Lens protection / uv filter or not?

jerry12953

jerry12953

Suspended / Banned
Messages
12,421
Name
Jeremy Moore
Edit My Images
No
Having just bought a Bigron (Tamron 150-600 zoom) I'm wondering whether to splash out on a 95mm filter for it or not. Looking on the internet the prevailing opinion seems to be that any imperfections introduced by the filter will be more significant at long focal lengths, but I can't understand why this should be the case - depth of field and all that.

Any thoughts?
 
jerry12953 said:
Any thoughts?
Click to expand...

Yes, I think anyone asking questions about whether to stick a UV filter on a lens given the number of posts on the topic and the trouble it causes should be shot:p

In answer to your question-the larger the physical aperture on the lens, and the longer its focal length, the greater demand there is on filter quality. Optical imperfections of the filter are therefore magnified more at longer focal lengths.
 
JESUS!
 
Dr_O said:
Yes, I think anyone asking questions about whether to stick a UV filter on a lens given the number of posts on the topic and the trouble it causes should be shot:p

In answer to your question-the larger the physical aperture on the lens, and the longer its focal length, the greater demand there is on filter quality. Optical imperfections of the filter are therefore magnified more at longer focal lengths.
Click to expand...

odd that, would of thought that the larger area would mean any imperfection in glass would be averaged out to less than with a smaller filter.

I think b w filters are less troublesome than hoya, I don't know about sigma ones..
 
With such a narrow angle of view, longer lenses only 'look' through a small section in the middle of the filter, so small imperfections are greatly magnified, pretty much in line with focal length. Problems show as a loss of sharpness, and unusual patterns in the background bokeh, whereas the same filter on a shorter lens may well show none of those issues.

I wouldn't put any kind of filter anywhere near the front of a 600mm lens. The Tamron 150-600's supplied hood is deep and offers excellent protection.
 
pingu666 said:
odd that, would of thought that the larger area would mean any imperfection in glass would be averaged out to less than with a smaller filter.

I think b w filters are less troublesome than hoya, I don't know about sigma ones..
Click to expand...

Filter shape also needs to be taken into account- i.e. how uniform and flat it is.- the filter must be flat to within about 1/2 a wavelength of light over the diameter of the light rays passing through the filter.
A 20mm f2.8 lens has a maximum physical aperture of 20/2.8= 7.14mm so the lens only sees a small proportion of the filter

A 600mm f4 lens has a maximum physical aperture of 600/4= 150mm so the lens sees a much larger proportion of the filter and the 600mm lens has more magnification of the light rays than the 20mm lens so any defects in filter quality- non uniform shape etc will show up more in the final image.

Someone like Richard can probably put a much more eloquent and technical spin on it than I can.
 
Ah ha- too busy multi-tasking while typing and speak of the devil:D
 
Not really, ruin all your images just in case you drop your lens into a muddy puddle?

I'll take my chances on that one.
 
redsnappa said:
This is why you should use a filter to protect the front element of you lens: http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/threads/cleaning-mud-off-a-lens-front-element.533884/#post-6157492
Click to expand...

True, a filter would have prevented that - but so would a lens cap and a hood would have stopped the worst of it. It tipped over into the mud just after I had removed the square ND filter holder (therefore no hood on) and was reaching into my pocket for the lens cap - bad timing! But even if I did use uv/clear filters (generally I don't except if it's windy and I am at the beach for example) I would have removed it as I was taking sunset/ twilight shots with city lights and filters tend to cause flare etc in those situations. Plus I would not use a uv/clear filter and an ND grad at the same time.
 
Just to demonstrate another situation where a filter might have been handy, but fortunately I don't think the damage was serious.....

Down at the beach with my pristine new lens this afternoon. A dog jumped up and slobbered on the front element because it wasn't tall enough to reach my b******s. Ho hum.

Has the anti-filter vote taken into account depth of field of the lens? It must be miniscule, even at small apertures.......
 
I have clunked a lens down onto a narly fence post before, glass first :eek:, the post penitraited the hood, which was admitly quite a open one.

I think kids and pets are another decent reason.
mind a 95mm b w mrc for 95mm thread is damn expensive
 
  • No UV/'protective' filter can improve image quality on a dSLR.
  • All UV/'protective' filters will cause some degradation in image quality.
  • The seriousness of this degradation tends to decrease as filter cost increases.
  • Good filters will cause degradation that is not noticeable under most conditions.
  • All filters, even the best, will cause noticeable degradation in some conditions.
  • Image degradation is worse with longer focal lengths - Link.
 
I've started using UV filters purely to protect the lens from splashes, etc, as most of my photography is gig related. I've got one on my 85L and just got one with my new 70-200. So far, on the 85L I've seen absolutely zero difference in quality when using the B+W 72mm MRC Clear UV Haze (010) filter.
 
Same here. I didn't bother when I just had cheaper lenses but now I've got more to ruin I thought I'd try them. As it makes no difference to IQ, it makes more sense to have them than not.
 
Bluesmachine said:
I've started using UV filters purely to protect the lens from splashes, etc, as most of my photography is gig related. I've got one on my 85L and just got one with my new 70-200. So far, on the 85L I've seen absolutely zero difference in quality when using the B+W 72mm MRC Clear UV Haze (010) filter.
Click to expand...

In some situations, fitting a protection filter just makes sense, but gigs could be a classic situation for getting ghost images, if you have a bright light against a dark background.

Easy to check. Put the camera in live view, and frame up something like an outdoor security light, to simulate a stage light, and position it around the centre of the frame. You'll see a reflection of the light in the opposite side of the image, and it will move around as you change the angle of the camera. It's the light bouncing off the shiny sensor, and back again off the rear of the filter.

This ghost is not visible through the viewfinder, but if you're aware of a potential problem it's usually quite easy to reframe the shot so the reflection bounces out of the frame fairly harmlessly, though some flare will likely remain around the light source itself.
 
hollis_f said:
And presumably your filter shattered into a zillion shards of pointy shrapnel.
Click to expand...

it left a mark on the uv filter that rubbed off... but if it had a nail in it or something, it could have done quite nasty damage.

and the b w mrc ones are noticably less reflective than other makes ive had, the cheap ones do have much more reflectivity to them
 
Does no one care about their photos anymore? Why do we obsess about kit but not the end result?!

Why ruin every photo on the off chance?

I've got thousands of pounds of expensive kit, all undamaged over many years. I use lens hoods. Never had a scratched lens.
 
Last edited:
If the lens manufacturer had thought an uv filter was a good idea, don't you think they'd have built one in?
 
Personal preference I like to use a filter of on type or another and others, as so often mentioned when the subject come up quite often, would rather rely on lens hoods etc . Its a bit like the Canon versus Nikon arguement something never agreed on.
The way I look at it is which would I rather get a stone chip in? an expensive lens or a relatively easily replaced filter? I rest my case
 
Last edited:
realspeed said:
...Its a bit like the Canon versus Nikon argument, something never agreed on...
Click to expand...

WHAT!!?? I thought everyone agreed that Nikon was best? Wow- u learn something new every day- there's a lot of crazy people out there:p:exit:
 
Dr_O said:
WHAT!!?? I thought everyone agreed that Nikon was best? Wow- u learn something new every day- there's a lot of crazy people out there:p:exit:
Click to expand...

of course Nikon is best but don't tell Canon users as they can easily get upset ;)
 
realspeed said:
Personal preference I like to use a filter of on type or another and others, as so often mentioned when the subject come up quite often, would rather rely on lens hoods etc . Its a bit like the Canon versus Nikon arguement something never agreed on.
The way I look at it is which would I rather get a stone chip in? an expensive lens or a relatively easily replaced filter? I rest my case
Click to expand...
But wouldn't you want a nicer end photo? After all, that's why we take pictures.

We could take this to the nth degree and never take our cameras out in case out preciousness gets damaged.
 
personal preference- I personally DO NOT use UV filters, I use a lens hood which has served me well for years and I have never damaged the front element on ANY lens I own

Les ;)

I have just ordered the Big Tamron to replace my Big Sigma :banana:
 
With reference to the link posted by f_hollis, I don't pretend to understand all the science but I do get the conclusion - that poor filters affect image quality, especially at long focal lengths.

Depending on the quality control standards of the manufacturer, one might therefore need to go through a whole batch of filters of the same type before finding a good one?
 
So everyone thinks the UV filter is just to protect the lens ?

Pollution, heat, dust contribute to make 'haze' which reduces clarity and visibility and create a blue cast, normally more prominent in longer focal length lenses. Multi coatings don't eliminate this completely hence the need for a UV filter which is particularly beneficial for landscape photography for reducing atmospheric haze and improving the image quality. UV (and skylights) do not degrade the light because they are clear.

Try taking a picture in the snow without one. Snow reflects UV light and creates a blue cast. Go anywhere really blistering hot and you'll see the benefits. However, they won't be of any use whatsoever on a damp or foggy day other than to protect your lens !
 
Blank_Canvas said:
So everyone thinks the UV filter is just to protect the lens ?

Pollution, heat, dust contribute to make 'haze' which reduces clarity and visibility and create a blue cast, normally more prominent in longer focal length lenses. Multi coatings don't eliminate this completely hence the need for a UV filter which is particularly beneficial for landscape photography for reducing atmospheric haze and improving the image quality. UV (and skylights) do not degrade the light because they are clear.

Try taking a picture in the snow without one. Snow reflects UV light and creates a blue cast. Go anywhere really blistering hot and you'll see the benefits. However, they won't be of any use whatsoever on a damp or foggy day other than to protect your lens !
Click to expand...

No, I think (almost) everyone knows this! In my experience anyway UV filters have always been pretty ineffective at removing haze and it is said that this is even more so with digital photography. I suspect the only reason anyone would consider using a UV filter these days would be to protect the lens. Lens protection filters - which genuinely are clear glass - seem to have been introduced in recent years to do just this instead.
 
Last edited:
Blank_Canvas said:
So everyone thinks the UV filter is just to protect the lens ?

Pollution, heat, dust contribute to make 'haze' which reduces clarity and visibility and create a blue cast, normally more prominent in longer focal length lenses. Multi coatings don't eliminate this completely hence the need for a UV filter which is particularly beneficial for landscape photography for reducing atmospheric haze and improving the image quality. UV (and skylights) do not degrade the light because they are clear.

Try taking a picture in the snow without one. Snow reflects UV light and creates a blue cast. Go anywhere really blistering hot and you'll see the benefits. However, they won't be of any use whatsoever on a damp or foggy day other than to protect your lens !
Click to expand...
This all used to be true, and it still is. But only if you shoot film.

All dSLRs have a UV filter built-in. It's in front of the sensor and is the reason why the first of my bullet points is correct...
  • No UV/'protective' filter can improve image quality on a dSLR.
 
I vote for no filter unless you want one - by which I mean a filter that actually does something, like a GND or a CPL or a coloured filter.

A "UV" filter just puts another bit of (relatively low-quality) glass and its associated ability cause unwanted flare on the front of your lens, and means you've got to take it off to use a proper filter (unless you want even more flare; there's probably a Flickr group dedicated to lens flare, to be found next to the "eye-burning-cerebral-cortex-scorching HDR" group).

Lens hood. And not in its stowed position, either. (I see that so much and I just want to grab their cameras and turn those hoods around. I don't, because beatings would probably ensue)

Worked example: Once, I didn’t do up my camera bag properly, and my (at the time) 550D and attached 10-22mm lens hit the deck - AKA the road next to the car. The lens hood was destroyed, but the lens and camera were saved. A UV filter wouldn’t have helped!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top