UV filters

cowasaki

cowasaki

TPer Emeritus
Suspended / Banned
Messages
19,708
Name
Darren
Edit My Images
Yes
Hello everyone,

I'm just wondering what everyone's thoughts are on using UV filters attached to lens permenantly.

I had been told that fitting UV filters didn't affect the pictures being taken and so I placed orders for four of them for my wife and my new lenses. The main reason I bought them was as protection for the lenses.

Do they actually affect the quality of the picture taken? I was thinking this due to the extra glass in the path!
 
I think received wisdom has it that you don't need them for protection these days
and the extra 2 surfaces may increase internal reflections
having said that, it's probably cheaper to replace the filter than a lens if something approaches the glass at high speed!
(but getting one for your wife is a bit OTT imho!)
 
i only use them by the sea..dusty places..beaches etc, for protection.. otherwise no filter,lens hood is enough for me to protect front element
 
There are two views when it comes to filters:

- Some people say that filters noticeably alter/degrade the images taken with said camera/lens (which is definatly true if you buy a cheap filter, so DON'T buy a cheap one, those 5 quid imports from Hong Kong are such a waste of time, what's the point of spending hundreds/thousands on a lens to go ahead and ruin it with a crap filter).

- Others belive that filters are very important at reducing glare and other annoying effects that can be caused without.

Personally I think it's a good idea to use one, even if it's just for protection. You can always use a lens hood like STARRIDER said, they give a good amount of protection and glare reduction.

I use a lens hood. It's cheaper and provides all the protection I need.
 
I'm with Starrider on this one. I have filters for most of my glass and now only use them when there's a risk of getting messy but previously used them most of the time

Most of Canon's later L glass has a "sacrificial" final element to make replacement quite cheap...it is designed to be quick and simple to replace.

I'm sure that certain shots would benefit from a UV....sea and sky dominated images.....aircraft shooters for instance but I find that my macro stuff is more successful without one.

Bob
 
Bounced my Canon 100-400 lens a few month ago. Thought it was a goner, but no it was saved by the UV filter. That was cracked but it still unscrewed. Lens checked out fine. Immediately replaced filter with another Hoya Pro . OK it's not a cheap filter but a lot better than having to send the lens away fro repair. And yes I was very lucky. This is the second time a filter has saved an expensive lens for me. all be it many years apart
 
:agree: I've had recourse to thank my lucky stars after bouncing my 17-55f2.8 down the concrete. Filter got bent to hades, but the lens works perfectly, not even scratched.

... filters live on all my lenses for that reason
 
ditto
saying that i had a jessops filter on the front of one of my lenses and then image quality was dreadful, it also appeared to screw up the lenses autofocus and make it more hit and miss, and when its a cheapo lens its couldnt really get much more hit and miss. i junked it and have yet to buy a new one so i tend to stick to hoya filters
 
Photographing Speedway,i have filters permanantly on my lenses.
I had a lesson learn't when first using my new (at the time) 70-200, took shots of the riders as they passed by and next time around my camera stopped focusing, on close inspection there was a crack across the centre of the filter where the flying shale had hit it.
Could have been very expensive had i not had the filter on!
 
AGREE WITH ALL ABOVE!!:bonk: I think!!

Always have them on!!

Have a look for the Hoya pro series if you can! They are pricey but worth it.

A cr**py UV filter will still protect/save your lens but might introduce softness to your images to such a degree that you might think you have a bum or damaged lens!
 
Anton Roland said:
Have a look for the Hoya pro series if you can! They are pricey but worth it.
Click to expand...

Or look for Kenko Pro1D. They're exactly the same filter, but the Kenko tend to be cheaper......Kenko is the domestic name whilst Hoya is the export variant.
 
scoop said:
Or look for Kenko Pro1D. They're exactly the same filter, but the Kenko tend to be cheaper......Kenko is the domestic name whilst Hoya is the export variant.
Click to expand...

I find that VERY interesting. I just bought 2x52mm, 1x62mm, 1x72mm UV filters + 1x72mm CPL + 2 sets of macro tubes including delivery for £32 !! They are all Kenko!!

I was going to slowly replace them with pro filters later dependant on results/comments.

They did mess up the order and I have ended up with an extra 72mm CPL Kenko filter - In fact if someone wants it and has any other 72mm filter for a swap that would be great!! (thats not CPL or UV)
 
Sounds like you have procured yourself a bargain there; I assume the Kenko filters are not the Pro1D ones for that price? Like Hoya, they come in different grades. For comparison, I paid £35 just for a 72mm Kenko Pro1D CPL......

If they are indeed Pro1Ds, I'd very much like the name of your supplier as I need a couple more filters......:D
 
scoop said:
Sounds like you have procured yourself a bargain there; I assume the Kenko filters are not the Pro1D ones for that price? Like Hoya, they come in different grades. For comparison, I paid £35 just for a 72mm Kenko Pro1D CPL......

If they are indeed Pro1Ds, I'd very much like the name of your supplier as I need a couple more filters......:D
Click to expand...

look for the seller 'camerapartner' on ebay. They are sold in 'SAKAR' boxes but the filters show KENKO on them. I emailed him for a price with combined shipping etc etc for the full list and thats what I got.

They seem alright to me based on my very limited experience. If anyone wants me to take a couple of comparison shots with and without the filters I will do but I am making tea at the moment and then going to work so it'll be tomorrow!
 
I used to keep uv filters on all my lenses but my 300 f4L doesnt seem to like UV filters no matter how expensive a one I put on.

On all my other lenses there is no significant drop but on the 300 it is very noticable.
 
mole2k said:
I used to keep uv filters on all my lenses but my 300 f4L doesnt seem to like UV filters no matter how expensive a one I put on.

On all my other lenses there is no significant drop but on the 300 it is very noticable.
Click to expand...

Would you be so kind to post examples?
 
I always keep a UV filter on my lenses.

Always had Hoya Pro ones but recently changed over to B+W .
 
Here is two shots taken with the lens one with and one without, I havnt done any technical comparisions in exactly the same locations but myself i can clearly see the shots are sharper at 100 especially when using the 2x teleconverter. I was going to send the lens back for recalibration but then when i tried some shots without the filter it was like an entirely different lens. If i use a CPL the effect is a lot worse.


Here is a shot with the 300 + UV filter
_MG_6158.jpg


Without UV
_MG_6639.jpg
 
Thanks, it would be more helpful if someone took two pictures with the camera on a tripod with and without the filter of the same subject but the squirrel pictures are great! The one without the filter is clearly better. Maybe I will try later myself and post the results unless someone else does.

mole2K, what lens is that that you are using. I am currently selling off a resonator guitar, marshall valve amp, mic and four track on ebay to buy a decent lens in the 300-500 range. The 2nd shot is very good.
 
Its one of the older generation 300mm f4L (without IS an with a 2.5m min focus).

I will say i have never noticed this effect on any of my other lenses. I use a UV filter on my 70-200 and have never noticed any drop in quality between using one and not using one.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top