Lens Filter for RX10 IV

[JeremyB2]

My RX10 IV will be arriving soon. I intend to buy a filter which I will keep on the camera at all times to protect the lens as I use a lens hood infrequently.

I have no knowledge at all of filters but have done some research on this forum and elsewhere. I don't think at this stage I want a CPL filter because I do very little video work. My question is whether I go for a clear protective filter or a UV filter. I appreciate the benefits of UV filter in certain circumstances, but are there any negative aspects bearing in mind that I will be keeping the lens on the camera all the time. I assume it's worthwhile buying a reasonably expensive filter to reduce the possibility of it affecting image quality.

Possibilities………

Sony VF-72MPAM 72mm MC - Protector

B+W 72mm Clear Glass XS-PRO Digital Filter - Protector

Hoya 72mm HD3 UV Filter - UV

There are of course other manufacturers and other filters within each manufacturer’s range. Comments will be much appreciated. J.

Edit: I should of course also have mentioned a ND filter which is the one I meant to refer to about use for video.

 

[pat lmc]

Jeremy

I use a Marumi Fit + Slim 72mm MC Lens Protect Filter on my RX10 IV.

£16.99 on Amazon and a superb bit of kit.

No loss of IQ, perfectly cut thread and so slim that you hardly notice it. Lens cap fits and Made in Japan.

Pat

 

[Rodrigo Pasiani]

I either use a CPL or the lens hood.

 

[canuck dave]

" but are there any negative aspects bearing in mind that I will be keeping the lens on the camera all the time"..................

Yes, I think you will be keeping the lens on the camera at all times!!

Over the years, I have used filters selectively. With the RX10 as you suggest/imply, there is no other lens to replace that one with, so yes, it is a very good idea to protect it. Always use the lens hood, always. I use the Hoya Pro1 MC Protector. It is clear, so will not affect your images in any way. It's a quality filter, well rated, but still quite reasonably priced.

 

[Busbob]

Thanks for the question, made me think that just the hood is minimum protection. Even though I've had the camera for 2 years and have not experienced any damage to the lens I just ordered the Marumi Fit someone else mentioned. A layer of protection that won't affect the quality of the image isn't a bad idea. In fact, I'm remiss in waiting so long.

 

[Jerry045]

For all the years I played with cameras, I always kept a UV filter on my lens. Until, I got the RX10iv.

I did some comparison tests and found a very slight degradation caused by the inexpensive filter I had. Granted, it was an inexpensive filter and most likely a higher quality filter would perform better. But I opted to go naked, and in the last 5 or so years, I have had no filter on my camera.

I did do some comparisons. Adding more glass of any kind cannot improve your IQ. The question is how much will it degrade it, and will that be significant to you.



It is pretty easy to do your own comparison and make up your own mind.

Here are a few links on some filter comparisons:

Best UV Protection Lens Filters (9 Expert Tested Models) (lumoid.com)

Lens Rentals | Blog

UV filters test - Introduction - LensTip.com

It is a personal choice.

--
Jerry

Jerry Malin

Explore Jerry Malin’s 969 photos on Flickr!

www.flickr.com

 

[Ontarian]

I have a CPL filter I took off a wide angle lens before I sold it. It is 77mm, but with a step down ring to 72 mm it should work okay. I'll try it for landscapes and seascapes./

Don

 

[Night Pixel]

Yeah it is cheap but I find no issues with it.

Amazon Basics UV Protection Camera Lens Filter - 72mm
Only $8.49
80% of the 18,199 ratings are 5 Star.



--
**** REDACTED ****

 

[cheddarman]

Yep, I always keep a Hoya HD UV on the front! Put my foot in a hidden rabbit hole yesterday, flat on my face/camera. Lens (filter) covered in mud, lens clean!

Well worth the investment.

HOWEVER! Just had a close look at my Hoya filter and see that the coating seems to be peeling or distorted around the edges Surely that shouldn't happen over time, bought in May 2018!







--
Michael
https://www.flickr.com/photos/63508234@N06/

 

[JeremyB2]

Thanks to everyone for your very helpful input. Jerry045 - thanks also for your comparison between filters. To me it looks as though there is little if any degradation between 'No filter' and 'CPL filter' but the 'UV filter' and the 'ND filter' do seem to reduce image quality a little. Back in December 2017 you did a similar comparison between 'No filter' and an inexpensive Vivitar Series 1 multi-coded UV filter. The degradation was noticeable in that case.

At the moment I'm leaning towards just a protective filter of reasonable quality but more research is needed. I may possibly end up without a filter and just trying to be careful. However, reading Cheddarman’s comment in this thread, we do also have rabbit holes around here

Cheddarman - I guess I'm in the position you were a couple of years ago (?) having taken delivery of a RX10 IV yesterday. It’s quite a beast I'm very pleased that I have become reasonably familiar with the menu system, having owned a RX100 VI, otherwise the learning curve might be dauntingly steep. As things are, I can now concentrate on getting to grips with learning how to get the best out of the RX10.

I have been saving useful links about the RX10 from this forum since November 2019, knowing that eventually I would buy the camera. These links - about 190 of them – are going to be enormously helpful, for which I thank many people at this forum. J.

 

[JeremyB2]

It's annoying about the problem around the edges of your Hoya filter. Is there any possibility that this is the result of finger/thumb tips pressing on the glass when putting the filter on and off? Even if it is, it shouldn't happen. I guess you may be contacting Hoya. Please do let us know the result. J.

 

[Stephen McDonald]

Back in the days of camcorders that had the equivalent of 1/3 Megapixel, I kept a UV filter on them all the time. But now, when the resolution may be 60 times higher, I think they may dampen the sharpness. I had some very good wide-angle and telextender lenses for my camcorders, but I can't use them on newer cameras. In all these years without filters, I have never broken or scratched a camera's lens.

 

[Rodrigo Pasiani]

I have stopped using protective filter after having flare issues shooting a sunrise. Now I use a CPL when I'm in nature, except when shooting into the sun.

 

[Michael Fritzen]

Hi,

using a filter on the lens or not is for me a case selective question.

If the filter has a specific (photographic) purpose, like CPL, ND or similar and it is needed to achieve a certain result, yes I'm using it.

The second concern is using the cam under probably harsh conditions when damages are more likely to happen - like in the desert, on the beach and the like - when I might be inclined to put on a clear glass protective filter.

In any case, if the optical qualities of the filter don't match the very high quality of the lens then it's certain that IQ will suffer - to what amount and if it bothers or not, well this depends largely on individual standards as well as viewing/printing sizes.

 

[BertIverson]

Jeremy

FWIW, I use "B + W 72mm UV Protection Filter (010) for Camera Lens - Xtra Slim Mount (XS-PRO), MRC Nano, 16 Layers Multi-Resistant and Nano Coating" bought from Amazon 4 years ago for $43. I am one of the paranoid types who has always used a clear filter to protect my lens mostly because I let kids / grandkids use my cameras responsibly (but they always seemed to get finger prints on the lens) I was concerned with lens coatings being damaged while I was cleaning the lens so I figured better to be cleaning a cheap clear UV filter than my expensive lens. So I used cheap filters (maybe $10 --- early ones not even coated !!!) I removed them on occasion if shooting with lights in the scene. My current filter seems OK with my current amateur testing so I am relaxed.
I have taken many photos through glass windows and am pretty much convinced that a UV filter is much less of an issue than a window.
I do believe one should get an intermediate priced filter (with decent coating) and be careful to not screw it on so tight as to get it seized on the threads.

Cheers,
Bert

 

[MethowTom]

Based on personal experience I would recommend shooting a test chart with and without the filter installed to verify that resolution is not impaired by the filter. This is particularly important when the camera is new to you and you have no other points of comparison. I briefly considered returning my RX10 IV when I shot a test chart first with the UV filter that came as part of a kit purchase and compared that with shots of the chart from my previous camera. Once I removed that filter, I was quite pleased with the comparisons. These two are from a second round of shots after the first disappointing session. I can't recall whether the second photo has no filter or the better replacement filter - Hoya.










Kit filter installed






Filter removed

Filter

 

[JeremyB2]

Thanks to folks for further interesting and useful comment. One thing I'm certain of; if I decide to go along the route of using a filter, I will buy one of good quality without going over the top. Putting inexpensive glass in front of an excellent lens like the RX10 seems to run the risk of degrading image quality. I will probably buy a protective filter - I haven't decided which one yet - and will take some test shots with and without. I don't have a chart of the type used by Jerry045 and MethowTom but I guess good quality text from a newspaper, book or similar will do? I can check that the lens is not de-centred at the same time. As many others have commented in the past, this forum really is good at helping out with questions like mine. .J

 

[cheddarman]

Based on personal experience I would recommend shooting a test chart with and without the filter installed to verify that resolution is not impaired by the filter. This is particularly important when the camera is new to you and you have no other points of comparison. I briefly considered returning my RX10 IV when I shot a test chart first with the UV filter that came as part of a kit purchase and compared that with shots of the chart from my previous camera. Once I removed that filter, I was quite pleased with the comparisons. These two are from a second round of shots after the first disappointing session. I can't recall whether the second photo has no filter or the better replacement filter - Hoya.


Kit filter installed


Filter removed

Filter

Not a good comparison as there are several setting differences between the two, in particular the focal length! Even saying that, I personally can't see much difference

--
Michael

cheddarcaveman

Explore cheddarcaveman’s 648 photos on Flickr!

www.flickr.com

 

[canuck dave]

". I briefly considered returning my RX10 IV when I shot a test chart first with the UV filter that came as part of a kit purchase"...............

I'm glad you didn't sell/replace your RX10-4! Often those kit package filters are not all that good.

And to clarify (no pun intended!), the Hoya I use is a clear, non-UV version. I just want the (basic) protection with no correction. I shoot RAW and can prefer a real RAW image to work with.

 

[cheddarman]

". I briefly considered returning my RX10 IV when I shot a test chart first with the UV filter that came as part of a kit purchase"...............

I'm glad you didn't sell/replace your RX10-4! Often those kit package filters are not all that good.

And to clarify (no pun intended!), the Hoya I use is a clear, non-UV version. I just want the (basic) protection with no correction. I shoot RAW and can prefer a real RAW image to work with.

Is this what you use?