49mm UV filters: refraction city

Started Sep 16, 2012 | Discussions
feijai Regular Member • Posts: 210
49mm UV filters: refraction city

So I bought some UV filters to put on the end of my NEX-5N lenses to protect them. And found that they suck in lights from off to the side. It's quite bad. I would still like to protect the lenses, but these filters are going straight into the trash. Suggestions?

Sony Alpha NEX-5N
If you believe there are incorrect tags, please send us this post using our feedback form.
ralph m Contributing Member • Posts: 898
Re: 49mm UV filters: refraction city

Buy a 49mm lens hood.. and I hope these are not the $ 5.95 variety filters. Good ones are multicoated and will reduce this effect.
--
ralph m
http://remcmillan.smugmug.com/

Fredy Ross Veteran Member • Posts: 6,812
Re: 49mm UV filters: refraction city

All you have to do is buy a polariser and turn them around when you haven't got sun. Today they give uv filters away with lenses for no money as they are useless.
--
fredyr

KM Legacy Senior Member • Posts: 1,955
Re: 49mm UV filters: refraction city

If by "turning a polarizer around," you mean turning it too a position where it has the least effect on sky or reflections, it will still act as a neutral density filter, blocking almost 2 stops of light. Who wants that? Also, a polarizer has more negative effect on IQ than a UV filter. You don't want to use a polarizer for protection.

Fredy Ross Veteran Member • Posts: 6,812
Re: 49mm UV filters: refraction city

sorry I stand corrected.

-- hide signature --

fredyr

Jerry R Forum Pro • Posts: 10,160
Nonsens, If you take piks above 10,000 feet a UV filter will make a difference.

Nonsens, If you take piks above 10,000 feet a UV filter will make a difference. Also, it is used for lens protection (some may argue that lens protection is unnecessary, but it's my lens). Also a good filter does not degrade image quality, those who claim it does ignore the facts.
--
Canon A2E, Sony R1, Panny TZ5, Nikon D5000, & NEX C3/Zeiss 24mm E Lens

GaryW Veteran Member • Posts: 8,616
Re: 49mm UV filters: refraction city

KM Legacy wrote:

If by "turning a polarizer around," you mean turning it too a position where it has the least effect on sky or reflections, it will still act as a neutral density filter, blocking almost 2 stops of light. Who wants that? Also, a polarizer has more negative effect on IQ than a UV filter. You don't want to use a polarizer for protection.

But it does give a nice effect in many situations. I keep telling myself that I should use it more. I can't say I've noticed an IQ loss, but I try to also use a hood to block out light.

When I don't want a polarizer, I don't bother with a UV filter either, though. Partially because my lenses aren't that expensive (thus it doesn't make sense to buy an expensive UV filter) and I'm not sure I noticed a problem with protection. I've been told on this forum that a UV filter will protect the front element from cleaning marks and help resale value; I don't think this will make much of a difference on a kit lens.

-- hide signature --

Gary W.

 GaryW's gear list:GaryW's gear list
Sony E 16-50mm F3.5-5.6 PZ OSS Sony E PZ 18-105mm F4 G OSS Sony Cyber-shot DSC-V3 Sony Alpha DSLR-A100 Sony Alpha NEX-5 +8 more
pmow
pmow Contributing Member • Posts: 825
Re: 49mm UV filters: refraction city

I've noticed diffraction on my Rokkor 45/2 at night with bright lights. It's such a cheap lens I just go without it now.

 pmow's gear list:pmow's gear list
Fujifilm X-E1 Fujifilm X-T1 Fujifilm XF 35mm F1.4 R Carl Zeiss Touit 2.8/12 Fujifilm XF 27mm F2.8 +3 more
wkramer Forum Member • Posts: 67
Re: 49mm UV filters: refraction city

For lens' protection, I use B&W F Pro or XS Pro clear multi-coated filters. They have absolutely no effect on a picture and the settings you use. Expensive but they do the job intended.

 wkramer's gear list:wkramer's gear list
Fujifilm X100S Epson Stylus Pro 3880 +5 more
Knallberto Veteran Member • Posts: 5,478
Re: 49mm UV filters: refraction city

So its is. UV filters are FULL USELESS! No difference if $ 4 or $ 199.

Knallberto Veteran Member • Posts: 5,478
Re: Nonsens, If you take piks above 10,000 feet a UV filter will make a difference.

I daily make photos in 10.000, 20.000, 30.000 feet ... without any UV - only for people with strong imagination

UV filters are relict/smalldino from 1975.

Knallberto Veteran Member • Posts: 5,478
Re: 49mm UV filters: refraction city

wkramer wrote:

For lens' protection, I use B&W F Pro or XS Pro clear multi-coated filters. They have absolutely no effect on a picture and the settings you use. Expensive but they do the job intended.

They have - but you ignore them or you cannot see them. Named the "expensive" effect. What's expensive - this MUST be good! Even it is lost money ...

KM Legacy Senior Member • Posts: 1,955
Re: 49mm UV filters: refraction city

Don't get me wrong. I love polarizing filters for their effect on a blue sky and for increasing saturation in colors. Those benefits far outweigh any theoretical effect on IQ. But I would never use a polarizer if I couldn't see its effect (as is usually the case on cloudy days).

Jerry R Forum Pro • Posts: 10,160
Re: Nonsens, If you can't tell the difference you don't need one.
-- hide signature --

Canon A2E, Sony R1, Panny TZ5, Nikon D5000, & NEX C3/Zeiss 24mm E Lens

OP feijai Regular Member • Posts: 210
Re: 49mm UV filters: refraction city

ralph m wrote:

Buy a 49mm lens hood.. and I hope these are not the $ 5.95 variety filters. Good ones are multicoated and will reduce this effect.

These are cheapo indeed, but they're advertised as multicoated.

As to a lens hood (I have two), that sort of defeats the purpose. The whole point of these filters is to let me keep the cap off and still keep me from scratching the lens. A hood would do that too. If I have to put a hood on every time I use the filters, why bother with a filter?

headofdestiny Veteran Member • Posts: 9,226
Re: 49mm UV filters: refraction city

feijai wrote:

ralph m wrote:

Buy a 49mm lens hood.. and I hope these are not the $ 5.95 variety filters. Good ones are multicoated and will reduce this effect.

These are cheapo indeed, but they're advertised as multicoated.

As to a lens hood (I have two), that sort of defeats the purpose. The whole point of these filters is to let me keep the cap off and still keep me from scratching the lens. A hood would do that too. If I have to put a hood on every time I use the filters, why bother with a filter?

Clear filters add protection and potentially increase flare. Hoods add protection and potentially improve contrast. Hoods on their own is the better choice, IQ-wise.

If you MUST use a clear protector, us a Hoya multicoated at the very least.

sanath444 Regular Member • Posts: 167
Re: 49mm UV filters: refraction city

I used to put UV filters when I was new to photography and gave up later. The way I figure is if the lens is expensive why put a $25 filter on it or if the lens is cheap why bother protecting it.

Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads