UV Filters

So what brand of UV filters should I get my my 20mm and 14-140mm Panasonic lenses? Also B+W for example have 3 different qualities ($20, $53, $120 Canadian) please share your advise and reasoning. thanks!
--
Matt

Thay are a waste of money. 30+ years without them and not a scratch to be found on any of my lenses and I'm not someone who takes special care. Obviously YMMV

Nick

I think of them like insurance. Might never need them when when you do you'll be happy to have it.
--
Matt

I'm using the B+W MRC UV filter. I tried the single coated version first but found that it produced strong ghosting when a bright light source was in the image. The MRC also does this but to a much less degree. You have to be aware that any filter (particularly with the strong curvature of the front element of the 20mm) will degrade the image soewhat. So it is a trade off between protecting the front element vs. a negligible? amount of image deterioration. Since I don't use a shade on the 20mm, I elected for the filter.

nick_webster said:

Thay are a waste of money. 30+ years without them and not a scratch to be found on any of my lenses and I'm not someone who takes special care. Obviously YMMV

Nick

Click to expand...

lol, with those lens cost $100 is not wise to spend few more dollar to protect them, example if water or dust hit the lens will the filter and not the lense.

brokenhat said:

I think of them like insurance. Might never need them when when you do you'll be happy to have it.
--
Matt

Click to expand...

I agree with that. I've always had tiffens, but never really compared iq with versus without the filter. I know that I like using my cameras, so a uv filter to protect the lens is helpful. I have a tiffen and a zeikos for my m4/3 lenses; they were each about $8 at amazon.

i use the hoya super hmc uv(o) with no complaints...
--
My Flickr - Still lots to learn....
http://www.flickr.com/photos/simon_j/

omg. As someone else suggested in another thread if you're going to put a filter like that in front of your lens why not just use some saran wrap and a rubber band?

matt wakeman said:

brokenhat said:

I think of them like insurance. Might never need them when when you do you'll be happy to have it.
--
Matt

Click to expand...

I agree with that. I've always had tiffens, but never really compared iq with versus without the filter. I know that I like using my cameras, so a uv filter to protect the lens is helpful. I have a tiffen and a zeikos for my m4/3 lenses; they were each about $8 at amazon.

Click to expand...

If you have to have a UV filter on your lens (and I would skip it) something like the Hoya HD line or the B+W MRC line would be best. You want oodles of coatings. You are using the lens hoods for both of those lenses, right?

brokenhat said:

So what brand of UV filters should I get my my 20mm and 14-140mm Panasonic lenses? Also B+W for example have 3 different qualities ($20, $53, $120 Canadian) please share your advise and reasoning. thanks!
--
Matt

Click to expand...

Peter Vaktor said:

Since I don't use a shade on the 20mm, I elected for the filter.

Click to expand...

That seems backwards to me - if I use a filter, there is even more reason to use a shade, not less.

hindesite said:

Peter Vaktor said:

Since I don't use a shade on the 20mm, I elected for the filter.

Click to expand...

That seems backwards to me - if I use a filter, there is even more reason to use a shade, not less.

Click to expand...

I would agree. A large flat piece of glass in front of the lens is just asking for lens flare or reduced contrast due to veil flare.

brokenhat said:

brokenhat wrote:

So what brand of UV filters should I get my my 20mm and 14-140mm Panasonic lenses? Also B+W for example have 3 different qualities ($20, $53, $120 Canadian) please share your advise and reasoning. thanks!
--
Matt

Click to expand...

You can try with the 14-140 but I wouldn't recommend it for the 20mm.

The 20mm Pancake doesn't like ANY filter in front of it, not even the official Panasonic Multi-Coated Protection Filter.

There have been two very long threads recently on this issue. If you do a search using my user name in the search string you should find them (the threads were within the last eight weeks).

I also recall, that the 14-45 and 45-200 had issues to too.

I am a member of the Holy Filters-For-Lens-Protection Church, but of the five lenses I use on my G1 only two have filters on them and really one of those shouldn't have because it creates green blobs when there is bright light in the scene but I insist on using a filter on it all the same because the lens hood is shallow and the lens costs £1100 (I have the markets strongest filter on it, the Hoya HD range of filter).

Be aware also that for the 46mm filter thread of the 20mm Pancake you will be limited in the brands and ranges within those brands that you can buy, if you insist on using a filter. I would recommend buying a hood instead for protection.

You could buy a step-up ring, but there are problems with doing that on the Pancake lens, due to the fact that the lens retracts into the body when the camera is switched off (this is siomething else you can read about by doing a search using my username).

Regards,

plevyadophy said:

You can try with the 14-140 but I wouldn't recommend it for the 20mm.

Click to expand...

I agree. I have both these lenses and two matching Hoya HMC UV filters. I haven't noticed any problems with the 14-140, but the 20 doesn't like it. I use it naked now unless I'd doing something that will get stuff on the lens. I don't think filters suit the pancake in any case, they make it deeper, and put pressure on the focus mechanisim.

--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/30225435@N00/

mugupo said:

nick_webster said:

Thay are a waste of money. 30+ years without them and not a scratch to be found on any of my lenses and I'm not someone who takes special care. Obviously YMMV

Nick

Click to expand...

lol, with those lens cost $100 is not wise to spend few more dollar to protect them, example if water or dust hit the lens will the filter and not the lense.

Click to expand...

UV filters were usefull for film because they were sensitive to UV which could cause a little haze. They bring nothing to digital sensor (from what I've read elsewhere).

If you just want to protect your lense, the use of a lense hood is more than sufficient in most case. A lense hood is almost mandatory : it will help a lot against flare. Hood plus filter is a little redundant and between the two I chose the hood, because it helps more than the skylight filter.

--
rrr_hhh

All this talk of lens hoods...doesn't carrying one of these on a mFT camera defeat the purpose of the compactness of the camera?

The design of the 20mm seems to be such that it does not appear to benefit from a lens shade. I have not been able to elicit any flare or reduced contrast even shooting into the sun without a shade. Shade or no shade; it made no difference in image quality. The only benefit to a shade for this lens is mechanical protection of the front element but since the use of a shade turns this compact small portable camera into a less compact one, I prefer to use a filter. A high quality filter does not degrade the image except in particular circumstances which can be avoided.

DjarumBlack said:

All this talk of lens hoods...doesn't carrying one of these on a mFT camera defeat the purpose of the compactness of the camera?

Click to expand...

In some situations, yes; but now, at least we have the choice. If I want to put the camera in a pocket or travel light, I leave a lot of stuff at home; otherwise it is no effort to put a few extra items in the bag if I'm out and about.

I've lost far too many images - especially travel photos - in the past (from film days) where taking the filter off, and/or fitting a lens hood would have significantly improved the image.

Sure, my legacy glass is pristine, but the photos are actually more important to me.

I can't speak to the 20mm, but although the 14-42 Zuiko has amazing performance wrt flare (it far surpasses my legacy lenses) it definitely degrades when using a MC filter without a lens hood.

hindesite said:

I can't speak to the 20mm, but although the 14-42 Zuiko has amazing performance wrt flare (it far surpasses my legacy lenses) it definitely degrades when using a MC filter without a lens hood.

Click to expand...

My issue is I don't care for a lens cap, especially one thats not tethered. I also take pictuers in sometimes harsher conditions, such as the beach, hiking or just dusty conditions. Many times, I want to slide the camera in and out of the bag or a jacket pocket and not worry that everytime I use it, I have to take the cap off.

I'm thinking about getting the B+W MRC UV filter. I understand certain situations might cause ghosting.

What I used to do with my FZ3 was when I saw lots of flare, I just put my hand over the lens and use my hand as a temporary lens hood. I don't see why this can't be done with the OLY kit on the occasion I need it.

Now, once I pick up a zoom lens, say the panny 40-200, I'd use a hood. Not really concerned about size then.

Dj

DjarumBlack said:

All this talk of lens hoods...doesn't carrying one of these on a mFT camera defeat the purpose of the compactness of the camera?

Click to expand...

I have three legacy lenses on the E-P1 : all have hoods without filters. I'm accustomed to wear these lenses that way since I got them some ten years ago. They are much more smaller than my Canon lenses anyway.

I'm longing for the 20mm Panasonic, but didn't get it yet. May be after Christmas when the frenesy has calmed down in the shops. Other than that, I'm using the 14-42 small kit lense. The lense is small and stands in a recessed position. I keep the cap in my pocket, in easy reach and I put the cap on very often, sometimes only for five minutes, untill I see another pictures I want.

As for the 7-14mm, it has no filter thread and the petal hood is built in. So it was already in my farorite situation. I'm a little more carefull with this WA zoom, since the front glass is somewhat proeminent. I do also keep the lens cap in my pocket for easy and frequent use.

I've got a circular polarizer for the 14-42 kit lense, but it is heavy and prevent smooth focusing. Well these type of filters are heavier than a skylight filter, but nevertheless IMO it's not such a good idea to put a filter on these lenses when they are not absolutely needed. Things may be somewhat different with the Pany lenses ?

--
rrr_hhh