Reading mode: Light Dark

Poll: How many of you use UV/Protective filters?

Go to last post
Had to climb 2000 feet up in the Brecon Beacons National Park to get above the cloud - clear blue sky above. Wanted to catch the setting sun but wasn't too successful.
 
That would explain it the sun - above cloud/fog
ApCynan said:
Had to climb 2000 feet up in the Brecon Beacons National Park to
get above the cloud - clear blue sky above. Wanted to catch the
setting sun but wasn't too successful.
Click to expand...
--
J.
 
Yes and no.

Yes, when the lens is a more expensive one (or an otherwise harder to replace one), and/or the hazard potential seems significantly higher.

No, when the above conditions are not present.

I view UV/protective filters sort of like insurance - I "buy" it (i.e., use it) when I think I might have need for it, and I ignore it when I think the risk is sufficiently small.

--
Fred

 
ApCynan said:
Had to climb 2000 feet up in the Brecon Beacons National Park to
get above the cloud - clear blue sky above. Wanted to catch the
setting sun but wasn't too successful.
Click to expand...
I'm impressed! 300 feet up to Scarborough castle from the fish quay left me breathless a couple of weeks ago, though I did do it twice in one day.

And at least the sun was shining at the time :-)

--
John Bean [GMT - is there any other?]

PAW Week 50:
http://waterfoot.smugmug.com/gallery/1082841/4/118929495/Large



Index page: http://waterfoot.smugmug.com
Latest walkabout (4 April): http://waterfoot.smugmug.com/gallery/1348582
 
I do. They are a lot cheaper to replace than a cracked or scratched lens. The UV part of it really doesn't matter. Your lens's SMC does that already. But if you get a cheap filter without SMC, you are adding an element that is much more reflective, and adding cheap glass on top of good glass, which to me makes no sense.

http://www.boxfoto.com
 
My protective filters are made by Len Shood. I use a polarizer when needed but no other filters because to my mind the lens makers have optimized their designs and anything introduced between a lens and the subject must degrade IQ.
--

Kate, world authority on wibble
 
richardday said:
In fact almost any rigid hood is a better bet.

B&H do a nice range of cheap metal hoods by Kalt, but for wide
angle or wide zooms you may have to get a B+W wide angle one which
are more expensive, but still a bit less than a quality filter.

Nearly all filters will cause some degree of flare and without a
hood as well offer virtually no extra protection, apart from spray
and sand or an accidental scratch.
Click to expand...
Spray, sand, mud, dust, welding debris, wood chips, oil and a host of other substances. I don't imagine I'm the only one who shoots in such conditions, and a lens hood is dead worthless under ALL those conditions.

--
Charlie Self
http://www.charlieselfonline.com
 
--

'Mad Ron' ~ Retired & building crazy lens contraptions just to see if they work. Hmmmmm...I just thought of something. I will need a paper clip and some tape and....
 
No sense spending all that money and covering your pricey glass with cheap stuff. No matter how much a filter costs, it is just cheap glass...
 
No sense spending all that money and covering your pricey glass with cheap stuff. No matter how much a filter costs, it is just cheap glass...
 
With all the weird viruses and diseases in the world today, a good filter is a wise investment. I think they should sell them from wall hung coin machines at every popular shooting site. Different colors, and flavors would be nice too.
--
'This is more serious than I thought.....but it is still fun!
http://www.pbase.com/rupertdog Take a look- It's Free!
 
I think I am going to hold back from getting a filter at this time and always try to remember the hood instead. I am very careful with my equipment most of the time anyways and my K10 always has the strap on which is always secured around my neck. Im not too sure about the benefit an filter will bring me and am not so sure that they dont harpen IQ at all either. I do apprecaite Jonas B's extensive reply and the link to the LL article was an interesting read too. Surely I can see the benefit of having a filter but for things like dirt, water, dust, etc. on the lens I am not worried about they are easy to clean and dont leave permanent damage on the lens anyways. Its a major knock that I am more worried about and with such a knock it does seem like the hood will do a better job protecting the lens. I may of course change my mind later but for now I am going to concentrate on using the hood for protection and for water, dust, fingerprints, etc. - those are easy to clean and indeed the front elements are quite tough so they dont get damaged by such minor occurances anyways. This will also force me to remember to always use the hood which will have the added benefit of reducing flare as well as protecting the lens.

As for sticking a filter on the lens - I dont know - it may or may not detoriate IQ - the LL article seems to think it does and I can see the argument of why would you want to stick another piece of glass that wasnt intended to be there on your expensive lens argument? I can also see the other side of the argument too however that they are of high quality and trasmit almost all of the light that passes through them and most of the time dont create extra flare.

Thanks again for everyone that participated and I got a good feel for both sides of the argument here, I will most certainly let you know if I do end up getting a filter later on :) But hopefully not if you know what I mean :)

Regards,
Sinan

--
Sinan

 
i like the original design and performance of the lens. I feel the engineers designed them to perform optimally as they are out of the box. SMC is SMC, put something in front of it and all you get is the qualty of what is in front.

mark
--
life is too short, surf waves, own a convertible, and marry for love!

 
on a Pentax camera with no flare or other problems whatsoever. As someone else pointed out, I'd rather clean salt spray, grit or whatever else gets on the front surface (and it WILL) from a $20 filter rather than a $200-600 SMC lens. There is no macho reason to leave any lens unprotected when you have inexpensive protection available such as a good filter- Hoya or otherwise. You can also knock down some excess UV, or add a little warming for overcast conditions just as in the days of film. I'd compare it to driving your car without insurance.

BobbyB
 
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