what filter

D

docjahaz

Suspended / Banned
Messages
2
Name
Sultan
Edit My Images
No
HI everyone I am a beginner ... have a nikon d90 with nikkor 18-200 lens ... not sure about the filter to use ... UV? ... hoya have all sorts of range from standard to Pro1 and even SHMC Pro1 ... will really appreciate some help and I am a very keen outdoor landscape photographer (very amateur and beginner of course!!!) .....

Thanks
 
Hi Sultan. Welcome to the forum. Opinions are divided as to whether you really need any sort of filter on your lens and I would suggest that for landscape you probably don't need one 'all the time' so a UV isn't necessarily a must have. However, you may well want to consider a circular polariser or a ND filter or may be a set of ND Grads and holder.
 
Thanks for the quick reply ... I take your point about divided opinions as many people would suggest a UV filter to be must !!!!
thanks very much ...
 
I've never bothered with a UV filter, never really seen any need for it (maybe we don't get enough sunlight up here though:lol:), as Photodiva suggested there are far more useful filters that you can spend the money on.
 
The thing with UV filters is a lot of people use them on there DSLR as an element protector.
As it stands, DSLR sensors cannot see ultraviolet light, so in the digital world they are really redundent.

Personally I don't use them as if something is going to hurl itself at the end of my lens I fail to see how a UV filter will stop it.
If you are worried about damaging your element, do what most other people do and keep the lens hood attached.

Finally, remember that any filter you put infront of your lens is another piece of glass that can have an adverse effect on image quality.
No point in having an expensive lens to kill it with a cheap filter.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I would suggest you get filters in this order:

A UV filter is useful as a protector; a lens hood is meant to act a shade, like the peak on a cap.

A polarising filter will enhance colours and reduce reflections from non metallic surfaces. This can't be reproduced in photoshop

Graduated ND filters are great for darkening skies. It's better to get the image "right in camera" than spend time trying to rework it in photoshop. The best starting point for these is a 2 stop hard grad. You should use square grad filters in a holder rather than screw in ones.

ND filters are useful for reducing the light reaching the sensor, so you can use long esposures, eg to get blurred water
 
Last edited:
A UV filter may give some protection against airborne crud such as mud or spume being blown off waves, but with this sort of thing around, do you want to be out with a camera?

In terms of mechanical protection, the filter is 1mm or less thick. How much protection will that provide? Worse still, if it were to break, instead of the objective lens being hit by probably a blunt object it will be hit by the razor sharp shards of glass from the filter.

ALL UV filters degrade IQ. The amount they do so is roughly inversely proportional to the price of the filter.
 
Oggy said:
ALL UV filters degrade IQ. The amount they do so is roughly inversely proportional to the price of the filter.
Click to expand...

If you get a good filter - and you should - any degradation will be so tiny as to be insignificant. On the other hand, every time you clean the front element of your lens, there is a danger that you will be rubbing tiny bits of grit around the glass, like sandpaper. Again, the amount of degradation is likely to be tiny, but it will be cumulative.

I use a uv on all my lenses in most circumstances, and always do in wet or muddy conditions. None of my clients have ever complained, and I have never lost a sale due to issues with uv filters.

(This war has been running since 1827 and will go on for a bit longer yet :thinking:)
 
Most of my lenses do have a UV filter for protection my 24-105 was dropped recently without the lens hood on and it scuffed the uv ring to buggery. But it would only have scuffed the plastic of the lens the glass would have been fine even without it.
I use Hoya 1Ds which aren't that cheap but I can't see an Iq difference but my eyes are rubbish anyway.
Supposedly replacing the front element on high end glass is relatively inexpensive vs the glass cost. Low end glass it probably wouldn't be worth replacement.
 
mortimerhill said:
Graduated ND filters are great for darkening skies. It's better to get the image "right in camera" than spend time trying to rework it in photoshop. The best starting point for these is a 2 stop hard grad. You should you square grad filters in a holder rather than screw in ones.

ND filters are useful for reducing the light reaching the sensor, so you can use long esposures, eg to get blurred water
Click to expand...

Thanks for the explanation :) how come square filters are better?

What ones would you recommend to go with a 24-105 L on a 40d?
 
jimmy83 said:
Thanks for the explanation :) how come square filters are better?

What ones would you recommend to go with a 24-105 L on a 40d?
Click to expand...

ND grads have a horizon line, so you screw on a holder and then slot in the filter and adjust it so the horizon in the view and the horizon line on the filter match up. You can't do that if you were to screw on a round filter. You don't necessarily need the screw on holder, if you use a tripod you can just hold the filter in place while you take the shot. You need a square filter sufficiently big enough to cover the whole of the lens (a 77mm dia on a 24-105 I think).
 
Can we ban all talk of UV or not UV, p l e a s e..... :bang:

I always fit one, have for 30+ years, never go without one, best money you can spend for protection, (there that will upset someone :naughty:)
 
Last edited:
JSER said:
Can we ban all talk of UV or not UV, p l e a s e..... :bang:

I always fit one, have for 30+ years, never go without one, best money you can spend for protection, (there that will upset someone :naughty:)
Click to expand...

See post #2
 
I got UV filters for all my lenses whenever I bought a new one. I went for a good makes, probably not the best but around the £40 mark. I was always a bit disappointed with the sharpness of my photos with them on so, one shoot I was on with my 7D and my 100-400 L I decided to try without the filters. I was finally very impressed with the sharpness of my photos from the 7D. I came home and took all the filters off my lenses and tried them on the 7D and 5DMkII and it was literally as if the blinkers had been removed. Great IQ, just as it should be. From then on I have only used filters if I've been anywhere really dusty or wet and know I'm going to take a hit on quality. I haven't got any ND filters but I have a couple of CPL filters that I use now and again, but mainly I just put the hoods on and leave it at that.
 
JSER said:
? sorry, why.

Have answered the question from my point of view, I use UV, he asked.
Click to expand...

You just illustrate my statement. Some do, some don't.
 
jon ryan said:
If you get a good filter - and you should - any degradation will be so tiny as to be insignificant. On the other hand, every time you clean the front element of your lens, there is a danger that you will be rubbing tiny bits of grit around the glass, like sandpaper. Again, the amount of degradation is likely to be tiny, but it will be cumulative....
Click to expand...


I have yet to need any significant cleaning of an objective lens. I will be long gone before the occasional removal of specs of dust with my Butterfly is going to wear the coating.


jon ryan said:
I use a uv on all my lenses in most circumstances, and always do in wet or muddy conditions. None of my clients have ever complained, and I have never lost a sale due to issues with uv filters....
Click to expand...


Have you ever offered a client a choice of with and without filter shots?


I agree it is a personal choice, but people should be aware of the facts rather than make a decission based on "Lore" which tends to be perpetuated in places like this.
 
Oggy said:
I will be long gone before the occasional removal of specs of dust with my Butterfly is going to wear the coating.[citation needed]
Click to expand...

FIFY ;)

Have you ever offered a client a choice of with and without filter shots?
Click to expand...

If any of my clients thought that my work was not up to snuff, they wouldn't keep coming back, nor refer me to others. ~ 80% of my work is for existing clients, or from others to whom I have been recommended. I do virtually no advertising.

I agree it is a personal choice, but people should be aware of the facts rather than make a decission based on "Lore" which tends to be perpetuated in places like this.
Click to expand...

Exactly the point I am making! Glad we agree. :thumbs:
 
Hoya HD UV & Polariser. Expensive but well worth it. Tough protection and no loss of IQ that can detect. Nough said:thumbs:
 
I had Hoya UV filters on all my lenses and even though I'd spent nearly £200 on them altogether for 6 filters there was a major difference in IQ when I took them off. I only use UV filters now in bad weather conditions and I have a couple of Hoya CPL filters I use occasionally. Generally I shoot with just the lens hood for protection and no filters as a rule.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top