Karsten Meyer
Leading Member
2 x full Ack!
-karsten
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Do You Use a "Protective" UV Filter?
- Thread starter Jerry Canon
- Start date
-karsten
So, er, what lens hoods do you recommend for the NEX kit lenses?
[Disclaimer: I have not rushed to get a filter for my new NEX lenses but have not removed the ones that came with 2nd hand lenses. All previous cameras I have "filtered" by default and out-of-the-box].
[Disclaimer: I have not rushed to get a filter for my new NEX lenses but have not removed the ones that came with 2nd hand lenses. All previous cameras I have "filtered" by default and out-of-the-box].
The 18-55 kit comes with a hood. Most of the time, I have it installed backwards (reversed) for easier storage.
--
Gary W.
Karsten Meyer
Leading Member
I see so often people shooting this way, but this is really dumb, because a hood can improve the IQ quite often.
It depends on the lens (it's widest angle of view): If the hood is rather long, just let it mounted in the right way - and you can let the cap away.
Regards,
Karsten
TechOutsider
Senior Member
A good cheap Hoya UV filter from Amazon for about 15 bucks only cuts visible light transmission by about 3 percent.
Flare with or without the UV filter is nearly identical.
http://www.lenstip.com/113.15-article-UV_filters_test_Hoya_72_mm_HMC_UV-0.html
In my opinion, a UV filter is a good investment, but I don't have one because I usually keep a Hoya polarizer on my camera or macro diopters.
When I don't have either on then my lens cap is on
.
Flare with or without the UV filter is nearly identical.
http://www.lenstip.com/113.15-article-UV_filters_test_Hoya_72_mm_HMC_UV-0.html
In my opinion, a UV filter is a good investment, but I don't have one because I usually keep a Hoya polarizer on my camera or macro diopters.
When I don't have either on then my lens cap is on
.
Adam-T
Forum Pro
I don't fancy scratching that tiny bulbous front element so installed a Pro-1 superthin UV to make it easy clean
--
A Problem is only the pessimistic way of looking at a challenge
--
A Problem is only the pessimistic way of looking at a challenge
Karsten Meyer
Leading Member
There had been several threads here in the forum asking what went wrong. It simply was a piece of glass, called filter.
TechOutsider? Ok that name fits. ;-)
Robert Hoy
Senior Member
It is impossible to get filter flare without having a filter on your lens. You are probably talking about plain lens flare while filter flare is a different issue. Lens flare is direct light getting onto the image sensor, while filter flare is bright highlights bouncing back and forth between lens glass and filter causing copies of bright highlights to show up around your image, e.g. chandelier lights or christmas tree lights.
Full image:
crop showing filter flare (UV filter was on):
--
http://roberthoy.zenfolio.com/
http://www.photographybyhoy.com
Ralph E burns
Well-known member
I wouldn't mind seeing a tripod shot where the only variable was adding and removing a high quality MRC filter. Without that, it's simply conjecture.
--
http://www.ascent-design.com
--
http://www.ascent-design.com
turnstyle
Senior Member
Quick question: if I'm mostly interested in the 'protective' function, does it also make sense to get UV as well? It seems most of you got UV filters rather than non-UV?
Karsten Meyer
Leading Member
There had never been a filter produced without function (since it is totally nonsense, as mentioned), so people use UV-Filters for their nonsense. ;-)
toomanycanons
Forum Pro
I don't have time at the moment to post up comparison shots but I've done that test and concluded that my Marumi DHG Lens Protect filter made (to my eye) zero difference in IQ. I did the test on P and the camera chose the same aperture and speed as without the filter and I saw no visual difference at all.
OTOH, I also tried the same test with a high dollar Promaster Digital MC UV (bought it at Wolf, it wasn't cheap) and the image was noticeably darker and the camera (on P) opened up the aperture one stop trying to compensate (compared with no filter and the Marumi). If I hadn't been comparing side by side I wouldn't have noticed.
OTOH, I also tried the same test with a high dollar Promaster Digital MC UV (bought it at Wolf, it wasn't cheap) and the image was noticeably darker and the camera (on P) opened up the aperture one stop trying to compensate (compared with no filter and the Marumi). If I hadn't been comparing side by side I wouldn't have noticed.
... I wonder why they don't refer to this as a UV filter then? And simply as a protection filter?
http://www.sonystyle.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ProductDisplay?catalogId=10551&storeId=10151&langId=-1&productId=8198552921665238628#features
PS: I use these (after using a crappy flare/reflection prone Tiffen), and I haven't encountered any image degradation issues with it.
- k
Kiril Karaatanasov
Senior Member
...if you want to use the add-ons.
The fisheye cannot be mounted on filter.
The fisheye canot take filters too (well this was expected anyway, unless spherical UV filters are available)
The fisheye cannot be mounted on filter.
The fisheye canot take filters too (well this was expected anyway, unless spherical UV filters are available)
turnstyle
Senior Member
Now, now...
Let's try this: do you think it makes sense to put on a protective filter if you're going out to shoot a snowstorm?
If we can assume there are circumstances to use a filter -- and different people clearly have different thresholds on that -- does it make sense to get one with UV, or should you shoot for non-UV?
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum