Lens protection / uv filter or not?

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 is irrelevant in this day and age. Digital cameras do not need UV filters to filter the UV as film cameras did - the sensors have strong UV filtration built into them so UV light cannot degrade a shot from a modern digital camera.
 
pingu666 said:
that using bayer sensors is going to reduce image quality worse than a uv filter...
but nearly everyone is using bayer.
Click to expand...

Possibly because there are advantages to using a Bayer sensor, whereas there are no benefits to using a UV filter.
 
Having spent a small fortune on a lens (well it is to me) I want to get the full benefit, I have to weigh this up against the likely hood of damage in any given circumstance. Therefore I will only ever use a clear or UV filter when I am on a beach or on a boat (on the sea). I think this is wise purely to protect the front element from sand/wind which can be destructive.

Generally though I rely on the lens hood for protection, and my obsessive desire to look after my kit.

I agree UV filters will degrade IQ but this degradation is not always visible on moderate size prints or computer screens.
 
BBR said:
Having spent a small fortune on a lens (well it is to me) I want to get the full benefit, I have to weigh this up against the likely hood of damage in any given circumstance. Therefore I will only ever use a clear or UV filter when I am on a beach or on a boat (on the sea). I think this is wise purely to protect the front element from sand/wind which can be destructive.

Generally though I rely on the lens hood for protection, and my obsessive desire to look after my kit.

I agree UV filters will degrade IQ but this degradation is not always visible on moderate size prints or computer screens.
Click to expand...

Very good summary :thumbs:

It's true that most of the time, most people will not notice significant image quality degradation from using a UV or protection filter (loss of sharpness is rarely an issues, except sometimes with longer lenses) but some of the problems like flare and ghosting can be very apparent even at small output sizes/prints.
 
I use one on all of my lenses. If there is any image degradation then I cant see it and as far as I'm concerned it's another layer of protection for my lens and also helps to keep dust out.
 
are Canon's L glass weatherproof specs based on a UV filter being used?

anyhoo I use them pretty much all of the time when I am out, cannot say I am aware of any degradation and I am a lot happier in a shower of rain if I have a UV on aswell as a camera rain cover attached to the hood.
 
strumstrum said:
are Canon's L glass weatherproof specs based on a UV filter being used?

anyhoo I use them pretty much all of the time when I am out, cannot say I am aware of any degradation and I am a lot happier in a shower of rain if I have a UV on aswell as a camera rain cover attached to the hood.
Click to expand...
Most L lenses are weather proofed without the need for filters.
 
odd jim said:
Most L lenses are weather proofed without the need for filters.
Click to expand...

No Canon lenses are weatherproof. At best they may be 'dust-proof' and 'drip-proof'. With some lenses "you need to attach a Canon PROTECT filter sold separately for adequate dust-and-water-resistant performance. Without a filter the lens is not dust or water resistant". You can tell if your lens is one that needs a Canon filter as the manual will say so.
 
I wouldn't bother, if your serious about landscapes then use as few fixed filters as possible..and stick with the grad / polarized you need the essentials so to speak, unless you do all that digitally like some do. Photography to me is about getting out and travelling ..capturing something different .. But also something real someone else can visit and see it for how it is , balancing the sky with the foreground ..is something our eyes automatically do ,unfortunately we have to kid our cameras to see what we do ..two max is ok ...
 
applemint said:
Good summary here: http://www.gdanmitchell.com/2007/12/27/uv-filter-or-not

Plus some links from the comments section of the article above:

http://www.kenandchristine.com/gallery/1054387
http://www.vanwalree.com/optics/filterflare.html
http://www.vanwalree.com/optics/flare.html#filter)
Click to expand...

Very good examples on those links :thumbs:

The only filter problem not shown there is actually the one that is the subject of this thread - loss of sharpness and bokeh issues with very long lenses. Some examples of that here, moon shots, scroll down a bit http://www.clarkvision.com/articles/evaluating_filter_quality/index.html

I should also add that I stand corrected on the cause of why it is that longer lenses can suffer loss of sharpness with filters, compared to wide-angles. As I said correctly, it's the magnification of the extra focal length that amplifies any slight imperfections, but that's not because longer focal lengths only 'look' through a small section in the centre of the filter, compared to wide-angles. In fact, it's the reverse! Apologies to the technically minded :)
 
HoppyUK said:
The only filter problem not shown there is actually the one that is the subject of this thread - loss of sharpness and bokeh issues with very long lenses.
Click to expand...

100-400. 100% crops.

Filterless, Hoya HD, NoName cheapo

Filter%20Comparison%20100-400.jpg
 
I'd say that was fairly conclusive Frank.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top