Reading mode: Light Dark

Filters for portrait lenses?

Go to last post
J

jaydisc

Member
Messages
17
Reaction score
2
Location
Sunshine Coast, AU
Hi,

I'm a relative newbie to this all. I bought an OM-D in December w/the 12-50 kit, and admittedly was a bit disappointed with the sharpness. I then bought a 45mm 1.8 and have been very happy with the improved sharpness (I mostly just take pics of my kids). Then, I heard the rumor on the street (and in here) that the 75mm 1.8 was basically the sharpest lens around, so I bought one yesterday. The salesman convinced me that if I was dropping A$900 on a lens, I should be protecting it, and talked me into buying Hoya HMC Multicoated UV Filter for both lenses.

Is this the right choice? Are these filters going to affect my sharpness or clarity? Will they have any other side effects? Are there better filters?

Thanks.
 
There is an endless debate as to how much protection a filter will give for a lens. That said, if you are going to use one the Hoya HMC are a good choice. The main IQ degradation with a filter is that in can increase flare when you have a bright light in the scene. The HMC filters handle that situation well. So it is unlikely that you will see any IQ issues when using them.

If anything there is a chance you overpaid a bit, lots of camera stores mark up their filters quite a bit. But at least he did sell you the right tool for the job.
 
Never buy a filter at the store if you care about money. Get them to throw it in, when buying an expensive lens or buy from a reputable place online.

B+W's nano UV filter would be the best in my opinion. Quality glass and build (brass), and very easy to clean (nano coating) unlike some Hoya filters.
 
Last edited:
jaydisc said:
jaydisc wrote:

Hi,

I'm a relative newbie to this all. I bought an OM-D in December w/the 12-50 kit, and admittedly was a bit disappointed with the sharpness. I then bought a 45mm 1.8 and have been very happy with the improved sharpness (I mostly just take pics of my kids). Then, I heard the rumor on the street (and in here) that the 75mm 1.8 was basically the sharpest lens around, so I bought one yesterday. The salesman convinced me that if I was dropping A$900 on a lens, I should be protecting it, and talked me into buying Hoya HMC Multicoated UV Filter for both lenses.

Is this the right choice? Are these filters going to affect my sharpness or clarity? Will they have any other side effects? Are there better filters?

Thanks.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't bother with them unless you expect to be bouncing stuff off the front of the lens. A better choice would be to buy the lens hoods for those lenses to keep the fronts from being bumped. In addition to that they keep incidental light off the front element helping reduce flare.

That said the Hoya HMC filters are certainly decent. They won't help sharpness but they shouldn't hurt it much.

Now go buy your lens hoods. Prepare to be shocked by Oly's prices.
 
IMHO filters are essential. Apart from keeping finger marks, dirt etc. from contaminating the lens, they provide protection. About 6 weeks ago my OMD with 75mm and hood was knocked off my shoulder in a crowd and landed lens down. Fortunately the camera and hood was undamaged but the filter was a twisted mess and slightly bent such that I couldn't get it off and had to get a tech to do it. Lens checked and found to be ok. It seems that the filter acted as some sort of shock absorber.

As for hoods cheaper than Oly check out JJC hoods on the net. MUCH cheaper and just as good.
 
jaydisc said:
jaydisc wrote:

Is this the right choice? Are these filters going to affect my sharpness or clarity? Will they have any other side effects? Are there better filters?

Thanks.
Click to expand...
You've already received some good information on the quality and effects of filters. On my old Canon kit, I used B+W filters on all of my lenses. For my m4/3 kit, so far I haven't bothered.

I've seen many a lens with a shattered UV filter that has saved it from serious damage. I've never dropped a lens like that myself, and to be honest, my m4/3 lenses are so light I'm not as worried about impact damage. If anything, I'm sorely tempted to pick up a few spare 3 stop ND filters to use as "protective" filters and allow me to have more aperture choices in bright daylight at 200 ISO. It's a little tedious to move the filter from lens to lens, and 46mm filters are cheap enough that I can afford an extra.
 
Much of my photography is in dusty, gritty West Texas. I keep protective filters on all my lenses - though I sometimes remove them when shooting into backlight or in the studio on tripod.

Hoya multicoated are my current preferred choice for a quality filter at a reasonable price. B+W have the reputation of being a hair better, but probably nothing one would see in normal use.

I also use hoods as protection against bumps and bangs. For normal and long lenses IMO the round aftermarket hoods are pretty much as good as the more expensive OEM jobs. Wide lenses and wide zooms are probably better served by a petal style designed for that lens, which generally means paying for the lens maker's hood.

Gato

"We paint with our brain, not with our hands" -- Michelangelo
Portrait, figure and fantasy photography at Silver Mirage Gallery:
silvermirage.com
 
I am one of those who think UV protective filters are a good idea and almost always use them. For one thing, it seems easier to clean a wide flat-faced filter than a smaller convex lens element that is set back in the lens body (also, if I get sloppy and don't clean it properly, I'd rather mess up a replaceable filter than a multi hundred dollar lens). However, I think that there are times when filters degrade the quality of the image.

Here are some shots taken inside a hotel room with my brand new Oly 45mm f/1.8 lens with a B+W F-Pro UV Haze filter. I didn't use a lens hood because I didn't think I needed one when shooting indoors. However, as you can see, there is a kind of gauzy / filmy look to the first one. The second is IMHO a lot clearer (in particular, compare the look of the drapes in photo 1 to the sofa in photo 2) . I suspect that the difference has to do with the filter catching the rays of the sun just right, as it came in through the sheer drapes in the hotel.

I would be interested in hearing if others think my suspicions are correct, or if there is some other reason for the difference in how the shots came out. Presumably the OP would as well.

Thanks



OMD12290.jpg







OMD12301.jpg


--
Tom
 
Last edited:
Yes, I'd definitely be interested. I, too, will try and do some comparisons with the 75mm w/ and w/o filter.
 
I protect my lenses with a lenshood and attention to my surroundings and sensible watchfulness.

I do not go near welders or dusty locations where I would consider a quality filter.
 
On my 75mm I use a Hoya 58mm HD UV filter I got off of Amazon. It has in no way affected any sharpness of the lens or any AF performance. I meticulously keep it clean though, and I also have a 3rd party lens hood on it as well. Yes, it's overkill, but it's the most expensive m4/3 lens that I own so I want to keep it in the best condition possible. The only time I shoot without the filter on is when I'm doing studio work in a controlled environment. When I'm outdoors though I keep it on.
 
Joseph T Lewis III said:
Joseph T Lewis III wrote:

I am one of those who think UV protective filters are a good idea and almost always use them. For one thing, it seems easier to clean a wide flat-faced filter than a smaller convex lens element that is set back in the lens body (also, if I get sloppy and don't clean it properly, I'd rather mess up a replaceable filter than a multi hundred dollar lens). However, I think that there are times when filters degrade the quality of the image.

Here are some shots taken inside a hotel room with my brand new Oly 45mm f/1.8 lens with a B+W F-Pro UV Haze filter. I didn't use a lens hood because I didn't think I needed one when shooting indoors. However, as you can see, there is a kind of gauzy / filmy look to the first one. The second is IMHO a lot clearer (in particular, compare the look of the drapes in photo 1 to the sofa in photo 2) . I suspect that the difference has to do with the filter catching the rays of the sun just right, as it came in through the sheer drapes in the hotel.

I would be interested in hearing if others think my suspicions are correct, or if there is some other reason for the difference in how the shots came out. Presumably the OP would as well.

Thanks

OMD12290.jpg


OMD12301.jpg


--
Tom
Click to expand...
It's difficult to compare these two pictures since they are taken from different angles so the light hitting the front element/filter is not the same.
 
Joseph T Lewis III said:
Joseph T Lewis III wrote:

I am one of those who think UV protective filters are a good idea and almost always use them. For one thing, it seems easier to clean a wide flat-faced filter than a smaller convex lens element that is set back in the lens body (also, if I get sloppy and don't clean it properly, I'd rather mess up a replaceable filter than a multi hundred dollar lens). However, I think that there are times when filters degrade the quality of the image.

Here are some shots taken inside a hotel room with my brand new Oly 45mm f/1.8 lens with a B+W F-Pro UV Haze filter. I didn't use a lens hood because I didn't think I needed one when shooting indoors. However, as you can see, there is a kind of gauzy / filmy look to the first one. The second is IMHO a lot clearer (in particular, compare the look of the drapes in photo 1 to the sofa in photo 2) . I suspect that the difference has to do with the filter catching the rays of the sun just right, as it came in through the sheer drapes in the hotel.

I would be interested in hearing if others think my suspicions are correct, or if there is some other reason for the difference in how the shots came out. Presumably the OP would as well.

Thanks

OMD12290.jpg


OMD12301.jpg


--
Tom
Click to expand...
The first is soft and the second harsh and sharp and not what a portrait should be. The first is good however you achieved it.
 
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