tjkoko
Senior Member
UV filter with 72mm threads is needed. Is B&W considered the best with its brass threads? I plan to use the lens hood with this lens + filter.
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
UV filter needed for Zeiss Milvus f1.4/35mm lens
- Thread starter tjkoko
- Start date
I like Hoya, but read h
www.lenstip.com
UV filters test - Description of the results and summary
It is time to present the results of our tests. In the chart below we present the filters’ ranking according to the points they achieved in all the categories. Overall ranking Filter Result Result [%] Price[PLN] 1 Hoya 72 mm HMC UV-0 36 90 79 ...
www.lenstip.com
tjkoko
Senior Member
Thanks much for the referral and I went with the Zeiss UV filter .
anotherMike
Forum Pro
I don't know why you're bothering with a UV filter unless you plan to shooting in rainy or wet or dusty environments.
I only use Zeiss filters (polarizers) on my Zeiss glass (I have the 25/1.4 and 85/1.4 Milvus and the 135/2 Apo Sonnar classic) personally. B+W make fine filters as well, but I prefer to keep the T* coating across all the surfaces on the Zeiss lenses, so the B+W filters go on my Sigma Arts.
-m
I only use Zeiss filters (polarizers) on my Zeiss glass (I have the 25/1.4 and 85/1.4 Milvus and the 135/2 Apo Sonnar classic) personally. B+W make fine filters as well, but I prefer to keep the T* coating across all the surfaces on the Zeiss lenses, so the B+W filters go on my Sigma Arts.
-m
tjkoko
Senior Member
I'll use the filter as added protection for my expensive Zeiss glass. Thanks! And I am originally from the California Mojave Desert (my avatar) in a town centrally located between both Red Rock Canyon and the Trona Pinnacles, both of which y'all have observed in hundreds of movies and television commercials.
--
I'm coming from a Leica DLux4 experience.
Tia and thanks much for your patience,
-kokopuffs
Last edited:
anotherMike
Forum Pro
I personally don't believe in the front filter for protection, and I've (knock on wood) haven't lost a front element in 40 years yet, but when I'm around the dust, sand, or water, yea, absolutely without hesitation, I'll have a polarizer mounted (since I'm probably using one anyway). I believe Zeiss makes UV filters as well. I really do like their filters more than anyone elses, and I've used about everyones. You live in an area I've been too, so yea, for some shooting scenarios, given wind/dust/sand, I can see why you might need one at times.
-m
-m
Jon555
Veteran Member
BTW Roger at LensRentals thinks Canon's latest Fluorine coatings are a bit fragile and they fit B+W protection filters to the affected lenses. Also some lenses are only weather-sealed with a filter fitted...
(I probably fit protection filters on 2/3 of my lenses, mainly as I've wiped greasy paw prints off lenses with all sorts of unsuitable things when the shot is happening right then and I need to use it in seconds...)
I like B+W filters, but they are very expensive and you might want to add a cheaper filter to protect it... ;-)
(Edit) Oh and should say, Protection/UV filters can be a big issue shooting at night with bright lights in/near the frame, as they illuminate the sensor and that then reflects back off the flat back of the filter, leaving (usually green) blobs in the image...
Last edited:
anotherMike
Forum Pro
Yea, I remembered Roger mentioning that. He's involved in a rental house, so it makes sense. I use the lens hood as the protective device, but again, I'm aware enough of the situation so that if there is sand or particularly, moisture, a filter will be used. Since I'm a landscape photographer when I'm outside, the odds are a polarizing filter is on there anyway except at sunrise, when there isn't. For studio work I'd be an idiot to use a filter.
I like the B+W kaessmans (which I still can't spell LOL) a lot; all my Sigma Arts have one, but for Zeiss, I want to try and maintain the balance and the characteristics of the T* coating across from the lens to the filter as I think it's a part of the Zeiss look.
-m
I like the B+W kaessmans (which I still can't spell LOL) a lot; all my Sigma Arts have one, but for Zeiss, I want to try and maintain the balance and the characteristics of the T* coating across from the lens to the filter as I think it's a part of the Zeiss look.
-m
tjkoko
Senior Member
Look, my expensive glass is well protected and that's all that I care about. With all due respect to the aficionados out there, my inquiry has been answered so let's end this thread.
Tord S Eriksson
Forum Pro
Personally, I've had really bad experiences with filters on my longer lenses when shooting the moon, so I have not used any for years.
tjkoko
Senior Member
Elaborate please.
anotherMike
Forum Pro
No worries man, happy shooting, you live in a nice location!
-m
-m
Jon555
Veteran Member
With and without a good quality ND filter...
I'm not Tord, but in general longer focal lengths are more sensitive to filter defects because they magnify by more. But your lens is only 35mm, so that shouldn't be a big deal.
Tord S Eriksson
Forum Pro
As Dr. Jon wrote:
Edit) Oh and should say, Protection/UV filters can be a big issue shooting at night with bright lights in/near the frame, as they illuminate the sensor and that then reflects back off the flat back of the filter, leaving (usually green) blobs in the image...
For me, it was really bad, but only with my longest lenses.
Got reflections of the moon from the UV, totally ruining the shots. And then I could replicate aiming at other light sources, so I ditch my B+W filters.
Last edited:
Tord S Eriksson
Forum Pro
Never noticed any issues with shorter focal lengths, that's correct.
Jon555
Veteran Member
Night-time reflections are independent of focal length, although poor optical quality will presumably be more obvious at longer ones.
When I bought the Zeiss 15mm f/2.8 I thought I'd go filter-less since it is 95mm thread and the filter costs a fortune. Literally 2 minutes after I opened the package and put it on my camera, my 4-year-old son stuck his grubby greasy slimy fingers into the lens and rubbed funk all over the front element. Then I had to spring for the filter.
When I got my Milvus 35/1.4 I didn't bother with a filterless fantasy, I just ordered the Zeiss T* filter straight away...at least this one is 72mm and doesn't cost an arm and a leg.
Don't listen to any jerks telling you that a high end filter ruins the IQ. That's a load of BS.
When I got my Milvus 35/1.4 I didn't bother with a filterless fantasy, I just ordered the Zeiss T* filter straight away...at least this one is 72mm and doesn't cost an arm and a leg.
Don't listen to any jerks telling you that a high end filter ruins the IQ. That's a load of BS.
The Grumpy Snapper
Leading Member
- Messages
- 528
- Solutions
- 1
- Reaction score
- 624
My recommendation is to buy the most expensive filter and then to protect the protective filter you buy the cheapest filter you can find.
You don't want to be replacing an expensive filter if it gets dirty.
You don't want to be replacing an expensive filter if it gets dirty.
Hoya UV filter ruined my images
Hello folks, So I got a Panasonic 14-140mm lens off ebay and it came with a Hoya alpha MC UV filter. I cleaned it off and went for a walk-around taking pictures. I noticed that the pictures at max zoom (140mm) looked kind of blurry, so I thought I had a bad lens or shutter shock or too slow...
Similar threads
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum