kayna44
Well-known member
Why should you not use a UV Filter on a * lens?
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
UV Filter on a * lens
- Thread starter kayna44
- Start date
TMalford
Veteran Member
- Messages
- 7,693
- Reaction score
- 14
The argument for not using a UV filter on a * lens is the same as for any lens;
Because you've placed an additional piece of glass between your lens and your subject. Because that glass is not perfect. Because imperfect glass degrades image quality.
There are arguments for using the UV filter as well.
--
In heavy rotation:
Donovan/Storyteller (vinyl)
Miles Davis/Kind of Blue (vinyl)
Steely Dan/Aja (vinyl)
GMT minus 8
http://www.gorgephotos.com/
http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/terryalford
Pacerr
Senior Member
While a filter certainly won't improve the len's optics, there are conditions where they can certainly improve the final image compared to not using one.
A polarizing, ND, B&W colored or special effects filter is a good example; and it's interesting that we don't see the UV or not-to-UV argument with those items.
IMO, there are times when a UV filter can be beneficial - at high altitudes and in atmospheric conditions that generate a lot of UV 'back-scatter'. That's purely a subjective opinion on my part.
If you normally shoot in conditions where UV could be a factor, why not simply do a comparative image test with your own specific gear?
I DO use a protective filter when conditions hazardous to lenses warrant prudence and a good UV filter seems to make sense for that purpose given that I prefer to have one for high altitude situations anyway.
I have a second, admittedly far from scientific , habit about using UV filters from my film days. When I'm in conditions where I'd protect my eyes from intense, short term UV exposure (and always at high altitude) I considered that conditions favored the use of a UV filter for film results. I see no reason to abandon that habit with the DSLR although the sensor's sensitive spectrum is undoubtedly not the same as film. I'd welcome expert opinion on this subject (but I doubt I'd change the habit regardless).
H2
leopold
Forum Pro
Only when needed...but for me ,i don't even own a UV filter,never use one on any of my lens over the years...more to do with sellers who want to do money!
Certainly useful at high altitude,but in other occasion to protect lens...lens hood can be as useful in certain situation,you should always use your lens hood BTW.
--
Leopold
Pentax forever
http://smarcoux.zenfolio.com/
Certainly useful at high altitude,but in other occasion to protect lens...lens hood can be as useful in certain situation,you should always use your lens hood BTW.
--
Leopold
Pentax forever
http://smarcoux.zenfolio.com/
herzmeg
Active member
Unnecessary extra piece of glass. I'd only use it in hazardous environments.
Pacerr
Senior Member
OK, I've been "tilt-ing" on another thread today so I'm gonna tilt with this windmill too.
First - a given; nothing you put in front of a good lens is gonna help the optics. No question. How many good, expensive lenses are you gonna risk in tough situations to get a mediocre shot? Really? What do you consider tough ?
Second - there's a lot of reasons to trade potential optic degradation for a significant change or improvement in the resulting image. I say potential because rarely are the results so obvious as to be detected without either instrumentation or direct, critical comparison. Let's address all the other deleterious effects, not excluding economic compromises and poor personal technique, before we attack the UV filter.
Third - there were a LOT of years that I protected every lens I could afford with every "prophylactic" solution I could. I'm not gonna recommend to ANYONE buying into this photography hobby on a limited budget that they not do the same. Heck, they're so far from producing images where even a dirty UV filter would make a difference...well, anyone worrying about that wouldn't be askin' the question. [The truth is, a condom (gasp) can make a damn fine expedient raincoat for a lens. But, that's another story--and I don't wanna hear that yours won't fit.]
Fourth - this isn't a forum for folks makin' critical images (although there may a few here). I'd modify the forum advice to: -- When you have personal reason to believe a UV filter is degrading your images by direct comparison of images, you'll have all the answers you need. In the mean time, do what ever makes you feel good. You'll feel a lot worse if you can't remove a dirty filter to make a critical image when you want to.
I apologize for not being at liberty to offer examples of the circumstances I've mentioned. They do exist. An' I've got a 112mm UV filter I remove ALMOST every time I use the lens it stays on until I believe it's safe to remove it.
H2
First - a given; nothing you put in front of a good lens is gonna help the optics. No question. How many good, expensive lenses are you gonna risk in tough situations to get a mediocre shot? Really? What do you consider tough ?
Second - there's a lot of reasons to trade potential optic degradation for a significant change or improvement in the resulting image. I say potential because rarely are the results so obvious as to be detected without either instrumentation or direct, critical comparison. Let's address all the other deleterious effects, not excluding economic compromises and poor personal technique, before we attack the UV filter.
Third - there were a LOT of years that I protected every lens I could afford with every "prophylactic" solution I could. I'm not gonna recommend to ANYONE buying into this photography hobby on a limited budget that they not do the same. Heck, they're so far from producing images where even a dirty UV filter would make a difference...well, anyone worrying about that wouldn't be askin' the question. [The truth is, a condom (gasp) can make a damn fine expedient raincoat for a lens. But, that's another story--and I don't wanna hear that yours won't fit.]
Fourth - this isn't a forum for folks makin' critical images (although there may a few here). I'd modify the forum advice to: -- When you have personal reason to believe a UV filter is degrading your images by direct comparison of images, you'll have all the answers you need. In the mean time, do what ever makes you feel good. You'll feel a lot worse if you can't remove a dirty filter to make a critical image when you want to.
I apologize for not being at liberty to offer examples of the circumstances I've mentioned. They do exist. An' I've got a 112mm UV filter I remove ALMOST every time I use the lens it stays on until I believe it's safe to remove it.
H2
UtahManSir
Senior Member
http://www.lenstip.com/113.1-article-UV_filters_test.html
http://www.lenstip.com/120.1-article-UV_filters_test_-_supplement.html
Read them.... verrrryy interesting!
Lloyd
--
“For every problem there is a solution which is simple, clean and wrong.” Henry Louis Mencken
http://lloydshell.blogspot.com/
http://lloydshell.zenfolio.com/
http://www.lenstip.com/120.1-article-UV_filters_test_-_supplement.html
Read them.... verrrryy interesting!
Lloyd
--
“For every problem there is a solution which is simple, clean and wrong.” Henry Louis Mencken
http://lloydshell.blogspot.com/
http://lloydshell.zenfolio.com/
Jack Simpson
Forum Pro
Because I hate spending $40 on a filter and would much rather spend $1K on a
new DA 50-135/2.8 and anyone who disagrees with this logic ... should really
give their head a shake
Cheers,
Jack
--
( UPDATED NOV 16th )MY BLOG.... http://www.nakedmanonawire.blogspot.com
MY EMAIL ADDRESS IN IS MY 'VIEW PLAN'
It's amazing what one can do when one doesn't know what one is doing
KentG
Senior Member
Ah yes the infamous 112mm front filter. I acquired a Tamron 112mm clear protective filter sometime in the past and used it instead of a lens cap, mainly because every used Adaptall 300/2.8 I ever bought had no front cap, except the bag that came with it. So even though I bought and sold a few of those lenses I have kept the filter to use on my new 360B model 300/2.8 and my 400/4.
But even though it is very fine optical glass I do not shoot through it.
I remember in the old days at the tradeshows Pentax used to allow people to try and scratch the SMC coatings with a knife and asfar as I know no one could do it. So I figured this: if the lens is so hard to scratch why would I put a filter that is easy to scratch in front of my fine optics? I remember hearing of photo classes taught be working pros where if you showed up the first day with a filter on your lens they would make you take it off and either throw it in the trash or break it under foot.
Enough said. Your opinions may vary and that is fine also.
Kent Gittings
But even though it is very fine optical glass I do not shoot through it.
I remember in the old days at the tradeshows Pentax used to allow people to try and scratch the SMC coatings with a knife and asfar as I know no one could do it. So I figured this: if the lens is so hard to scratch why would I put a filter that is easy to scratch in front of my fine optics? I remember hearing of photo classes taught be working pros where if you showed up the first day with a filter on your lens they would make you take it off and either throw it in the trash or break it under foot.
Enough said. Your opinions may vary and that is fine also.
Kent Gittings
herzmeg
Active member
WOW! What happened to it?
Point well made Jack.
To which I would add that any notional degradation of the image caused by the UV filter has never disturbed me, and anyway it is dead simple to take it off if I think the conditions warrant it.
But when I see the crud and marks on my filter I am happy that they are not on the front element. Now if the front element were as easily removed, cleaned or replaced there would be no argument but for the time being it is quicker, cheaper and simpler to to remove/replace/clean the filter.
I know many photographers trip through life in an agile sure-footed way, keeping their equipment unblemished. I, by contrast, blunder and stumble through the obstacle course that is life and so need every piece of protection on offer.
To which I would add that any notional degradation of the image caused by the UV filter has never disturbed me, and anyway it is dead simple to take it off if I think the conditions warrant it.
But when I see the crud and marks on my filter I am happy that they are not on the front element. Now if the front element were as easily removed, cleaned or replaced there would be no argument but for the time being it is quicker, cheaper and simpler to to remove/replace/clean the filter.
I know many photographers trip through life in an agile sure-footed way, keeping their equipment unblemished. I, by contrast, blunder and stumble through the obstacle course that is life and so need every piece of protection on offer.
I agree, labnut. I have a UV filter and I seldom notice any effect to my photos, since in 90% or more of the cases, I have more degradition from my handshaking, not using a tripod, not using the optimal Fstop or ISO, not bother with RAW and neatimage, or from not having spot-on exposure. When I do need a very critical shot, like testing a lens or intending to make a large print, shooting something really nice, then I would take off the filter for those shots, i.e. after getting everything else that could affect IQ right first. Most of the time however, the UV filter stays on the lens. There is time to take off the UV filter if you want to do something special. There is no time to put on the UV filter, when the lens accidentally got hit.
pentapics
Leading Member
This was my exact point Jack.
Thanks so much for posting this example. I see this all the time...
Excellent Job.
Info_Man --> Dan
Thanks so much for posting this example. I see this all the time...
Excellent Job.
Info_Man --> Dan
Because I hate spending $40 on a filter and would much rather spend $1K on a
new DA 50-135/2.8 and anyone who disagrees with this logic ... should really
give their head a shake
Cheers,
Jack
--
( UPDATED NOV 16th )MY BLOG.... http://www.nakedmanonawire.blogspot.com
MY EMAIL ADDRESS IN IS MY 'VIEW PLAN'
It's amazing what one can do when one doesn't know what one is doing
Cideway
Veteran Member
Lets say down the track you want to sell your lens, which is going to get more resale value, the lens who's front element has only ever been exposed to the elements when it was taken out of its box to place the filter on it for the first time or the lens that has been exposed to everything...
I think Jack's example it telling and for all the people that say "but i am careful and take care of my equipment" i have one thing to say "Shìt happens and my front elements have no marks!"
--
Chris.
A weather sealed ultra wide, is that too much to ask?
http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/chriside
GMT +9.5
Pentax SLR talk FAQ
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1036&message=23161072
I think Jack's example it telling and for all the people that say "but i am careful and take care of my equipment" i have one thing to say "Shìt happens and my front elements have no marks!"
--
Chris.
A weather sealed ultra wide, is that too much to ask?
http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/chriside
GMT +9.5
Pentax SLR talk FAQ
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1036&message=23161072
Pacerr
Senior Member
Filters? They're really, REALLY easy to unscrew.
I'd much prefer to wipe salt spray, snow, oily smoke haze or jet exhaust off a filter than the front element.
Unlike a lens cap, you can see through 'em while deciding whether or not it's a good idea to perform the unscrew maneuver -- like while shooting the kid's food fight. Assuming you weren't smart enough to use the P&S for food fight snapshots anyway.
They breed like mice, so if you ruin one or loose it they're easily and cheaply replaced.
They're a constant source of raw material for DIY hoods and adapter projects.
Since all lenses AREN'T created equal, sometimes a modern, multi-coated UV filter provides a net gain in results. E.g., I've got a Takumar (Bay) 2.5/135 that benefited in conditions where coatings made a discernible difference. Of course, I rarely use that outdoors now anyway.
My 49 and 52mm SMC's have glass-less UV filter rings available as a buffer against bent rims and offer a margin of error for close encounters. That's not inconsequential, no matter how careful you are, as all of mine are 30+ years old and bad stuff happens to careful people. And a hood or cap still fits over the empty ring.
But the best news is -- ya don't have to use one if it doesn't suit your circumstances or personal opinion. Unless, of course, someone with a higher pay-grade sez ya gotta do it 'cause budget constraints have a higher priority than fine art images.
And I still maintain that we do everyone a disservice when we tell a noobie that's strained 'is bank account to get a used lens not to protect the investment with the free UV filter that came with it instead of the lens cap or hood that didn't. Any degradation in iQ will be well hidden among all the other noobie-factors.
Better that we suggest they make some comparisons with their own gear and learn something firsthand.
H2
I had to chuckle at a recent thread in which all comers were challenged to decide which images were made bare-foot or with a 1.4X or 2X TC. He neglected to mention whether a UV filter was involved but I doubt if it would have affected the rather humorous results.
I'd much prefer to wipe salt spray, snow, oily smoke haze or jet exhaust off a filter than the front element.
Unlike a lens cap, you can see through 'em while deciding whether or not it's a good idea to perform the unscrew maneuver -- like while shooting the kid's food fight. Assuming you weren't smart enough to use the P&S for food fight snapshots anyway.
They breed like mice, so if you ruin one or loose it they're easily and cheaply replaced.
They're a constant source of raw material for DIY hoods and adapter projects.
Since all lenses AREN'T created equal, sometimes a modern, multi-coated UV filter provides a net gain in results. E.g., I've got a Takumar (Bay) 2.5/135 that benefited in conditions where coatings made a discernible difference. Of course, I rarely use that outdoors now anyway.
My 49 and 52mm SMC's have glass-less UV filter rings available as a buffer against bent rims and offer a margin of error for close encounters. That's not inconsequential, no matter how careful you are, as all of mine are 30+ years old and bad stuff happens to careful people. And a hood or cap still fits over the empty ring.
But the best news is -- ya don't have to use one if it doesn't suit your circumstances or personal opinion. Unless, of course, someone with a higher pay-grade sez ya gotta do it 'cause budget constraints have a higher priority than fine art images.
And I still maintain that we do everyone a disservice when we tell a noobie that's strained 'is bank account to get a used lens not to protect the investment with the free UV filter that came with it instead of the lens cap or hood that didn't. Any degradation in iQ will be well hidden among all the other noobie-factors.
Better that we suggest they make some comparisons with their own gear and learn something firsthand.
H2
I had to chuckle at a recent thread in which all comers were challenged to decide which images were made bare-foot or with a 1.4X or 2X TC. He neglected to mention whether a UV filter was involved but I doubt if it would have affected the rather humorous results.
leopold
Forum Pro
U.V. filter will always create a debate,but if you want to put one in front of your "DA*" lens,don't buy a cheap one!
--
Leopold
Pentax forever
http://smarcoux.zenfolio.com/
--
Leopold
Pentax forever
http://smarcoux.zenfolio.com/
Jack Simpson
Forum Pro
herzmeg wrote:
Hi H_M,
This is not the "actual" shot that caused the damage but it is from the event ....
Here's the thread I started explaining the whole ordeal and, FWIW, it's not one of
my usual "rambling on" messages
DA LINK : http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1036&message=33029670
Cheers,
Jack
--
( UPDATED NOV 16th )MY BLOG.... http://www.nakedmanonawire.blogspot.com
MY EMAIL ADDRESS IN IS MY 'VIEW PLAN'
It's amazing what one can do when one doesn't know what one is doing
Hi H_M,
This is not the "actual" shot that caused the damage but it is from the event ....
Here's the thread I started explaining the whole ordeal and, FWIW, it's not one of
my usual "rambling on" messages
DA LINK : http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1036&message=33029670
Cheers,
Jack
--
( UPDATED NOV 16th )MY BLOG.... http://www.nakedmanonawire.blogspot.com
MY EMAIL ADDRESS IN IS MY 'VIEW PLAN'
It's amazing what one can do when one doesn't know what one is doing
Jack Simpson
Forum Pro
Hi Dan,
or just to show folks ... just drop an email and send the "broken filter"
pic as well as "potential cause" pic (from the same event) :
and I have my "damaged" filter in with the lenses and, whenever , anyone purchases a lens or comes in asking for a hood/lens cap and they don't have a UV filter on their lens ... I drag 'em straight over there 
and then give
them the "a lens cap will protect their lens when they're not using their gear
but ain't going help much when they are shooting" :O
Cheers,
Jack
( UPDATED NOV 16th )MY BLOG.... http://www.nakedmanonawire.blogspot.com
MY EMAIL ADDRESS IN IS MY 'VIEW PLAN'
It's amazing what one can do when one doesn't know what one is doing
No problemo and, if you would like a big file to use when giving talks
or just to show folks ... just drop an email and send the "broken filter"
pic as well as "potential cause" pic (from the same event) :
As do I
and I have my "damaged" filter in with the lenses and, whenever , anyone purchases a lens or comes in asking for a hood/lens cap and they don't have a UV filter on their lens ... I drag 'em straight over there and then give them the "a lens cap will protect their lens when they're not using their gear
but ain't going help much when they are shooting" :O
Thanks ................ I think ????????
Cheers,
Jack
--Info_Man --> Dan
Because I hate spending $40 on a filter and would much rather spend $1K on a
new DA 50-135/2.8 and anyone who disagrees with this logic ... should really
give their head a shake
Cheers,
Jack
--
( UPDATED NOV 16th )MY BLOG.... http://www.nakedmanonawire.blogspot.com
MY EMAIL ADDRESS IN IS MY 'VIEW PLAN'
It's amazing what one can do when one doesn't know what one is doing
( UPDATED NOV 16th )MY BLOG.... http://www.nakedmanonawire.blogspot.com
MY EMAIL ADDRESS IN IS MY 'VIEW PLAN'
It's amazing what one can do when one doesn't know what one is doing
Jack Simpson
Forum Pro
Thanks L_B
and, as I mentioned to Dan Savoie, I have my damaged filter in our lens showcase and always show it to folks who come in looking for lenses .... ...even if they don't shoot Pentax
My thoughts exactly
Again, my thoughts exactly ............even though I don't do it as often I should
and for the hat-trick, again, my thoughts exactly
Cheers,
Jack
--
( UPDATED NOV 16th )MY BLOG.... http://www.nakedmanonawire.blogspot.com
MY EMAIL ADDRESS IN IS MY 'VIEW PLAN'
It's amazing what one can do when one doesn't know what one is doing
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum