Should I use UV Filters?

The proof of the pudding is in the eating. Get your self a good quality multicoated filter and do you own tests. Don't believe everything that people say, have your own experience and trust your instincts. Any way a filter can at anytime be screwed on and unscrewed off. When I was taking night shots on a tripod in front of the Merlion in Singapore, the jet of water from the statue was blown everywhere by intermittent winds. I think it was salt water, and a top grade UV filter did its job to protect my lens.
I've heard both ways:
1. Get a UV filter for each lens for the protection. Cheaper to get
a new filter than a new lens, etc.

2. Don't get a filter. The lens has the right coatings already, UV
shouldn't be a problem, and you are more likely to get flair.

I'm new to DLSRs. Would appreciate your advice.
 
Here is a quick comparison I made after losing a good opportunity due to excessive flare...

Note: no PP other than crop and file size reduction...

D50 with 28-105 Nikkor...
With a UV filter:



Without the filter:



Now I do keep the filter on for all the reasons others have stated, BUT I look more closely for flare if the light source is at all near the frame.

****
 
Gene,

While you can stack a CPL on top of a UV, there are a number of problems that can happen. Flare becomes likely as there are 2 parallel flat surfaces for reflections. If you are using a wide angle lens the corners of the UV filter could appear in the photo as dark areas.

Morris

--



http://qcpages.qc.cuny.edu/~morris/POD
 
Hi, Morris...

I agree with your point...

No, there was no hood...

This lens has been very satisfactory for general and macro photography, so I was very surprised and disappointed at the degree of flare...

Now I check the finder and lcd VERY carefully....if at all in doubt, I use a shade (a hat, my hand, etc.)

By the way, keep your great shots coming...much enjoyed.

****
 

Keyboard shortcuts

Back
Top