD's that only respond to UV light.
--
http://davidson.smugmug.com
Use this code to save $5 on smugmug: UPu6udxnAfhNI
See my profile for equipment and wish list
 
In the Canon SLR lens forum, it has been noted that a UV on a 70-300 DO IS lens will affect the image quality. I took my UV off it and did find that the quality I was seeing did have an improvement. I have a UV on my 17-85IS and find that the images show no visible degradation with it on.
 
1. I don't bother with a protective filter on my 50mm lens because the front element is heavily recessed and the lens is fairly cheap.

2. I keep a high quality filter on my 70-200 f2.8L IS because the front element is huge and right at the front edge. I use this lens a lot at events, where I'm often squeezing between people and changing lenses while moving around. The filter protects the front element while I'm moving around and means that I don't have to worry about replacing the lens cap if I don't have a hand free to manage it. (I tried using the hood, but it makes this lens too bulky.) I get VERY good results with this lens even with the filter. I do use a rubber hood on the lens, but keep it folded back to act as a bumper on the lens.
3. If you just shoot landscapes or in the studio, don't bother with a filter.
--
Jeff Peterman

Any insults, implied anger, bad grammar and bad spelling, are entirely unintentionalal. Sorry.
http://www.pbase.com/jeffp25
http://www.jeffp25.smugmug.com discount code: rLhBMD1iJah9w

 
For indoor shots, the filter will be always off. For outdoor shots near ocean or in rainy days, the UV filter is back on. Otherwise, the filter is off.

For all cases, the lens hood is always on. When I remove the hood, I put the lens cap on immediately. Over the years, I have changed from using cheap UV filters on my film cameras, to high quality Hoya and B+W multi-coated ones and finally, not using them most of the time except the polarizer.
--
Nelson
http://pbase.com/nelsonc

 
Jeff Peterman said:
1. I don't bother with a protective filter on my 50mm lens because
the front element is heavily recessed and the lens is fairly cheap.
2. I keep a high quality filter on my 70-200 f2.8L IS because the
front element is huge and right at the front edge. I use this lens
a lot at events, where I'm often squeezing between people and
changing lenses while moving around. The filter protects the front
element while I'm moving around and means that I don't have to
worry about replacing the lens cap if I don't have a hand free to
manage it. (I tried using the hood, but it makes this lens too
bulky.) I get VERY good results with this lens even with the
filter. I do use a rubber hood on the lens, but keep it folded back
to act as a bumper on the lens.
3. If you just shoot landscapes or in the studio, don't bother with
a filter.
Click to expand...
As usual Jeff, your sage advice is very practical and full of good logic.
n
I would like to and more to this practicality:

1. how many of us take such immaculate perfect photos that a filter is going to screw it up?

vs.

2. how many of us are clumsy and can knock the end of our big lenses against anything around us?

I personally prefer te protection, and I unscrew it if it's an important shot. Occassional unscrewing is easy and it doesn't slow down my general shooting at all. It's a default mode of safety first, aspirations of unrealistic perfection later.

and lastly,

3. I don't want to clean/rub my lens too much. I would rather wash my filters in dishwater or anything, then toss them if they are no longer clear.

I often shoot at the beach or in dusty/dirty areas, so cleaning filters helps save my lenses.

Diminished photo quality is more a matter of not being able to take better photos.
--
Stan Schutze
San Diego
http://www.pbase.com/schutze/modeling

 
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